North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[PredFan]

Should something be forced on a large group of people who do not want it or have it a part of their state?

Are they forcing heteros to marry someone of the same sex?

 

[PredFan]

Okay my first question here about N.C. is why? you have DOMA, and a whole host of laws that already do that, So what? you don't have other legislative things to deal with, say like, creating jobs in your state rather than deal with issues like this? It seems like a lot of states, mine included have spent more time on social issues that have little to do with Government at the expense of it's citizens health and the welfare of it's economies, and more to do with what some deem is socially acceptable. Personally, when you allow Government to start passing Laws on defining what is clearly a social issue, then why stop there, why not pass laws for redheads, or blondes, or even for people who wear glasses on Sundays? See what I mean? there is a reason why the constitution thought some things were best left to "people" to decide for themselves and this is sure one of those things.

The difference myght be the 2nd part of the law that was passed in North Carolina. I'm not up to snuff on DOMA, but the NC law stops the legal privileges of all "other" forms of unions. That is the part that I have the most problem with. Apparently it wasn't enough for them to defend marriage, but they felt that they had to deny gays the ability to join in civil unions as well. Sad.

Well from my understanding, DOMA defines marriage as one man and one woman and goes futher to say that Federal benefits derived from that must meet that standard. I just see these laws as being not only a waste of time, but also paying attention to matters that are best left to individuals to decide for themselves, especially, when there are more pressing matters to attend to. Now having said that if this goes into the realm of denial of civil unions, then two things come to mind here, one is, go to another state and simply enjoy that privledge there, then come back to N.C. The other thing that comes to mind is this, Fort Bragg is in N.C. and last I checked there is a new policy as it applies to Military personnel. So then that begs the question, if say for example, a couple were to be joined in a civil union and then be stationed at Fort Bragg, what impact does this new law have on those people? If it does , does this then have some conflict with Federal issues?

One other thing, I have noticed some talk on here about " majority rules" last time I looked we were still a Republican form of Government much to the dismay of some. It might help for some to see what the author of the constitution had to say on the subject.

Federalist #51
Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. James Madison

Thanks for the info.

 

[PredFan]

Well get ready, because it's likely to happen in a lot of other states too.

This is why we vote...and Majority rules. And it's not discrimination...nobody said they can't live like they want, they just want to change something that should never be changed. Too bad, so sad...

I would agree with you if the NC law stopped at defining marriage. Too bad it went on to deny legal privileges to all other types of unions as well.

Mob rule (majority rues) was not intended by the founding fathers. they built this republic on the "Rule of Law" not the "Rule of Man".

Anyone in NC are still able to have legal contracts drawn up so they can share property as they wish.

Property maybe, but what about the rest of the things that married people enjoy?

 

[PredFan]

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.

Liberty is an individual’s right to govern themselves – it’s free choice.

And it’s my personal view that if an action in no way infringes on the rights of other individuals within that society – NOT things like murder, stealing – it should not be governed. Because to govern it would only work to grow the power of the government unnecessarily, and would serve as a step towards the direction of “tyranny” where no personal liberties are allowed.

Willow, if you are in support of this this NC measure, you really need to re-examine yourself to determine where you fall on the political spectrum. This is a “left” piece of legislation, 100%.


.
.

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.

 

[Sunni Man]

so you are for government telling you who you can be with, but not for government healthcare?

The government isn't telling you who you can be with.

They are just delineating whom you can and can not marry.

btw Health care is a whole different issue.

 

[Flopper]

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?

Not surprising in a state that forbid interracial marriages for 200 years, required intercourse be performed in only the missionary position, and forbid oral sex. Since same sex marriage was illegal before the vote, nothing changes.

 

[Katzndogz]

Colorado one ups North Carolina and bans civil unions!

Colorado! Liberal Colorado!!!!

Civil unions bill killed along with 30 other bills in late-night game of political chicken - The Denver Post

A bill to allow same-sex couples to form civil unions died on the calendar late Tuesday, taking down with it more than 30 other measures in a dramatic game of political chicken in which no one would blink.

 

[PredFan]

Half of Americans support legalizing gay marriage: Gallup | Reuters

Gallup's survey a year ago marked the first time in the poll's history that a majority of Americans - 53 percent - said they favored legalization of same-sex marriage. Gallup first asked the question in 1996, when only 27 percent of respondents supported it.

This might be true, but is it going to increase or decrease in the future? many people here have stated that the old ways of homophobia are going to go away. All of the recent voting seems to say otherwise.

Good question, in the last 15 years homophobia has plummeted but in the last 2 years the numbers have stayed the same.

But in my real world experience, I'm 26, and in my circle me (I'm straight) and all my straight friends aren't scared of gays and we don't give a damn about gay marriage. And just about every weekend our hangout crew includes gay and bisexual people. So it seems like to me the older you are the more likely you are to be a homophobe, the younger you are the less likely.

Once you get enough real world experience you learn there's nothing scary about gays, and what other people do in the bedroom or who's hand they hold in public affects you in no tiny, marginal way whatsoever.

Of course I hope you are correct. I am 56 and have several gay and lesbian friends. I also know that the young are mostly pro-gay marriage. That said, I have seen many people change their views as they get older. I have seen very often that people get more conservative as they get older. Many people who don't follow their religion as young people, get born again and turn into extreme social cons. Heck I used my first vote as an 18 year old to vote for Carter! People don't always grow in the same ways.

 

[candycorn]

North Carolina approves a constitutional amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that in heavily African-American counties, the vote went as much as 60% FOR THE AMENDMENT. I correctly heard this morning a commentator wondering how this will turn out, since these are two very basic Democratic constituencies and they are apparently at odds on this issue. I would just interject here that when asked if same-sex marriage is the same as their fight for civil rights, 65% of the African-American respondents answered that it was not.

I have said many times that Oklahoma has a similar constitutional amendment. I supported it, I voted for it, and I gave money to the campaign. In Oklahoma, the amendment was over-whelmingly approved. It has with stood several attempts to over turn it. I support each states RIGHT to decide on their own how their state will stand on this issue and I support that states RIGHT to choose its direction. As I support each states RIGHT to decide how it will stand on abortion.

I have read on other threads that people have said that the amendment is a reason why they will not come to Oklahoma. Now, there are around 30 states with such amendments. The right of a people to CHOOSE the direction of their government is a cornerstone of the constitution and the intricate relationship between the states and the federal government. We have for too long, been dictated to by a bunch of faceless beaurocrats living in a city so removed from our state that we are tired of it. IF you feel that you cannot come to Oklahoma because of this law (as in 30 other states), then PLEASE - STAY WHERE YOU ARE!

I wanted to also say, that simply because of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage, it does NOT give creedence to, nor does it in anyway advocate for actions or hostile words of any type against a same-sex couple. Regardless of our disagreement regarding this issue, citizens of this country have basic rights which may NOT be infringed upon. I will stand up vigorously for their right to live in peace and dignity...

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.

 

[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?

Not surprising in a state that forbid interracial marriages for 200 years, required intercourse be performed in only the missionary position, and forbid oral sex. Since same sex marriage was illegal before the vote, nothing changes.

Chris Matthews just stated he was "stunned" by the knowledge that 70% of the African Americans In North Carolina voted FOR Banning Gay Marriage..Let's hope their vote will not be disenfranchised as it was in liberalland Caleeeeforni

 

[PredFan]

Syphilis spread via heterosexual sex has killed millions. But yet heterosexuals were never denied legal protections.

Killing millions because of saw bone medicine more people were killed because of dumb doctors than the sickness.

Um no. Millions died because there was no cure for the disease.

Syphilis has killed many many more people than AIDS.

To be fair, syphillis has been around since time immemorable. AIDS only in the last 3 decades or so.

 

[PredFan]

What if you're straight get aids and give it to someone?

I'd blame the gay cause I got it from him.

So what will preventing gay marriage do to prevent the spread of AIDS?

Actually the opposite. marriage encourages fidelity, which could lead to a reduction in the spread of the AIDS virus.

 

[WillowTree]

Liberty is an individual’s right to govern themselves – it’s free choice.

And it’s my personal view that if an action in no way infringes on the rights of other individuals within that society – NOT things like murder, stealing – it should not be governed. Because to govern it would only work to grow the power of the government unnecessarily, and would serve as a step towards the direction of “tyranny” where no personal liberties are allowed.

Willow, if you are in support of this this NC measure, you really need to re-examine yourself to determine where you fall on the political spectrum. This is a “left” piece of legislation, 100%.


.
.

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.

 

[WillowTree]

Killing millions because of saw bone medicine more people were killed because of dumb doctors than the sickness.

Um no. Millions died because there was no cure for the disease.

Syphilis has killed many many more people than AIDS.

To be fair, syphillis has been around since time immemorable. AIDS only in the last 3 decades or so.

ask him how syphillis entrenched itself into humanity when it used to belong only in the sheep population? I'll tell you how. Lonely shepards. Then they brought it home to their women.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

 

[PredFan]

People on both side of this issue need to learn the difference between "Liberties" and "Rights".

People on the right need to remember that the preservation of rights AND liberties was the intention of the founding fathers.

 

[PredFan]

Then I'll tell you why.. it's called States Rights.

So let me get this straight, you're defending the right for NC voters to enact extreme-left leaning policy because California and NY does it too?

Don't you want to fight against tyranny?

.
.

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.

 

[PredFan]

A constitutional amendment that deprives civil liberties is certainly nothing new in the South.

The amendment deprives them of the privilege of being classified as "married". The benefits can (and should) be given under other laws.

Actually, the law just voted on in NC states that all other forms of unions cannot be afforded any legal status. Which means it prevents any of the benefits of marriage.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Who's team will you be on when these same nanny stater fundamentalists are trying to restrict your religious liberties?

I personally don't envision that happening.

You don't see people trying to force the change in how muslim women dress even though it's already happening in wealthy european countries?

 

[WillowTree]

So let me get this straight, you're defending the right for NC voters to enact extreme-left leaning policy because California and NY does it too?

Don't you want to fight against tyranny?

.
.

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