Gay Marriage Legal in North Carolina!

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, the benefits & rights are for things like hospital visits, tax filing and inheritance.

It just simplifies the process so that instead of signing a crapload of forms, the couple just gets a single form - the marriage certificate.

...which gives married people extra rights over single people. Which is dumb. The state is granting privileges to those who get married, so they have more kids, which could have been started so that conservative leaders could "strengthen the country" and other bullshit nationalist things like that.

These rights also apply to liberal couples, and same-sex couples who get married. It provides a certain ease when it comes to family finances, medical care, end-of-life decisions, and inheritance, and promotes healthy and stable families, which I believe is in everyone's best interest, regardless of religion, politics, or sexual orientation.

[The New Sea Territory]

Dixiecrats. They were a blight on the party for years. Interestingly enough, their spiritual descendants are now causing havoc in the GOP, and screwing up what should be a cakewalk in the midterms.

No no, now. The Democrats can't just say that it was a certain sect who were racist buffoons, it was the party as a whole at one point who was all down for that slavery stuff. Republicans were in the north and Democrats were in the south.

Yeah, but we were referring to post-Civil War, liberalizing Democratic Party. During the late 1800s, anarchist and socialist movements pushed radical social liberalism, which broke into the Democrat mainstream between the 1920s and 1950s. Eventually, the Dixiecrats got more or less kicked out of the Democratic Party, and between the late 60s and late 80s, found their base in the Republican Party, when the Republicans became the Christian Pro-War Traditionalist Party, in response to the Hippie Movement of the 60s.

[Anglo-California]

A Southern State gone Demi? I'm actually quite shocked.

The South was Democratic for most of American history.

I'm guessing you're either a youngling or not American.

[Atlanticatia]

Dixiecrats. They were a blight on the party for years. Interestingly enough, their spiritual descendants are now causing havoc in the GOP, and screwing up what should be a cakewalk in the midterms.

No no, now. The Democrats can't just say that it was a certain sect who were racist buffoons, it was the party as a whole at one point who was all down for that slavery stuff. Republicans were in the north and Democrats were in the south.

My understanding is that at one point the Republicans were socially liberal but economically conservative, while the Democratic party was more socially conservative but economically liberal (in an american sense).
William Jennings Bryan, for example, was a democrat who was pretty 'far-left' and pro-civil rights, pro-labor, anti-war, etc but was also for prohibition and against teaching evolution. And then there were also the ultra conservative Dixiecrats.
then there was the ultra progressive (Republican) Teddy Roosevelt in the 20th century who was followed by the ultra conservative (Republican) Taft a few years later. And then FDR was pretty far-left who was a Democrat a 20 years later.

Lincoln was a socially liberal Republican while, at that time, there were also quite a few social conservatives/racists in the GOP, while there were also quite a few social conservatives....and social liberals... in the Democratic Party.

Both the GOP and Democrats have had socially liberal, socially conservative and left/right economic wings throughout the pre-1960s (or 1980s for that matter in the GOP) era, and each party never really had a solidified position. It was sort of like a big mix of factions and things would change every few years into something completely different.

However things pretty much solidified when the Democrats adopted the socially liberal center-left stance in the 1930s and the Republicans slowly shed the social liberal wing, the center-left wing, and the Rockefeller wing until the culmination in the 70s/80s with the Religious Right.

maybe I learned something in AP US History, eh?

[Othelos]

No, the benefits & rights are for things like hospital visits, tax filing and inheritance.

It just simplifies the process so that instead of signing a crapload of forms, the couple just gets a single form - the marriage certificate.

...which gives married people extra rights over single people. Which is dumb. The state is granting privileges to those who get married, so they have more kids, which could have been started so that conservative leaders could "strengthen the country" and other bullshit nationalist things like that.

how would a single person share hospital visitation rights with him or herself?

[The New Sea Territory]

...which gives married people extra rights over single people. Which is dumb. The state is granting privileges to those who get married, so they have more kids, which could have been started so that conservative leaders could "strengthen the country" and other bullshit nationalist things like that.

These rights also apply to liberal couples, and same-sex couples who get married. It provides a certain ease when it comes to family finances, medical care, end-of-life decisions, and inheritance, and promotes healthy and stable families, which I believe is in everyone's best interest, regardless of religion, politics, or sexual orientation.

But it is still making single people pay for the benefits of married people. It still is trying to incentivize marriage over other relationships, the relations between two or more individuals really isn't any of the state's business anyway. For all these points, it would get into the arguments of "should the government be doing this" or "can this be done without the government", as I would support stateless solutions to these problems, but that's a different conversation. The idea of "healthy and stable families" sounds like you went social conservative for a sentence. Lastly, I would agree that these issues should be addressed, but as I said above, this really gets into a statist vs anarchist discussion.

I will say that, if we are going to have state-sanctioned marriage, it should obviously be very liberal and open. Polygamy should also be allowed.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

maybe I learned something in AP US History, eh?

I'm taking that class right now, it is quite bogus.

[Atlanticatia]

maybe I learned something in AP US History, eh?

I'm taking that class right now, it is quite bogus.

i got a 4 on the exam

but it was a really annoying class

[Yumyumsuppertime]

These rights also apply to liberal couples, and same-sex couples who get married. It provides a certain ease when it comes to family finances, medical care, end-of-life decisions, and inheritance, and promotes healthy and stable families, which I believe is in everyone's best interest, regardless of religion, politics, or sexual orientation.

But it is still making single people pay for the benefits of married people. It still is trying to incentivize marriage over other relationships, the relations between two or more individuals really isn't any of the state's business anyway. For all these points, it would get into the arguments of "should the government be doing this" or "can this be done without the government", as I would support stateless solutions to these problems, but that's a different conversation. The idea of "healthy and stable families" sounds like you went social conservative for a sentence. Lastly, I would agree that these issues should be addressed, but as I said above, this really gets into a statist vs anarchist discussion.

I will say that, if we are going to have state-sanctioned marriage, it should obviously be very liberal and open. Polygamy should also be allowed.

I'm neutral on polygamy and polyandry, but have no moral argument against them.

[Rouge Dawn]

Please say that Georgia is next please say Georgia.

[Othelos]

maybe I learned something in AP US History, eh?

I'm taking that class right now, it is quite bogus.

how so?

[Divitaen]

It's only a matter of time before marriage equality reaches all of America. The Supreme Court's refusal to take the cases means that the right to marry someone of the same-sex is now considered a fundamental liberty, and all that needs to happen for LGBT citizens to gain these rights in the remaining states is to file suit.

[The New Sea Territory]

...which gives married people extra rights over single people. Which is dumb. The state is granting privileges to those who get married, so they have more kids, which could have been started so that conservative leaders could "strengthen the country" and other bullshit nationalist things like that.

how would a single person share hospital visitation rights with him or herself?

That specific topic is obviously purely between two (or more) people, so it doesn't really apply here. My argument is that the government should not be giving privileges or benefits to those in a relationship, because personal relationships shouldn't require some official sanctions from a third party that has no business in the relationship. Legal Marriage is, at best, giving extra rights to those who are married, showing the nationalist nature of the state by incentivizing reproduction, or, at worst, enforcing traditional marriage, in which one man-one women relationships are considered the only legitimate relationship.

Of course the former is preferable to the latter, but I think that a situation where interpersonal relationships are completely voluntary and stateless would be preferable.

[Olerand]

But it is still making single people pay for the benefits of married people. It still is trying to incentivize marriage over other relationships, the relations between two or more individuals really isn't any of the state's business anyway. For all these points, it would get into the arguments of "should the government be doing this" or "can this be done without the government", as I would support stateless solutions to these problems, but that's a different conversation. The idea of "healthy and stable families" sounds like you went social conservative for a sentence. Lastly, I would agree that these issues should be addressed, but as I said above, this really gets into a statist vs anarchist discussion.

I will say that, if we are going to have state-sanctioned marriage, it should obviously be very liberal and open. Polygamy should also be allowed.

I'm neutral on polygamy and polyandry, but have no moral argument against them.

Same.

But I have a bureaucratic argument against them though.

And since I am studying to be that most byzantine of all mandarins, the French Bureaucrat, I will be damned if your polyamorous marriage makes me have to do actual work, research, and paperwork, rather than me requesting proof of your great-grandparents' citizenship status.

I'll be damned before I let that happen! Non!

[The New Sea Territory]

I'm neutral on polygamy and polyandry, but have no moral argument against them.

I see them as equally as valid as any other relationship, and should not be discriminated against. Banning them would be equivalent to banning interracial, incestuous or homosexual relationships. But moral arguments are so emotional and usually alogical.

Of course, I'm a social anarchist radical. Perhaps my views will be adopted by the liberal mainstream in thirty years.

[The New Sea Territory]

I'm taking that class right now, it is quite bogus.

i got a 4 on the exam

but it was a really annoying class

I'm gonna brag! I got a five in AP World

I loved the class actually, and I don't really see it as "bogus" unless you're a fundamentalist, nationalist bigot. Unless you mean "bogus" as in difficult.

[Soheran]

My understanding is that at one point the Republicans were socially liberal but economically conservative, while the Democratic party was more socially conservative but economically liberal (in an american sense).

The Republican Party throughout its history, more or less uninterrupted, has had a substantial religious moralism to it ideologically. It was a major driver of Prohibition. And its main founding political cause, opposition to slavery, was itself in part part grounded in abolitionist religiously-motivated reform movements. The Democratic Party in the North got a lot of its support from city dwellers who resented Republican Protestant moralism. (Many Irish Catholic immigrants, for example, tended to not be thrilled by people who wanted to ban alcohol.) So it is not as big a shift as you are suggesting.

The other thing to remember is that both parties have historically been more ideologically diverse than they are today, as you nicely point out in the rest of your post.

[Othelos]

how would a single person share hospital visitation rights with him or herself?

That specific topic is obviously purely between two (or more) people, so it doesn't really apply here. My argument is that the government should not be giving privileges or benefits to those in a relationship, because personal relationships shouldn't require some official sanctions from a third party that has no business in the relationship. Legal Marriage is, at best, giving extra rights to those who are married, showing the nationalist nature of the state by incentivizing reproduction, or, at worst, enforcing traditional marriage, in which one man-one women relationships are considered the only legitimate relationship.

Of course the former is preferable to the latter, but I think that a situation where interpersonal relationships are completely voluntary and stateless would be preferable.

well, I suppose that if there were specific documents available to share rights among non-married people, it would be more fair.

[Republic of Coldwater]

I hoped that the state would've completely left the institution of marriage instead of redefining it, but it is their Constitutional right to define marriage, so I won't advocate using federal power to change it.

[Atlanticatia]

i got a 4 on the exam

but it was a really annoying class

I'm gonna brag! I got a five in AP World

I loved the class actually, and I don't really see it as "bogus" unless you're a fundamentalist, nationalist bigot. Unless you mean "bogus" as in difficult.

i thought ap us was actually a decent and interesting class/curriculum but soooo much work

[Atlanticatia]

I hoped that the state would've completely left the institution of marriage instead of redefining it, but it is their Constitutional right to define marriage, so I won't advocate using federal power to change it.

wait, what?

[Olerand]

I hoped that the state would've completely left the institution of marriage instead of redefining it, but it is their Constitutional right to define marriage, so I won't advocate using federal power to change it.

The American Right's argument of "abandoning marriage" that conveniently popped up with the rise of gay marriage has already been discussed, countered, and had heads shaken at.

I can show you certain posts concerning the subject if you are so inclined.

Also, the federal government has always had the right to define marriage. So sayeth that ruling that legalized interracial marriage, whose name I don't actually know or care.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well this explains the locusts......

In all seriousness, this dropped 7 hours ago, and the overly dense LGBT population haven't taken to the streets and torn the town up.

Shame cause that would have been a great party.

[The New Sea Territory]

That specific topic is obviously purely between two (or more) people, so it doesn't really apply here. My argument is that the government should not be giving privileges or benefits to those in a relationship, because personal relationships shouldn't require some official sanctions from a third party that has no business in the relationship. Legal Marriage is, at best, giving extra rights to those who are married, showing the nationalist nature of the state by incentivizing reproduction, or, at worst, enforcing traditional marriage, in which one man-one women relationships are considered the only legitimate relationship.

Of course the former is preferable to the latter, but I think that a situation where interpersonal relationships are completely voluntary and stateless would be preferable.

well, I suppose that if there were specific documents available to share rights among non-married people, it would be more fair.

Of course it would be more fair, but not truly equal still. I know it isn't in all cases, but married couples can get very good tax breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

This is what I argue. There should be a separation of state and interpersonal relationships. If people want to be married, then sure, go ahead. Just don't force me to pay for your extra rights and privileges. I don't think that's an irrational opinion to hold, as I wouldn't want to force people to pay for my special rights and benefits.

[Othelos]

well, I suppose that if there were specific documents available to share rights among non-married people, it would be more fair.

Of course it would be more fair, but not truly equal still. I know it isn't in all cases, but married couples can get very good tax breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

This is what I argue. There should be a separation of state and interpersonal relationships. If people want to be married, then sure, go ahead. Just don't force me to pay for your extra rights and privileges. I don't think that's an irrational opinion to hold, as I wouldn't want to force people to pay for my special rights and benefits.

some of them are necessary, though, like hospital visitation & inheritance.