North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Just give them a place where they can get married and do whatever they want, because I'm sick and tired of having this crap be top news all the time. Even if they get the marriage laws they supposedly want soo bad, they still won't shut-up about it.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

The protection of an individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, which ensures one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Hmm, so does this mean any behavior is a right?

As long as that behavior doesn't hurt others? Sure. Why not?
Why would you deny someone that right?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Lol, ok someone prints this and it is true?

Isn't it terrible when that happens? The Bible suffers from the same problem. Somebody wrote a book, and people think it counts for something. Look the numbers are there, you just have to do a little math.... well... a lot of math. You have to count all of those small village conflicts over religious matters, yada yada yada. Not all of it was Christian-based, but that's not the point. The point is people killed for a God.


Why are you so against Gay Marriage? Why?
How does it negatively affect your existence on this Earth?

Mothers Day is turning into the best Holiday,
this is when I get to ask my gay friends how
were you conceived?
Will you be respecting a human mother?
Or is it a form of science with test tubes and such?

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Some people get to say thanks to two mothers for their love and compassion.

My current Gay friends have chose the path of the President,
they are still evolving.

You can be Politically Correct,
but nature has a funny way,
when you ask about,
who is your parents.

My gay friends have accepted my questions,
I figure the internet is not that evolved yet.

I don't like Obama,
but I think (evolve) this was the most intelligent answer,
until he was forced to respond.
Because science says how can same sex couples reproduce,
until they evolve?
My gay friends have not come up with a counter argument yet.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Why do they need to reproduce? Is humanity in danger of extinction due to waning reproduction?

reply to post by FugitiveSoul

I will admit maybe I don't understand,
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.

reply to post by Furbs

Here are the top ten reasons why Same Sex Marriage should be illegal. 01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children. 07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America. 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Oooh.

Now I get it. Why didn't everyone else explain it as well as you did? This was all I needed to hear. It SHOULD be illegal!

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

 

I will admit maybe I don't understand,
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.

At least you're honest. More than I can say for most.
You need no permission from me to share your thoughts,
especially in this open forum.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


I don't believe you responded to me earlier when I replied back to you regarding a similar issue.

Not that I believe you did it intentionally. I know a lot of people have replied and I'm sure I've missed a few comments directed towards me.

But, in regards to this :

Therefore, i can only assume that real goal is not equality but the takeover of religion and the acknowledgement by all religions that homosexuality is ordained by god.

As several people have mentioned, marriage was not originally a religious ceremony. It was simply a contract between two people. (Unfortunately, sometimes done to make a woman a man's property)

As far as takeover of religion, Christianity is not the only religion in existence. And if marriage is indeed between one man, one woman and God, then why do Christians not fight when two people who are Hindu, or Buddhist, or Atheist get married? Those people are not getting married before (or for) your God, yet they are allowed to call their union a marriage.


As far as why gay and lesbian couples aren't content to call it a civil union (and I'm sure some of them are) - is because it is blatant inequality. It isn't recognizing them as people who deserve equal treatment.

Call it a 'civil union' at the State level, no matter if man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. Just allow for equal benefits for all.

I'll quote what I originally wrote you, and forgive me if you did respond and I missed it. As I said previously, I have been trying to keep up with this thread, and I may have missed several comments aimed at me.

Why are they of a lesser status to call their union a marriage? They are no less human than you. They were born with no fewer rights than you, so why should they pander to someone that doesn't share their personal views on sexuality and love, to make that person more comfortable.

This is going to be an absurd scenario, but stick with me.

A woman becomes a doctor. She always felt that it was the right career path for her, so she does it.

Once she enters the medical field, however, the male doctors don't quite see her as their equal so they say, "Well, we can't deny you from being in this field..but instead of calling yourself a doctor, we would feel more comfortable if you call yourself "The Feel Better Lady". Sure, people probably won't take you as seriously, and when you have to write "Feel Better Lady" at the end of your signature, instead of MD, it will probably make people think a bit less of you, but hey, you get the same benefits we do. So, it's all good, right?"

That's why I feel like forcing someone to call their marriage with equal benefits a civil union is probably not as acceptable to the people having to do it. But that's just my opinion.

reply to post by nenothtu

wow, i really lost a few pages here so give me some time to catch up but here's a start.

thanks for sharing, am glad you stopped "collecting" and found a collectible worth keeping
also, i am glad to hear that often, troubled waters lead to an enlightening relfection pool.

One does not need a "valid legal union" to obtain or enforce for example, a domestic violence order

actually, to obtain a domestic violence order now, marriage will be necessary.
to obtain an order of protection would still be available for those in jeopardy but not married.
(it's not like there is no protection from violence, per se, however, litigation involving married persons has built-in protections [spouses cannot be compelled to testify against one another] that would not be afforded to any other 'union' and that's also discriminatory, especially since children can be compelled to testify against other immediate family members, but, that's another topic all together)

i made similar mistakes many years ago (more than once) but only married one of them, thank goodness, at least i learned my lesson well.
congrats on raising a fine young man we sure don't have enough of them around these days.

do try to understand, even though there are always ways to work-around obstacles, this is one obstacle that shouldn't remain for any willing, consenting adults, agreed ?
why should we be conditioned to behave like mice in a maze ??

ok, you say 7yrs is the requirement to achieve marital status with the state minus a formal marriage, right ? (common-law)
my point about that is this ... that same law does NOT apply to any union other than a specifically defined and designated marital one and again, that's discriminatory.
the term "marriage" originated as a contract between Families, not individuals or religiously specific peoples. why should the term be bastardized now ??
why can't it just be applied as it was intended ??

The law doesn't prevent marriage by any of the previously recognized mechanisms.

the amendment please, it's not just a law anymore, however, i agree and understand this ... which begs the question ... what exactly did everyone vote yes on ??
if the consentual common-law didn't apply to the gay population previously, why hold the vote at all ??

I submit that when one is dealing with violent wrath, the legal niceities of being married or not are not foremost on one's mind at the time, and jealous, violent types will find any excuse to be so - if not marriage, they'll find something else. At least they did BEFORE this vote, and I don't think the vote will change the basics, just the focal point.

i accept this submission, however, i'll raise you one civil war which i'd really prefer to not repeat.

Furthermore, they ASKED to be considered "privileged" with this vote

which "they" ?? the overly religious heterosexuals ??
what gives them the authority to vote on anyone's natural right ??
where is that authority provided or granted in any American Constitution (Federal or State)?

doesn't change anything that wasn't standing the day before the vote.

agreed entirely, but that still doesn't make either legislation any more Constitutional.

You see, here there weren't any previously applicable laws granting marital rights to the unmarried

but, rights aren't granted, they are exercised.
previously, persons who were not formally married, were exercising their natural rights in spite of the law (your own story alludes to this)

Cohabitation is dealt with by an entirely different body of law, separate from marriage law. An amendment mentioning "marriage" won't affect cohabitation. We had a case here a year or two ago where a Sheriff's Deputy out towards the coast was fired for cohabitation, and she wound up being reinstated because marital law didn't apply. NC can't tell you who to live with or how, they only govern property rights and such based upon YOUR choice, and this doesn't change that.

IF there is an entire body of law separate from the marital laws (this itself is discriminatory) then they are in conflict with the US Constitution. that they have never been challenged is the problem to resolve in such an instance.
although, i'm not sure i digested that story properly because i cannot comprehend how or which marital laws would prevent co-habitation or generate grounds for dismissal.

continued ..

reply to post by nenothtu
continued from previous post

Previously, unmarried heteros had to use other legal instruments if they hadn't hit the seven year mark, and they still will.

while this is true, shouldn't the same apply for EVERYONE ??
in an equal society, when do we accept privileged status for any particular group of people ??
i thought we were moving away from such.

Cohabitation was not a legally recognized union here. Previously, one cohabiting partner could not just throw out the other without a 30 day eviction notice legally, and that will remain the same, because it was based not upon marital rights, but upon the landlord-tenant relationship, rather than a "union".

come on now, what's with the strawman argument?
here, i can't toss a "boarder" out after 72 hours without legally evicting them first, that soooo doesn't apply but i get your point.

I'm with you on that, up to a point. I think marriage should be exclusive to the church - especially if people are going to attempt to use a religious argument to prevent others from marrying. Once they give the State a say in it at all, then they must abide by State edicts - both FOR and AGAINST. It's just an oddity of my mindset that I believe the State has no business meddling in it either way, nor should the State have any say in it at all. It's a private, personal matter

and i agree with you, up to a point.
when and if marriages become divorceless, i would totally agree.
until then, there is always issues of property and currently, only the State governs that so how could we change the concept of divorce to properly eliminate the State ?

oooo,ooooh - how 'bout we change the law to reflect that all property involved in a divorce is relegated to ownership of the Church ??
that oughtta eliminate any need for State oversight in marriages

then, the "religiously married peoples" can negotiate with the church for their property
(provided it doesn't get sent overseas first )
others, can just settle a property dispute in the same manner they do today.

while i have my own opinions about polygamy, i still find it wrong and absurd that any man be forced to risk his freedom to assert his rights amongst consenting adults.
he takes on the risk of legal ramifications just to live his daily life ... and i just don't see any equality in that.
(legal, schmeagle ... still doesn't make it equal)

They had yard signs all over the place here (I'm in a college town jammed in between two college cities) but that was about the extent of it. Not much discussion that I was privy to. I had no idea it would take the national stage by storm like this.

if you read all the pages in this thread, another NC resident stated that only on the day of the vote did they witness one commercial against the proposal. for weeks in advance and throughout their region, all they heard about was passing it.
sad if you ask me ... ppl just don't get involved like they used to.

Originally posted by Honor93

if you read all the pages in this thread, another NC resident stated that only on the day of the vote did they witness one commercial against the proposal. for weeks in advance and throughout their region, all they heard about was passing it.
sad if you ask me ... ppl just don't get involved like they used to.

I agree. People should be required to pass a test before each election to make sure they know what it is they're voting on. 60% of NC voters who voted on A-1 didn't know what Amendment One was all about. 20% of those voters thought the Amendment was in regards to Same Sex Equality only. The rest knew there was more, but didn't know what it was. Some thought that by voting against Amendment One they'd be giving gays the right to marry, not realizing that whether this proposal passed or not, gay marriage would still (unfortunately) be illegal under NC law.

Sad indeed.

Glad to see democracy working

Majority rule, and I stand by the majority.

If they would have voted to unban it I would have stood by the majority.


Those saying the government should step in and change it or that they should dismiss the vote are unamerican and don't believe in a democracy.

10th amendment and majority rule proved that our democracy at least for the moment, still works.

reply to post by Cito


Pro "Democracy" / Anti-Liberty, eh?

reply to post by FugitiveSoul

Some thought that by voting against Amendment One they'd be giving gays the right to marry, not realizing that whether this proposal passed or not, gay marriage would still (unfortunately) be illegal under NC law

exactly. sometimes, i think i give ppl far too much credit for actually giving a rats patutti.

in the sense of rights, i'm beginning to think it's a lot like love ... people tend to not realize what they had until it's gone.
where rights are concerned, they are subverted every day in a multitude of ways, this is just one more on a long laundry list of nasties.

to put it bluntly, i am sick and tired of being forced to live against my will/liberty/pursuit of happiness/rights and i'm not gay or confused, but, i can certainly empathize with how miserable it must be for them.

how you may ask ?? let me count the ways ...
my will/rights are subverted every time a tax contribution is spent on
1. suing the States.
2. TSA
3. MIC intrusions to daily life
4. unnecessary war in foreign lands
5. no offense to those abroad, but, pay for your own damn schooling, i have to.
6. i could go on but you get the point i hope.

my/your rights were subverted when my rapists reputation was more important than justice.
my/your rights were subverted when i was "required/encouraged" to get a driver's license without notice that it isn't necessary.
my rights are subverted when i cannot smoke what heals me.
my rights are subverted when i cannot exercise or expose my religion in public.
my/our rights are subverted every day in some way, still doesn't make it right or Constitutional

so, if i am willing to stand to support my rights, why wouldn't i stand to support theirs ??
who cares if we don't believe or practice the same things, so long as they don't harm others, who am i to quash their dreams or deny their rights ??

reply to post by Cito

IF the 10th had been followed properly, this right or power to contract a marriage, would be delegated to the ppl, not the State.
so no, the 10th did not protect the rights of the people as it is intended.

since when should any democratic process involve voting on rights, anyway ??
rights are not granted or voted away, they are merely recognized and exercised.
don't worry, this legislation won't stand for long and that's a promise.

besides, since when do governments define words ??
thought we left that up to the dictionary ppl, lol

edit to add: also, because SCOTUS long ago declared "marriage" is a basic human right, that encompasses all humans, not just specific ones.

here's a question for you and all others who cheer this perversion of democracy ...
(if you are against guns, please excuse the analogy but rights are rights, soooo)

weapons and self defense have been a recognized right of the people since the very beginning. how would you respond if the rest of the state, democratically, took a vote to prevent YOU and solely you from owning or utilizing any weapons of any kind ?
would you still support this democratic infringement of your right ??