North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[PredFan]

explain why California and Ny are allowed to ban guns..

They shouldn't be allowed to ban them, and we are trying to change that. We don't help our cause when we cry freedom and liberty and rights for us while denying that to others.

So you want to do away with States rights? then amend the constitution.

It's not the same. Preventing the majority from voting away the liberties of a minority, isn't the same as taking away states rights. that is what the Constitution is for. that is why there is a supreme court and restrictions put in place by the founding fathers. States were supposed to have the authority within their boundaries as long as they didn't get tyrannical. When they did, the Fed stepped in. States don't get everything right all the time. Someone has to keep an eye on them.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I agree that people have a right to vote for whatever they want; that’s America. But, I will not sit here and keep quiet when I see people in Oklahoma, people in NC vote away their personal rights and freedom to choose.

To set in stone rigid social standards (such as defining marriage) is voting away personal liberties. It’s a LEFT way of thinking.

It’s the same as saying, “I don’t want to be able to choose who I can marry, I want INSTEAD the government to make that choice for me”. It's putting the collective choice over and beyond the choice of the individual, and quite frankly I believe it's anti-American!

Let me ask you a quick question (if you don’t mind), do you identify yourself as right leaning or left leaning?

.
.

First, I wanted to tell you that I appreciate your desire to have an intellectual discussion on this topic, minus the knee-jerk name calling of someone with whom you do not agree. And I am obviously a conservative and lean to the right regarding my political views, although as Sallow has taken pains to point out, not on all of them. I do not take lightly the passage of an amendment to the state constitution regarding such an issue, and I must say that I have done a lot of soul-searching regarding such an action. As a conservative and as an American, government is NOT a friend. However, several things come into play here.

Can we agree that the state of Oklahoma, and every state for that matter, has an interest in defining what a lawfully recognized marriage is? Without providing for that definition, you open up the door for those who would 'game' the system (tax laws, estates, etc.) with psuedo-marriages that we have not even begun to contemplate. Therefore unfortunately, it is the states right and I believe obligation to codify that definition into its law. Additionally, to avoid the definition of marriage from being DICTATED to the state by a federal judge (who may have NEVER set foot in this state), this definition needs to have the full weight of the state constitution behind it.

Since I believe the need righteously exists, it then becomes necessary to define exactly what a 'marriage' is. To satisfy this need, I can only point to my personal beliefs as to what constitutes a marriage, what provides society the greatest benefit as a marriage, and to ask myself IF there MUST be a correlation between that lawful definition and a societal definition. After being a cop for 20 years, I can tell you that children are more likely to thrive in a family unit where there is a mother and a father. You do NOT sentence a child to failure if they are raised by a same-sex couple, but it is more difficult. Additionally, being older, I can tell you that the 'slippery slope' arguement does come into play. If today same-sex couples are allowed to be married, then next it will be? And don't tell me that it won't happen, I see the 'slippery slope' happening every day. Entitlements are EXACTLY a product of the slippery slope.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not state that I am an evangelical Christian. I believe that a same-sex marriage is wrong. It is a personal decision, and if a same-sex couple wants to be together, then that is their decision. I will not condemn it, BUT I will also not give it a tacit blessing by allowing it to be codified into law. Religious views are part of our morals and our morals find our ways into our laws. You cannot separate one from the other. To say that I am imposing my religious views on you ignores the fact that by including same-sex marriages into a legal definition, you impose your morals on me. Sunni Man, who posts here on this forum, is vehemently anti-gay. I understand why... I do not agree with the degree that he exhibits, but I understand why. Luckily, there are not many who agree with the degree of his stance.

So there you have my reasoning. There is a verifiable reason for the definition and I have used the best reasoning as to why I believe like I do. And I pray everyday for insight...

I appreciate your explanation of your position. Here is mine.

Marriage is what the State uses to define relationships. Therefore it is a legal question. It is not my business nor my goal to say that Anna Nicole Smith is entitled to or is not entitled to her geriatric husband's estate anymore than it is my business or goal to state that Librerace's parter is or is not entitled to his estate. The State, however, does make this a legal question.

So legally, the covenant of marriage is used by the State to determine whom the rightful heirs are.

Whether or not my upstairs or downstairs neighbor's friends (they may be homosexuals) are entitled to survivor benefits, health benefits, 1/2 of their partner's belongings in a divorce proceeding, are allowed their power of attorney is none of my business either. It affects me in no way whatsoever. Nor does it affect you at all.

The current rate of divorce is roughly 50% meaning that if 2 couples are married during your reading of this post, one will be divorced on average. The "strait" world is doing a very poor job of upholding the sanctity of marriage; if the covenant is santimonious to begin with.

While personal feelings are deep and should be respected in my view, the State should not be in the business of harboring those views, blessing marriages, or taking a stance that just because the partners of this covenant are of different genders, they somehow should receive rights based on personal feelings of the majority of a State's citizens.

You speak of a slippery slope. Every point has one. The slope almost always runs in both directions. What if the State of North Carolina had decided that interrracial couples violated some covenant or personal feelings? Would you be for that? Surely the child of a same-sex couple receives a harder go of it than those of hetero couples; mixed race offspring receive the same harder road to hoe.

Somehow I think those who support this wrong-headed amendment feel that they can draw a line between interracial and same-sex because one can see the discrimination between interracial couples--it's a visual blight being created when one discriminates--and one can't see such a distinction between same sex couples since both may be of the same race.

All in all, I think the politics of this will fire up the Democratic base and may deliver NC for Obama. If there is any good to come out of this; that may be it.

When the decision was to be made here in Oklahoma we were OVER RAN with people from outside the state telling us that we had to vote NO. The money from the coasts POURED in. We had people from California, New York, Chicago, Seattle... The gays and lesbians were in the public libraries asking why we didn't have "Johnny has two mommies" and just causing a lot of havoc at the state house. They called us religious bigots and zealots and that we shouldn't even be considering such an amendment. They protested outside several churches. They held protests and stopped traffic at interesections. And then they made a very bold prediction that the amendment would be defeated by a two-to-one margin.

We passed the amendment by 75% to 25%. African-Americans in Oklahoma went very heavily FOR the amendment. Native Americans went over 90% FOR the amendment. And the best part was that everyone who was here causing trouble... LEFT THE STATE. I have a feeling that in North Carolina, you will find the same thing. It may energize the Democratic base in California, or New York, but North Carolina is going RED. They call us "fly over country." We like that actually. Keep flying over... we only have problems when they land here. This question and the comments made toward North Carolina will leave a very bad taste in North Carolinian's mouths. In Oklahoma, right after ours, the legislature went Republican for the first time since statehood. I can tell you that the state Democratic leader (whom I know very well) was just livid at how the outsiders acted and how their actions were perceived.

I understand your thoughts, and I do appreciate them. But, it is in fact my business what happens in regards to taxes, estates, etc. And since this definition is part of that it is my business how that definition is set into law. As I said before, each day I pray for insight...

 

[PredFan]

orth Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.
With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.
In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.


Read more: North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage | Fox News











Is evolver in chief too late?

While I don't agree with "banning" gay marriage I do agree that N. Carolina has the right to do so as a state, under the 10th ammendment. I would hope they at least provide some provision to let gay couples at least have a civil union, but again its up to the citizens of that state if they want to allow it or not.

I'm all for states rights, but mob rule should never be alloed in this republic. The founding fathers intended us to live under the rule of law and not the rule of man.

 

[Too Tall]

They are not voting away liberty,, anyone who disagress with the voters of North Carolina can move to some place more to their liking. It has nothing to do with "Authoritarian Republican" asswipe. do you know who brought down the gay marriage issue in California? the black vote.. so then of course the liberals pitched their fit said they had "NO right to vote" and had the whole thing overturned.. Now all the black people who voted were disenfranchised. That's what's unconstitutional.

Do you use drugs? If so quit, if not, start.

fuck ewe,, and then explain why NY and California make it illegal to have guns!

I don't believe for one second that there is a law that makes it illegal to have a gun in NY or CA. There are laws restricting who can not own a gun (convicted fedlons) and where a gun may be carried (bar and shopping malls), but I will bet that there are still people that hunt critters with guns in them thar hills.

 

[PredFan]

If you think tyranny is America move to China.

What you are supporting is the tyranny of "mob rule", something that the founding fathers were against.

If they were against it they wouldn't let us vote.. dearest friend. we'd just have a dick tater

We vote for a lot of things. Not everything we vote for has to do with anyone's liberties. We have the state Supreme courts, and the SCOTUS to reign in the power of "mob rule". That is what they were set up for.

 

[Too Tall]

orth Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.
With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.
In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.


Read more: North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage | Fox News











Is evolver in chief too late?

While I don't agree with "banning" gay marriage I do agree that N. Carolina has the right to do so as a state, under the 10th ammendment. I would hope they at least provide some provision to let gay couples at least have a civil union, but again its up to the citizens of that state if they want to allow it or not.

I'm all for states rights, but mob rule should never be alloed in this republic. The founding fathers intended us to live under the rule of law and not the rule of man.

So we agree that amending the state Constitution was the only acceptable solution in NC. Did I get that right?

 

[PredFan]

While I don't agree with "banning" gay marriage I do agree that N. Carolina has the right to do so as a state, under the 10th ammendment. I would hope they at least provide some provision to let gay couples at least have a civil union, but again its up to the citizens of that state if they want to allow it or not.

I'm all for states rights, but mob rule should never be alloed in this republic. The founding fathers intended us to live under the rule of law and not the rule of man.

So we agree that amending the state Constitution was the only acceptable solution in NC. Did I get that right?

It depends on what your goal was. If your goal is to prevent gays from marrying then yes, that was your solution. we don't agree on the right or wrong of it. I'm a conservative and a fan of the founding fathers and the constitution. I'm against tyranny and for freedom. this law is tyrannical and represses liberty.

 

[Synthaholic]

Codifying discrimination into their State Constitution? Sounds very Carolina.

 

[Too Tall]

Bruce comes home one day and says to his lover, "Please do me a favor. It feels like something's stuck up my ass. Could you check it out for me?"

His roommate lubes up his finger (mercifully) and shoves it up Bruce's ass, feeling all around, and says, "I don't feel anything."

Bruce says, "Trust me, there's something up there. Try lubing up your whole hand and checking it out."

So his roommate lubes his whole hand and sticks it up Bruce's ass. He feels around, and then pulls out a Rolex watch.

He says, "I found your problem. There was a watch stuck up your ass."

Bruce starts singing, "Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you..."

Disgusting, but why am I laughing?

 

[Too Tall]

I'm all for states rights, but mob rule should never be allowed in this republic. The founding fathers intended us to live under the rule of law and not the rule of man.

So we agree that amending the state Constitution was the only acceptable solution in NC. Did I get that right?

It depends on what your goal was. If your goal is to prevent gays from marrying then yes, that was your solution. we don't agree on the right or wrong of it. I'm a conservative and a fan of the founding fathers and the constitution. I'm against tyranny and for freedom. this law is tyrannical and represses liberty.

If the amendment is 'tyrannical' it could be appealed to the NC Supreme Court. They would determine it's constitutionality and whether or not it represses liberty. That is why the amendment is considered the rule of law, not the rule of man, or as you suggested, 'mob rule.'

 

[PredFan]

I have seen on these boards people on both sides of the political isle, who don't understand the difference between rights and liberties.

The difference is that liberties are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Imagine how long the Constitution would be if all possible liberties were delineated in it?

Instead, the Founding Fathers set this republic up to be governed by Rule of Law. What that means is that say for example, this issue, there is not "right" to gay marriage, in fact there is not "right" to hetersexual marriage, but the Constitution provides for the protection of those "liberties" from government, federal or state or local. In other words, you cannot pass a law taking away someone's liberty.

Whileyou don't have a right to be married, the government doesn't have a right to ban it.

Other things that we don't have a right to:

1. Abortion
2. Vote for president.
3. Smoking
4. Gay marriage
5. Heterosexual marriage
6. A living wage
7. To have a job
8. To collectively bargain
9. Contraception
10. Healthcare

 

[WillowTree]

orth Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.
With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.
In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.


Read more: North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage | Fox News











Is evolver in chief too late?

While I don't agree with "banning" gay marriage I do agree that N. Carolina has the right to do so as a state, under the 10th ammendment. I would hope they at least provide some provision to let gay couples at least have a civil union, but again its up to the citizens of that state if they want to allow it or not.

I'm all for states rights, but mob rule should never be alloed in this republic. The founding fathers intended us to live under the rule of law and not the rule of man.

Since when did voting become fucking "mob rule." that's a dumb ass thing to say imho

 

[WillowTree]

I have seen on these boards people on both sides of the political isle, who don't understand the difference between rights and liberties.

The difference is that liberties are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Imagine how long the Constitution would be if all possible liberties were delineated in it?

Instead, the Founding Fathers set this republic up to be governed by Rule of Law. What that means is that say for example, this issue, there is not "right" to gay marriage, in fact there is not "right" to hetersexual marriage, but the Constitution provides for the protection of those "liberties" from government, federal or state or local. In other words, you cannot pass a law taking away someone's liberty.

Whileyou don't have a right to be married, the government doesn't have a right to ban it.

Other things that we don't have a right to:

1. Abortion
2. Vote for president.
3. Smoking
4. Gay marriage
5. Heterosexual marriage
6. A living wage
7. To have a job
8. To collectively bargain
9. Contraception
10. Healthcare

If this were true there would be no prisons.

 

[PredFan]

So we agree that amending the state Constitution was the only acceptable solution in NC. Did I get that right?

It depends on what your goal was. If your goal is to prevent gays from marrying then yes, that was your solution. we don't agree on the right or wrong of it. I'm a conservative and a fan of the founding fathers and the constitution. I'm against tyranny and for freedom. this law is tyrannical and represses liberty.

If the amendment is 'tyrannical' it could be appealed to the NC Supreme Court. They would determine it's constitutionality and whether or not it represses liberty. That is why the amendment is considered the rule of law, not the rule of man, or as you suggested, 'mob rule.'

It may well be appealed, but just because the voters ammended their Constitution, doesn't make it the Rule of Law. The Courts will decide that.

 

[PredFan]

While I don't agree with "banning" gay marriage I do agree that N. Carolina has the right to do so as a state, under the 10th ammendment. I would hope they at least provide some provision to let gay couples at least have a civil union, but again its up to the citizens of that state if they want to allow it or not.

I'm all for states rights, but mob rule should never be alloed in this republic. The founding fathers intended us to live under the rule of law and not the rule of man.

Since when did voting become fucking "mob rule." that's a dumb ass thing to say imho

Now, I haven't been rude to you have I?

Voting over another person's rights is the very definition of Mob Rule.

 

[WillowTree]

Codifying discrimination into their State Constitution? Sounds very Carolina.

and 70 percent of the blacks voted to ban gay marriage.. fancy that southern shit. they're as bigoted there as they were in California..

 

[KevinWestern]

First, I wanted to tell you that I appreciate your desire to have an intellectual discussion on this topic, minus the knee-jerk name calling of someone with whom you do not agree. And I am obviously a conservative and lean to the right regarding my political views, although as Sallow has taken pains to point out, not on all of them. I do not take lightly the passage of an amendment to the state constitution regarding such an issue, and I must say that I have done a lot of soul-searching regarding such an action. As a conservative and as an American, government is NOT a friend. However, several things come into play here.

Can we agree that the state of Oklahoma, and every state for that matter, has an interest in defining what a lawfully recognized marriage is? Without providing for that definition, you open up the door for those who would 'game' the system (tax laws, estates, etc.) with psuedo-marriages that we have not even begun to contemplate. Therefore unfortunately, it is the states right and I believe obligation to codify that definition into its law. Additionally, to avoid the definition of marriage from being DICTATED to the state by a federal judge (who may have NEVER set foot in this state), this definition needs to have the full weight of the state constitution behind it.

Since I believe the need righteously exists, it then becomes necessary to define exactly what a 'marriage' is. To satisfy this need, I can only point to my personal beliefs as to what constitutes a marriage, what provides society the greatest benefit as a marriage, and to ask myself IF there MUST be a correlation between that lawful definition and a societal definition. After being a cop for 20 years, I can tell you that children are more likely to thrive in a family unit where there is a mother and a father. You do NOT sentence a child to failure if they are raised by a same-sex couple, but it is more difficult. Additionally, being older, I can tell you that the 'slippery slope' arguement does come into play. If today same-sex couples are allowed to be married, then next it will be? And don't tell me that it won't happen, I see the 'slippery slope' happening every day. Entitlements are EXACTLY a product of the slippery slope.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not state that I am an evangelical Christian. I believe that a same-sex marriage is wrong. It is a personal decision, and if a same-sex couple wants to be together, then that is their decision. I will not condemn it, BUT I will also not give it a tacit blessing by allowing it to be codified into law. Religious views are part of our morals and our morals find our ways into our laws. You cannot separate one from the other. To say that I am imposing my religious views on you ignores the fact that by including same-sex marriages into a legal definition, you impose your morals on me. Sunni Man, who posts here on this forum, is vehemently anti-gay. I understand why... I do not agree with the degree that he exhibits, but I understand why. Luckily, there are not many who agree with the degree of his stance.

So there you have my reasoning. There is a verifiable reason for the definition and I have used the best reasoning as to why I believe like I do. And I pray everyday for insight...

First, thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned response. Folks like Willow could learn a thing or two from people like you (in my opinion). Anyways, I’ll address a few things in response.

First, great point about the need to codify “marriage” into law for the sake of preventing system gamers who are after a tax break – that makes perfect sense, as it’s in the State’s best interest. However, this type of legislation – defining marriage as only man/woman – in my view was certainly not aimed to prevent marriage fraud, and the State from giving out unwarranted benefits to people who weren’t actually building a life around each other. It was aim was to have the government define – for all adults within that state – who a suitable life partner is, instead of allowing individual to define that for themselves. It's a measure designed specifically to reduce the amount of personal liberties we have as citizens and therefore I am against it.

As for the &#8220;slippery-slope&#8221; &#8211; I disagree. Where&#8217;s it going to slide into? Of course you can reference the &#8220;big 3&#8221; &#8211; animals, polygamy, and relatives &#8211; but honestly, what % of Americans actually will be taking part in (or lobbying for) unions of that nature? The number has to be <0.01%, so is it even worth arguing about?

Next, I respect your opinion that you think marriage should only be between a man/woman. But I don&#8217;t agree with your assertion that by allowing same-sex marriage I am &#8220;imposing my morals on you&#8221;. Don&#8217;t you think there&#8217;s a big difference between you telling someone that they CAN&#8217;T get married, and someone telling you that they can marry who they like AND so can you? I think the difference is monumental.

My side states that people should be allowed to chose the adult partner they spend their life with, your side wants the government to make that choice for us. So finally, do you think/acknowledge that this sort of legislation is extremely "left" in nature?
.
.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm all for states rights, but mob rule should never be alloed in this republic. The founding fathers intended us to live under the rule of law and not the rule of man.

Since when did voting become fucking "mob rule." that's a dumb ass thing to say imho

Now, I haven't been rude to you have I?

Voting over another person's rights is the very definition of Mob Rule.

Nope,, voting is a constitutional right.

 

[Roudy]

Bruce comes home one day and says to his lover, "Please do me a favor. It feels like something's stuck up my ass. Could you check it out for me?"

His roommate lubes up his finger (mercifully) and shoves it up Bruce's ass, feeling all around, and says, "I don't feel anything."

Bruce says, "Trust me, there's something up there. Try lubing up your whole hand and checking it out."

So his roommate lubes his whole hand and sticks it up Bruce's ass. He feels around, and then pulls out a Rolex watch.

He says, "I found your problem. There was a watch stuck up your ass."

Bruce starts singing, "Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you..."

Seems like Sunni is speaking from first hand experience. Was a watch Sunni or was it something bigger and more deserving for you?

 

[Synthaholic]

I have seen on these boards people on both sides of the political isle, who don't understand the difference between rights and liberties.

The difference is that liberties are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Imagine how long the Constitution would be if all possible liberties were delineated in it?

Instead, the Founding Fathers set this republic up to be governed by Rule of Law. What that means is that say for example, this issue, there is not "right" to gay marriage, in fact there is not "right" to hetersexual marriage, but the Constitution provides for the protection of those "liberties" from government, federal or state or local. In other words, you cannot pass a law taking away someone's liberty.

Whileyou don't have a right to be married, the government doesn't have a right to ban it.

Other things that we don't have a right to:

1. Abortion
2. Vote for president.
3. Smoking
4. Gay marriage
5. Heterosexual marriage
6. A living wage
7. To have a job
8. To collectively bargain
9. Contraception
10. Healthcare

Smoking certainly is a right: the pursuit of happiness.