North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

"Prohibiting free exercise thereof" ?
Sounds like some people seek to use the government's power to create legislation that prevents people they disagree with from exercising their religious beliefs...


Is gay marriage a religious belief?

Do you worship GAY?

What religion is GAY??

The argument that gay marriage is protected by the 1st amendment is ridiculous.

LAW IS LAW…there was no religious persecution within that vote, the people simply disagree with gay marriage. You don’t have to be religious to think its disgusting!!



edit on 9-5-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
The people got the issue on the BALLOT because they wanted it! People VOTED on it!!!! This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment! :


What people would that be exactly?

Judging a minority group who should be protected by Separation of Church and State.

Something is definitely screwed up.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Playing devils advocate for a second:

Then how do polygamists get away with being married to more than 1 woman after all marriage is between a man and A woman?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Can you be so blind to not see Christianity as the driving force behind this discrimination? Well, a certain shade of Christianity called the fundamentalist christians. If you say no, you are being disingenuous. Are you christian yourself? I would bet over 90% who want to outlaw/keep outlawed gay marriage ARE christian. Get real, man. I have explained twice now how the church is violating the separation of church and state. See my post above yours. The church can marry who they want, that's fine. The church cannot legislate it's morality. Since marriage is a legal status in the eyes of the government, it must be applied equally to all people. Should women be allowed to vote, then? Should whites and blacks be allowed to marry? Rights for one are rights for all. Marriage in the church is different than the legal status of marriage in the state and federal governments. It's a very simple and important distinction.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by KillThePoor

P.S. I think I proved this law and amendment banning gay marriage is 100% unconstitutional in the sense that rights given to one group should be given to all groups.


You are technically wrong about one thing.

The state doesn't give rights to anyone.

It can only protect or trample the already naturally existing rights that human beings are born with.

Rights are innate and automatic.

We have rights even if no government existed at all, in fact we may even be better off in that case!



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


And what court will strike it down? The SCTOUS will have to hear these cases eventually. Considering it's 5-4 in favor of the conservative view, I think it's unlikely it will be struck down anytime in the near future.


It may be 5-4 oppression over freedom but to characterize that as "conservative" view is inaccurate. A true conservative view would not tolerate governmental interference into people's personal lives and affairs. However you may very well be correct about the balance in this nation being toward oppression. It would appear the norm for the US people now is to mind everyone else's business. The nation cannot persist much longer on that course without self-destructing.

edit on 9-5-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



What people would that be exactly?

Judging a minority group who should be protected by Separation of Church and State.

Something is definitely screwed up.


People exercising their constitutional rights!

Gay’s put gay marriage on the ballot all the time. Guess what?? It’s gets shot down more time than not!

What does that tell you?

I guess it’s only constitutional if YOU agree with the outcome!



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by mileysubet
 



Many people feel as if (and rightly so) that the laws where created with religion in mind. Most people who did vote, voted with their religious stigma in mind, therefore religion was/is forced down everyone's throat.


The people got the issue on the BALLOT because they wanted it! People VOTED on it!!!! This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment!


The decision people make in the ballot box is personal…you can’t legislate that!

Get real!



Our laws should not be based on a groups religious ideals, that is unfair to the whole community involved. If you cant see the the fact that forcing your religious ideas upon a group of people that do not believe in your religion as wrong, then you need to do some "soul" searching.


Nobody forced anything on you.

Religion has nothing to do with the LAW!!! People who believe the same as you voted also! Guess what? Most of the people disagreed with you! Stop being a cry baby!


I wast "being a cry baby" as you so eloquently stated, I was simply stating my point of view.

If you really think that religion has nothing to do with law you are truly delusional. Most individuals will vote with their religious views in mind and in fact do so faithfully.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I seriously wouldn't care about them getting married, but only if the married group get the exact same tax breaks and benefits as regular married couple. The polygamist "couple" would be represented as one couple in the way they get benefits and such. I'm all about personal liberty and the only reason it was outlawed in the first place is BECAUSE OF RELIGION, specifically christianity. The christians were persecuting the mormons back in Utah. What a loving bunch! Who aren't they persecuting? What a bad example! lol I am for the utmost personal liberty and I am not a hypocrite in that regard. As long as an individual doesn't hurt someone else physically, or defraud someone, or violate the rights of another individual (or animal in anticipation of your bestiality retort! haha) then they may do as they wish. As long as polygamists don't enslave their wives against their will, I really don't see a problem with it. It's not my business, unlike christian fundamentalists who think they are everyone's business.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

I guess it’s only constitutional if YOU agree with the outcome!



Incorrect, Constitutionality is based purely upon if it upholds the rights of the citizens and protects them, or if it tramples those rights and undermines them (Unconstitutional).



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Playing devils advocate for a second:

Then how do polygamists get away with being married to more than 1 woman after all marriage is between a man and A woman?


Polygamy is against Christianity and illegal in all 50 states!


Do you know a polygamist family with no children collecting a tax exemption of ‘married with 3 dependents’ or a polygamist marriage legally recognized by any state??



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by KillThePoor
 


Yeah well pick any religion and they get their share of persecution.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mileysubet
 



Most individuals will vote with their religious views in mind and in fact do so faithfully.


Does the constitution require that all citizens vote without religious prejudice?

Who the hell are you to tell me how to cast my vote? Seriously!

We ALL go to the ballot box and vote the way we want.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


But


Utah, which is the home of the Mormon religion, and is the largest practitioner of polygamist, does have laws against it. Most cities and towns in Utah will turn a blind eye toward the practice as long as it is not flaunted. Like many social laws if the practice is not flaunted,no one is being forced against their will and public perception is in favor the law may not be enforced.


www.advicenators.com...

Guess they could take a page from them.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Thanks for that little change in perspective. I totally agree with you. I'm all about libertarianism, which I personally consider different than Ron Paul's flavor that is the exact same platform as the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party is an organization that wishes to install a christian theocracy. I think it would be great to form a new government working from your inverse, compared to our current system of "granted" rights, law platform.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Annee
 



What people would that be exactly?

Judging a minority group who should be protected by Separation of Church and State.

Something is definitely screwed up.


People exercising their constitutional rights!

Gay’s put gay marriage on the ballot all the time. Guess what?? It’s gets shot down more time than not!

What does that tell you?

I guess it’s only constitutional if YOU agree with the outcome!



Just because the vote came in "one way or another" does not mean is constitutional...

The constitution was designed to protect HUMANS as a group not humans as a religious sect, in fact that is exactly why it was developed in part.

At any point when the people are called upon to inhibit (or not) the rights of others by way of voting the constitution becomes a useless document.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Many still see the gay/marriage issue as an affront to their own beliefs and lifestyles.

This was a legitamate vote.

Not saying I even agree with it, I could care less. But enough people sought this legislation as a reflection surrounding the whole gay marriage issue. 8 states now allow gay marriages.

Um, that still leaves 42 that don't. This is a much broader issue than just with NC.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
So what's the difference between a Marriage and Civil Partnership where legalities are concerned? It seems to me the fight is with the institution itself, not the rights that come with it...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


California sells POT and has sanctuary cities where illegals are sheltered from ICE in violation of federal LAW!!

What do you want me to say about states enforcing laws????

You devil’s advocate!!

edit on 9-5-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Except we are talking about America here and not some other country. I haven't ever seen Muslims persecuting social groups in America enmasse. Have you?

You point to a quote saying Mormons aren't often charged with breaking the law because most citizens of Utah don't care. You know it's still illegal, right? What group was the most vocal in pushing for its illegality? Who persecuted the Mormon polygamists? Muslims?
lol JK A majority of people want the green plant legalized, yet it is still illegal AND people get arrested for it. So your point about people not caring about a law really means nothing.
edit on 9-5-2012 by KillThePoor because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-5-2012 by KillThePoor because: (no reason given)




new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join