North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[Too Tall]

Codifying discrimination into their State Constitution? Sounds very Carolina.

How could a bigot like you know anything about discrimination?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Doubt anyone would be surprised by Willow's desires to vote away minority rights.

 

[bodecea]

More proof that much of our country would rather regress than make progress. This is why we are becoming the laughing stock of the planet. Bravo!

Many cultures have tried homo marriage before.

It is regressive, not progressive.

So extending legal protection to all members of society is now regressive?

Interesting.

You watch them talk long enough and you get to see their real feelings on liberty and the rights of man.

 

[WillowTree]

Doubt anyone would be surprised by Willow's desires to vote away minority rights.

well shit man, the minorities got to vote and 70% of them said YES,, ban gay marriage.. now put that in yer ass and spin whydonchya?

 

[Katzndogz]

Doubt anyone would be surprised by Willow's desires to vote away minority rights.

It's not like gays have always had the right to marry until someone stepped in and stopped them.

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama fixing to speak on gay Marriage, what's he going to say?...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation...cted-to-address-nc-gay-marriage-ban-vote.html

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/hes_barack_obama

 

[WillowTree]

What shocks me is the willingness of Americans to piss away their right to vote and naming it mob rule.. that's some scarey shit,, and then you don't believe in states rights,, that's some more scarey shit.

 

[Synthaholic]

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..

This Black tries to set them straight. Pretty compelling remarks.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywImcNViPtc]Clergy Rebukes Media for Asking Wrong Questions About Amendment One - YouTube[/ame]

 

[WillowTree]

Obama fixing to speak on gay Marriage, what's he going to say?...

he's needs time.. to evolve, errrr to ponder,,,,errrr to pander.. give da man some time.

 

[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

If this were true there would be no prisons.

How in the world do you get that? Is there a right to murder? Rape? Theft? Assault? Seriously?

 

[Synthaholic]

Codifying discrimination into their State Constitution? Sounds very Carolina.

How could a bigot like you know anything about discrimination?

In what way am I a bigot? Because I have a low tolerance for morons like you?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Doubt anyone would be surprised by Willow's desires to vote away minority rights.

well shit man, the minorities got to vote and 70% of them said YES,, ban gay marriage.. now put that in yer ass and spin whydonchya?

How does that change anything?

Oh, it doesn't.

My point is I'm not surprised that you want to vote away minority rights, and you may not admit it but down deep I'm sure you agree that you're glad to have that right.

 

[Too Tall]

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

The state governments do issue a marriage license and do have the right to determine who gets it. Not issuing a license for one to marry his mother is, to use your word, banned in all 50 states.

I did not check this to be factual, but my common sense tells me that it is a rule that is followed.

 

[candycorn]

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...

I understand your position on the interlopers; didn't like them myself during the immigration debates.

Laws are generally written to protect the minority. The 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights gives each of us license to say whatever we want. If it were popular opinions, we wouldn't need the amendment, would we? The 1st amendment protects all speech; popular/unpopular/crazy/expert/etc...

As for the taxes being your business; same-sex marriages are or at least should be subject to the same tax penalties and privilidges (sp?) that conventional marriages are subjected to so there is no injury/advantage suffered/enjoyed by society in this case. Can you give me an example of how John being married to Jane is different from an estate point of view than John being married to Jim? How does the latter injure you in ways that the former does not?

 

[Caroljo]

You still have the right to smoke, and your ability to smoke in certain places wasn't taken away from you because of you being a minority.

Gays should be able to get married, churches who don't want to marry gays shouldn't be forced too. So essentially it'd be the same law as the smoking law you have to deal with. Still have the right to smoke, just not everywhere. Gays would have the right to get married, just not everywhere in terms of which facility to get married in.

And gays still have the right to live together and do what they please...this vote wasn't against them because they're a "minority". It went against them because the majority of people voted against something they didn't believe in. They never had a right taken away from them because it was never a right to begin with.

If my right to smoke in public had been taken away from me by the "people" of Michigan, i wouldn't complain because it then is obviously something the people wanted. What i don't like about this is it was taken away by our own government.

You also know that all too often it only takes a small group of people to change something...like athiests that want the ten commandments removed from buildings because it offends them. Then don't look at it! But no, they have to push their weight until they get what they want. It doesn't matter that the majority of people want it there. Most of the time the minorities get just what they want....no matter what others think.

That's a silly comparison. Slaves had the right to live with their slave owners (I'm not comparing the struggles of slaves to gays mind you). It went against them because the majority voted against the liberties of a minority. Exactly what should never happen in this country.

But you still have the liberty to smoke, gays don't have the liberty to get married.

I agree it shouldn't take a small group to change something. I wish the large group respected minority rights, a critical aspect to this country's foundation. Because in one way or another, we're probably all minorities. But we let our bigotries cloud our common sense.

Boy...i hate it when i have to leave for lunch and then 1500 posts later i try to catchup! Lol!

My comparison may sound silly to you, but the issue is...i had the "right" to smoke in public places all my life. It was taken away by the government because other people didn't want to be around it.

Gays never had the right to marry. They still have a right to live together like they always have...so nothing was "taken away" from them, they never had it to begin with.

And i won't apologize because i believe a "marriage" is between a man and a woman. I believe in the Bible, and that's where marriage was first told about and where God said a MAN will be joined to WOMAN.

I don't care if they live together, make it a "civil union" and get all the benefits that a married couple would get....my biggest issue is with actually having a wedding ceremony and calling it a marriage.

 

[PredFan]

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.

It is, but that doesn't mean that every result of every vote is Constitutional, and even though voting is a right, it isn't a right to vote away someone's liberties. THAT is what Mob Rule is.

 

[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.

How in the world do you get that? Is there a right to murder? Rape? Theft? Assault? Seriously?

If you imprison a man have you not taken away his liberty?

 

[Dr.Drock]

And gays still have the right to live together and do what they please...this vote wasn't against them because they're a "minority". It went against them because the majority of people voted against something they didn't believe in. They never had a right taken away from them because it was never a right to begin with.

If my right to smoke in public had been taken away from me by the "people" of Michigan, i wouldn't complain because it then is obviously something the people wanted. What i don't like about this is it was taken away by our own government.

You also know that all too often it only takes a small group of people to change something...like athiests that want the ten commandments removed from buildings because it offends them. Then don't look at it! But no, they have to push their weight until they get what they want. It doesn't matter that the majority of people want it there. Most of the time the minorities get just what they want....no matter what others think.

That's a silly comparison. Slaves had the right to live with their slave owners (I'm not comparing the struggles of slaves to gays mind you). It went against them because the majority voted against the liberties of a minority. Exactly what should never happen in this country.

But you still have the liberty to smoke, gays don't have the liberty to get married.

I agree it shouldn't take a small group to change something. I wish the large group respected minority rights, a critical aspect to this country's foundation. Because in one way or another, we're probably all minorities. But we let our bigotries cloud our common sense.

Boy...i hate it when i have to leave for lunch and then 1500 posts later i try to catchup! Lol!

My comparison may sound silly to you, but the issue is...i had the "right" to smoke in public places all my life. It was taken away by the government because other people didn't want to be around it.

Gays never had the right to marry. They still have a right to live together like they always have...so nothing was "taken away" from them, they never had it to begin with.

And i won't apologize because i believe a "marriage" is between a man and a woman. I believe in the Bible, and that's where marriage was first told about and where God said a MAN will be joined to WOMAN.

I don't care if they live together, make it a "civil union" and get all the benefits that a married couple would get....my biggest issue is with actually having a wedding ceremony and calling it a marriage.

You're admitting your religious view should dictate government policy, I can't agree with that.

Should straight people who are swearing allegiance to different god(s) or prophets at their wedding ceremonies have their marriages recognized by gov't?

 

[WillowTree]

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.

It is, but that doesn't mean that every result of every vote is Constitutional, and even though voting is a right, it isn't a right to vote away someone's liberties. THAT is what Mob Rule is.

Nope. don't piss away your right to vote so easily, if you vote for something I don't agree with am I within my rights to call you part of a mob? really man?

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama fixing to speak on gay Marriage, what's he going to say?...

Doesn't really matter.

Please list the Constitutional powers that any POTUS has in this matter.