Voters in North Carolina just approved a constitutional amendment in their state to legally ban marriage between same-sex couples. With all of the talk on social networks about the passing, it became apparent that many people (me included) didn’t realize where their own states ruled on same-sex marriage.
Until 1996, the United States federal government had no official stance on marriage. At that time, President Clinton (who has since stated he wishes it repealed) signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which specified that “no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state.” According to state’s rights, each state in the union is responsible for legislating their own laws on how marriage is defined.
Since 1996 (save for two instances), most states and territories have passed laws that define the genders who may get married or enter into a civil union and the limitations on those laws and benefits. Each state has its own laws and regulations regarding same-sex marriage or the prohibition of gay marriage. As outlined in DOMA, those laws and limitations don’t have to be recognized by other states.
The question I ask: Do you know where your state stands on marriage? Did you vote for or against the law proposed in your state?
To find out the laws in your state, visit this Wikipedia page on Same-Sex Marriage.
Angie Lynch is the founder and managing editor of the powerhouse women’s literary community, Smut Book Club. She is a Native Floridian without a tan, probably because she spends her days hard at work on the magical internet. For the past several years, Angie has worked way too hard at building clout as an influencer in food and margaritas as well as being a source for laughable pop culture commentary. You can read more from Angie on her blog, A Whole Lot of Nothing.
image credit Wikipedia
It should be noted that here is NC, gay marriage was ALREADY illegal. The people who voted for the amendment just voted to have it put in the constitution so it would be harder for “activist judges” to challenge the law.
That being said, how did I vote? I voted along the side that did NOT have a party with wedding cake to celebrate the amendment passing.
Sorry, that should have been “here IN NC.”
I can’t put together a sentence right now I am so angry. Sick to my stomach over it.
North Carolina voters actually got the chance to vote. People need to deal with it and get on with their lives, especially when we have more important issues in this country like: thousands of children that go hungry, human trafficking, our foreign policies and relations and the elections in which we decide who best to represent us. Just to touch the tip of the ice berg. All those are, in my opinion, infinitely more important than hearing about gay marriage again and again.
You wouldn’t be saying that if you were a queer woman, ella.
Time to move to North Carolina!
At least they got to vote in North Carolina unlike here in Washington
It’s sad that we live in a time that so many people are upset because people actually voted and their government listened. It’s a concept isn’t it?
what’s more sad is that the general population, in north carolina, is so against human rights.
I live in Iowa, and we were the second (I think) state to legalize gay marriage. I have to admit that I have a little bit of pride that our state has been so (oddly) progressive. It didn’t come down to a vote here, it came down to a ruling by the IA Supreme Court. Those judges who made the decision and were up for reelection lost their positions. I don’t know how things would have turned out if it had been up for election by the general public here. There are a lot of conservative folks in Iowa. But there is also that strong Midwestern ethos of “If you’re not hurting anyone, then I’m going to mind my own business and let you live your life”.
And in response to one of the comments above, the reason that people are upset about the vote in NC is not that the people voted and the government followed their edicts. People are upset because this is a civil rights/human rights issue. Is does not cause the same sort of physical abuse that human trafficking does. But civil rights are just as important. If we don’t uphold civil rights, then we are saying that certain groups of people aren’t worthy of protection, which dehumanizes them. When groups of people are dehumanized, they may be considered as property (human chattel, if you will) that may be traded with impunity, as with human trafficking. So these subjects are indeed related. (Also, bear in mind that the media focuses on some topics to the exclusion of most others.)
As a North Carolinian, I have been in mourning since about 8pm on the 8th. Gay marriage was already illegal in NC. Now, we’ve written bigotry into our constitution. Now, civil unions, which a majority of the people in the state do support, are also illegal. Now, children can lose their health insurance because they aren’t biologically related to the mother that raised them. Now, adoption by loving gay couples is near impossible. Now, domestic violence protections have been weakened. Now, gay teens get to be told again by their government that they are less than heterosexuals. Gay marriage doesn’t threaten my marriage, but allowing bigotry and hatred to spread and become law harms all of us.
I love you!
Thanks, I love you too. This article just caught me at a moment when my rage and my reason had to be voiced.
I understand that there are A LOT of important issues for people to be concerned with, but what makes the gay marriage issue is that we have a real, tangible opportunity to improve people’s lives. With issues like human trafficking, child hunger, etc. we have absolutely no control. We cannot control the evil of other people, we cannot control food prices or people’s incomes. But we CAN control whether a gay couple can receive each other’s health benefits, whether they can adopt children, or enjoy all the other rights of being an American citizen. This is something we can change, here and now, not by raising “awareness” but by voting and communicating.
As far as objecting to the fact that a civil rights issue was put to the popular vote, I would remind people that the popular opinion in the south in the 19th century also denied basic human rights to another group of people. Does that make it ethically correct?
As for my own person opinion, the government needs to allow two people to have legal protections, whether via a marriage or a civil partnership. Period. No “sanctity of marriage” no “redefining an institution”. The government has no right to tell me who I can and cannot have a relationship with; that’s fascism. But unfortunately, we are the type of society that needs to have basic human niceties written into law.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }