North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[bigrebnc1775]

Since no power as been granted to the federal government about marriage it's left up to the states to decide. North Carolina just did it.

Equal protection, moron.

Stop being stupid and deleting what I post

Dick tuck did you get dick fucked really hard last night? Let's take a look at the 10th

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since no power as been granted to the federal government about marriage it's left up to the states to decide. North Carolina just did it.

OH so it's no longer a tenth amendment issue? It's a states right issue that's all it is and all it will be.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama was pressured into coming out and now supports same sex marriage.

YAYYYYYYY. He finally said it.

He is done, Start practicing saying President Romney.

You don't think that that is going to cause blacks who supported Obama in 2008 to switch to Romney do you? Don't hold your breath till that happens.

The nation is far more than black people! Since when are we ruled by what black people want? I expect that he will lose some of the black vote. They might not vote for Romney, but they won't vote for obama. He'll also take a hit among hispanics who, again, may not vote Romney but can't be counted on for obama. On the other hand, it will absolutely galvanize the anti obama vote. Last night I was watching a debate that questioned Romney's ability to get the voters out as if their hair was on fire. There just wasn't any galvanizing issue, now there is. All those conservatives who were unsure about Romney now have a reason not to be unsure anymore.

The fight was always in the battleground states. Not blacks in New York or California, they have already made up their minds. It's the battleground states that now won't be battleground states any more.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

10th Amendment and Equal Protection. Is it a right of nearest of kin, starting with a spouse, to make end of life decisions; purchase property in common; and right to receive heir rights under common law? A homosexual relationship isn't my cup of tea, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight for the deprivation of civil liberties and equal protection for all.

The amending a state constitution to deprive certain rights of a minority, that is legally available to a majority, is bullshit.

Dick tuck did you get dick fucked really hard last night? Let's take a look at the 10th

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since no power as been granted to the federal government about marriage it's left up to the states to decide. North Carolina just did it.

You always hear liberals trying to spin the 10th into whatever they want.

He changed his tune on the tenth.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What's the big ******* deal if two guys (or two girls) want to tie the knot?

It's a no go in North Carolina

 

[KevinWestern]

It was in the post I responded to.

Yes... and as I said:
Everyone is allowed to marry in exactly the same manner as everyone else; everyne is denied marriage in exactly the same manner as everyone else.
As such, equal protection is satisfied.

Everyone is allowed to marry whom they wish to marry, the same way as everyone else?
I think not.

That's not the standard.
-Everyone may marry someone of the opposite gender.
-No one may marry someone of the same gender.
These restrictions and conditions apply to everyone, and thus, equal protection is satisfied.

M14, this is how I see it:

1.) There exists a large class of people in the United States who clearly are attracted to only members of the same-sex.
2.) These people spend their lives together, and build lives and families together in the same way opposite-sex couples do.
3.) By granting marriage equality:

>Opposite-sex couples see no change in their lives, as their right to marry opposite-sex partners remains unchanged.
>Same-sex couples will see a drastic improvement in their life.


So my question to you is, who exactly “loses” anything when same-sex marriage is recognized as valid under the law? If no personal and individual rights are infringed upon by the enactment of a “same-sex” law, what purpose does one see – exactly – in lobbying against it?


.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Everyone is allowed to marry whom they wish to marry, the same way as everyone else?
I think not.

That's not the standard.
-Everyone may marry someone of the opposite gender.
-No one may marry someone of the same gender.
These restrictions and conditions apply to everyone, and thus, equal protection is satisfied.

M14, this is how I see it:
1.) There exists a large class of people in the United States who clearly are attracted to only members of the same-sex.
2.) These people spend their lives together, and build lives and families together in the same way opposite-sex couples do.
3.) By granting marriage equality:
>Opposite-sex couples see no change in their lives, as their right to marry opposite-sex partners remains unchanged
>Same-sex couples will see a drastic improvement in their life.

Well, that's all well and good, but it doesnt address the issue to which I speak

The argument put forth was that not allowing SSM violates equal protection.
As everyone is treated equally in this regard, with the same allowances and restructions, that cannot be true.

 

[KevinWestern]

That's not the standard.
-Everyone may marry someone of the opposite gender.
-No one may marry someone of the same gender.
These restrictions and conditions apply to everyone, and thus, equal protection is satisfied.

M14, this is how I see it:
1.) There exists a large class of people in the United States who clearly are attracted to only members of the same-sex.
2.) These people spend their lives together, and build lives and families together in the same way opposite-sex couples do.
3.) By granting marriage equality:
>Opposite-sex couples see no change in their lives, as their right to marry opposite-sex partners remains unchanged
>Same-sex couples will see a drastic improvement in their life.

Well, that's all well and good, but it doesnt address the issue to which I speak

The argument put forth was that not allowing SSM violates equal protection.
As everyone is treated equally in this regard, with the same allowances and restructions, that cannot be true.

I wasn't participating in the equal protection approach this time, was just sharing my own thoughts on the matter. I suppose that's a different discussion.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Everyone is allowed to marry whom they wish to marry, the same way as everyone else?
I think not.

That's not the standard.
-Everyone may marry someone of the opposite gender.
-No one may marry someone of the same gender.
These restrictions and conditions apply to everyone, and thus, equal protection is satisfied.

M14, this is how I see it:

1.) There exists a large class of people in the United States who clearly are attracted to only members of the same-sex.
2.) These people spend their lives together, and build lives and families together in the same way opposite-sex couples do.
3.) By granting marriage equality:

>Opposite-sex couples see no change in their lives, as their right to marry opposite-sex partners remains unchanged.
>Same-sex couples will see a drastic improvement in their life.


So my question to you is, who exactly “loses” anything when same-sex marriage is recognized as valid under the law? If no personal and individual rights are infringed upon by the enactment of a “same-sex” law, what purpose does one see – exactly – in lobbying against it?


.

The only thing is that the state will not recognize same sex marriages it will not effect insurance or any legal documents between two parties of the same sex in civil unions.
Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14, this is how I see it:
1.) There exists a large class of people in the United States who clearly are attracted to only members of the same-sex.
2.) These people spend their lives together, and build lives and families together in the same way opposite-sex couples do.
3.) By granting marriage equality:
>Opposite-sex couples see no change in their lives, as their right to marry opposite-sex partners remains unchanged
>Same-sex couples will see a drastic improvement in their life.

Well, that's all well and good, but it doesnt address the issue to which I speak

The argument put forth was that not allowing SSM violates equal protection.
As everyone is treated equally in this regard, with the same allowances and restructions, that cannot be true.

I wasn't participating in the equal protection approach this time, was just sharing my own thoughts on the matter.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's not the standard.
-Everyone may marry someone of the opposite gender.
-No one may marry someone of the same gender.
These restrictions and conditions apply to everyone, and thus, equal protection is satisfied.

M14, this is how I see it:

1.) There exists a large class of people in the United States who clearly are attracted to only members of the same-sex.
2.) These people spend their lives together, and build lives and families together in the same way opposite-sex couples do.
3.) By granting marriage equality:

>Opposite-sex couples see no change in their lives, as their right to marry opposite-sex partners remains unchanged.
>Same-sex couples will see a drastic improvement in their life.


So my question to you is, who exactly “loses” anything when same-sex marriage is recognized as valid under the law? If no personal and individual rights are infringed upon by the enactment of a “same-sex” law, what purpose does one see – exactly – in lobbying against it?


.

The only thing is that the state will not recognize same sex marriages it will not effect insurance or any legal documents between two parties of the same sex in civil unions.
Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Interesting that the large majority of those who support SSM take issue with the man/woman specification, but support the limitation of "one".

Their arguments apply equally to both parts.

 

[KevinWestern]

That's not the standard.
-Everyone may marry someone of the opposite gender.
-No one may marry someone of the same gender.
These restrictions and conditions apply to everyone, and thus, equal protection is satisfied.

M14, this is how I see it:

1.) There exists a large class of people in the United States who clearly are attracted to only members of the same-sex.
2.) These people spend their lives together, and build lives and families together in the same way opposite-sex couples do.
3.) By granting marriage equality:

>Opposite-sex couples see no change in their lives, as their right to marry opposite-sex partners remains unchanged.
>Same-sex couples will see a drastic improvement in their life.


So my question to you is, who exactly “loses” anything when same-sex marriage is recognized as valid under the law? If no personal and individual rights are infringed upon by the enactment of a “same-sex” law, what purpose does one see – exactly – in lobbying against it?


.

The only thing is that the state will not recognize same sex marriages it will not effect insurance or any legal documents between two parties of the same sex in civil unions.
Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

I'm not sure I understand, could you restate?

 

[Katzndogz]

Degeneracy impairs the integrity of the whole. Have you personally been impacted by anything at all that goes on elsewhere? All the murders, rapes, extortions, frauds, molestations, abuse, prostitution, pornography, none of it impacts you personally. When we start accepting degeneracy as normal conduct, it moves from what they are doing to what we are doing. Gays and lesbians should live whatever lives they wish to as a matter of their personal right. When they demand that others change and accept their behavior as normal that's when the go beyond their own choices and move into affecting mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah! One more example of the New Right suppressing the Freedom and Liberties of a minority of our citizens. Ya gotta love those North Carolinians, real Americans (the last sentence [you do know what a sentence is, don't you Willow Tree?] is sarcasm (you can look up sarcasm at dictionary.com).

New Right?

Same sex marriage has lost every single time it has gone up for a vote, even in 2008 in California. Blaming that on the New Right, whatever that is supposed to be, just shows your unwillingness to accept the fact that you are a social outlier. and not the cetrist you imagine yourself to be.

It could also be possible that people that don't believe we are constitutionally allowed to vote on people's rights simply don't vote.

Not sure how that would change the picture enough to push Wry Catcher into the middle.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

M14, this is how I see it:

1.) There exists a large class of people in the United States who clearly are attracted to only members of the same-sex.
2.) These people spend their lives together, and build lives and families together in the same way opposite-sex couples do.
3.) By granting marriage equality:

>Opposite-sex couples see no change in their lives, as their right to marry opposite-sex partners remains unchanged.
>Same-sex couples will see a drastic improvement in their life.


So my question to you is, who exactly “loses” anything when same-sex marriage is recognized as valid under the law? If no personal and individual rights are infringed upon by the enactment of a “same-sex” law, what purpose does one see – exactly – in lobbying against it?


.

The only thing is that the state will not recognize same sex marriages it will not effect insurance or any legal documents between two parties of the same sex in civil unions.
Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

I'm not sure I understand, could you restate?

Those who support gay marriage will never understand no matter how it's explained. Read the section pertaining to what people are bitching about section 6, it doesn't stop civil unions it will not take insurance away from children or any other bullshit that has been said it will take away.

 

[KevinWestern]

Degeneracy impairs the integrity of the whole. Have you personally been impacted by anything at all that goes on elsewhere? All the murders, rapes, extortions, frauds, molestations, abuse, prostitution, pornography, none of it impacts you personally. When we start accepting degeneracy as normal conduct, it moves from what they are doing to what we are doing. Gays and lesbians should live whatever lives they wish to as a matter of their personal right. When they demand that others change and accept their behavior as normal that's when the go beyond their own choices and move into affecting mine.

Well Katz – to put it simply, the act of two people marrying does NOT directly affect or infringe on the rights of any non-consenting third parties in the way that murder, rape, extortion, fraud, molestation, and prostitution would.

That’s my reply.

Also, I don't happen to consider the marriage between two people who love each other a form of "societal degeneracy".
.
.

 

[Roudy]

What's the big ******* deal if two guys (or two girls) want to tie the knot?

Exactly my thoughts. The best way to prevent gay marriage is to let them marry and see what a living hell <joke> marriage is really like. The last thing on a married person's mind in this economy is "what are my rights." This whole ruckus is a set up by the Obama administration to garner more votes. That's why his lap dog Biden went out there and said he's for gay marriage.

As far as I see it, gay's can have the same rights as straight marriages through legal unions. This whole thing is a non issue for most voters, except for those who are ideologically committed on either side. The question is, if Obama is "evolving" his stance on gay marriage after he said he's against it in his 08 campaign, what else is he evolving on until after he gets re-elected?

Just another reason to not trust this bullshit artist snake oil salesman of a president we now have, and boot his greasy ass out of office in November 2012.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's not the standard.
-Everyone may marry someone of the opposite gender.
-No one may marry someone of the same gender.
These restrictions and conditions apply to everyone, and thus, equal protection is satisfied.

Which was the same standard for inter-racial marriage.

-Everyone may marry someone of the same race.
-No-one may marry someone of a different race.

The restrictions applied to everyone.

But equal protection was NOT satisfied.

 

[Vast LWC]

What's the big ******* deal if two guys (or two girls) want to tie the knot?

Yeah, let them suffer along with the rest of us.

 

[Apeman4Truth]

I'm willing to bet 2 internets, that the guy who wrote this legislation in NC is yet one more self loasthing Republican closet case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm willing to bet 2 internets, that the guy who wrote this legislation in NC is yet one more self loasthing Republican closet case.

I'm willing to bet that you are also.