North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

reply to post by seabag


Again, you said "Civil Unions' is a viable option for Gays.

It is not. This makes them illegal.

Clear?

Originally posted by Radiobuzz

I'm sorry if it offends any US citizen but it seems to me that it's a huge distortion of democracy when a majority choses if a minority will have basic rights or not.

You don't offend me.

I totally agree with you.

Why belief has anything to do with Equal Rights - - blows my mind.

reply to post by beezzer

A beezzer opinion post.

If you own a Vespa and stick a harley-Davidson emblem on it, it doesn't make it a Harley.

But people should be free to place as many labels on their Vespas as they choose.

Regardless, the voters (or lack thereof) have spoken.

As a legal challenge you are correct!

As a point of contention among Christians (majority in America…at least American voters…maybe!) you’re wrong.

Marriage has a ‘meaning’ to Christians and Christians VOTE, so it’s not unconstitutional when the people of a state vote on issues pertaining to their state. Last I checked they didn’t check religious affiliation prior to casting a vote (though we’re heading that way).

This is so distressing to me.

Why can't we just all agree to live and let live? States ought to only issue contracts and church's conduct marriages...

We should all have the same rights and the state should stay out of the church and the church out of the state.

It seems this issue is being intentionally blown up to create discord, be wary.

reply to post by stanguilles7

Again, you said "Civil Unions' is a viable option for Gays.

It is not. This makes them illegal.

Clear?

10th Amendment!

The people voted!

Civil Unions aren't constitutionally protected!!

Clear??

reply to post by grayghost


The bible has been rewritten so many times it just might have said Adam and Steve you can't be sure it didn't.

As far as the word marriage goes...I think if you want to call it marriage why the heck not! I didn't get married in a religious ceremony at a church and the word god was no where in my wedding vowels but I am still married so why can't gays? Its that same mentality my grandmom had when she told me I couldnt wear white to my wedding
I told her unless she was paying for it I would wear what I wanted and I wore white.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Again, you said "Civil Unions' is a viable option for Gays. It is not. This makes them illegal.

Clear?

10th Amendment!

The people voted!

Civil Unions aren't constitutionally protected!!

Clear??

I made no argument about the vote being illegal. I pointed out your claim that civil unions is a viable option is incorrect, since this makes them illegal. That is the extent of my comment.

reply to post by Radiobuzz

I'm gay and I'm a mix between humanitarian, agnostic and atheist. To me, your bible and your view of what god is has absolutely zero validity.

Good for you!

Also I consider myself to have a broad view, to be able to get into someone else's shoes and to know enough about many topics (at least enough to understand 'marriage' is not a catholic invention). However, I will defend your right to speak up your mind and to excercise your right to believe in whatever you want as long as your actions don't harm other people. No matter how wrong I believe religion is to the human race, I will back any believer's right to speak their minds and to have as much freedom as everyone else.

Religion is constitutionally protected, so you have no choice under the LAW!

I can only hope the path you are currently going through will lead you to a place with more understanding and kindness.

I’m totally understanding! You obviously didn’t read my post. If you’re waiting for my personal approval of gay marriage then you’ll be disappointed. If you’re waiting for my tolerance of your choice as a free citizen to live your life and be treated equally then you’ve arrived…because I don’t give a crap what you do! More power to you!

What’s the problem?

reply to post by seabag

why is it, that ppl who spout off this amendment, OFTEN forget these few (bold) words ??

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.

while marriage is regarded as a religious institution, any other union should be "powers delegated to the people", as the Constitution states.
i really don't see any advantage or Constitutional standing to the State banning all other civil unions.

reply to post by Annee


And we are supposed to be a Republic to protect against this type of thing. What if interracial marriage was brought up and a state decided to make it illegal? What if it came to a vote whether or not a man was allowed to remarry after his wife's passing? What if divorce was declared illegal due to popular opinion? What if (and Annee you won't agree with me here I think) guns were outlawed because a majority thought they should be? What if the Bible and religion were deemed unlawful by the masses?

I also wonder how many anti gay folks have ever masturbated, received oral sex or had an impure thought. I am always appalled by those that pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow, based on who they are and what they have done. Ever have sex with your wife without trying to make a child? Ever been envious of someone else's car?

I just think people of the same sex loving each other and devoting themselves to one another is probably at the bottom of God's naughty list (actually I doubt it's on the list at all).

reply to post by stanguilles7

I made no argument about the vote being illegal. I pointed out your claim that civil unions is a viable option is incorrect, since this makes them illegal. That is the extent of my comment.

OK

My point about civil unions being a viable option was my own opinion…I wasn’t saying it was a viable option in N. Carolina.

This is so pathetic it is not even funny. I think the most ironic part of this fiasco is the loudest criers of freedom and individual liberty as well as small government and getting government out of their lives are the ones voting for denying rights to one group of people that another group gets to enjoy. Being as this is a democracy, the majority should be the ones winning the vote. This is not happening and doesn't happen on most issues. Our system of government through representation is one of the core reasons the will of the people is almost never expressed. In this situation, we have a small group of voters coming out in overwhelming numbers and basically "drowning out" the majority's voice, who don't come out in large numbers. These "family values" organizations that are persecuting gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgenders operate by targeting a core demographic, of extremely religious far-right people, and using propaganda to inflict fear and paranoia on to that group. When you take this small group, who is known to be very politically active especially in voting, and launch a massive propaganda campaign through peddling massive amounts of fear, paranoia, and ignorance against them; Expect some trouble. This small demographic will then turn out to vote in astonishing numbers, effectively shouting out the majority's will.

I found this paragraph from the article particularly telling. The following is a quote by Rachel Lee, a mouth piece for a propaganda outlet.

"Making this a constitutional amendment was important, said Rachel Lee, a spokeswoman for Vote For Marriage NC, because 'those statutes are vulnerable to the will of an activist judge or future legislature who could overturn the law with a single court ruling or by a single vote of the legislature.'"

What she is basically saying here is that she is worried that the Supreme Court or state court would interpret this law as unconstitutional because it is unconstitutional. The only way this law would not be restricting the rights of an entire group of citizens would be if we lived in a theocracy which is living under the rule of the bible. Since marriage is totally different concerning our government than it is concerning the church, it is clearly unconstitutional. Marriage in the church cannot be regulated or altered. Marriage, when talking about the government, changes two people's legal status and that entails many things including different tax rates and special benefits. By withholding the government's equal treatment in the eye of the law of homosexual people, this bill is unconstitutionally limiting the rights of a group of people. I may not have explained that too clearly, but I am trying to illustrate the difference of marriage through the eyes of the church and the eyes of the state and federal government. The two ARE mutually exclusive, which is a fact supporters of limiting gay's rights often seem to miss. This spokeswomen, or propagandist, would not have said what she said if she was 100% sure this was constitutional.

To prove the propagandist nature of this group's message, I will dissect the short quote from the spokeswoman. Just so people understand, what this woman said was pre-written or was a statement carefully crafted to evoke specific emotions in specific types of people. They practice responses to questions in order to control the message. There is thought put into everything this woman says. The essence of propaganda For this analysis to make sense, you must realize this group panders to the religious far right.

* those statutes are vulnerable to the will of an activist judge or future legislature

She used the word vulnerable in order to make these people wary of the future. The word future was even used to describe the possibility a "liberal" legislature could overturn the law if it wasn't a constitutional amendment. Conservatives, more exactly Christian fundamentalists of the far-right, are notoriously known for their fear of the unknown and their paranoia/distrust of other people trying to take away their religion. Ever hear them complain of "freedom of religion?" That's some proof for my statement. She also used "activist" judge to evoke thoughts of "liberal" judges trying to challenge the will of the evangelicals. She could have just said judge, since judges are to be free of bias and a judge would evaluate this on it's legal merit alone, the use of the word "activist" is chosen on purpose.

Recap: Our political system is not only owned and operated by corporations and Wall Street, but is also perverted by tiny minorities being manipulated by special interest groups such as the "Family Research Council," headed by the notorious Tony Perkins. (Completely misleading name of the organization, more proof of the propaganda effort) These small groups actually vote in greater numbers than the true majority. They are lead by fear, paranoia, and ignorance.

reply to post by jenlovesturtles


That is your right to do as you please.

But you are not married in the eyes of God.

You are married in the eyes of man but not God.

Again that is your right just remember every head will bow and every tongue will

confess at the great white throne of judgement.

reply to post by Radiobuzz

I'm sorry if it offends any US citizen but it seems to me that it's a huge distortion of democracy when a majority choses if a minority will have basic rights or not.

Basic rights in America were defined in the US Declaration of Independence as Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How is it a distortion of democracy to deny GAY MARRIAGE which isn’t constitutionally protected and the people of N. Carolina VOTED ON THE ISSUE? The people's voice WAS HEARD!

You just want to complain I think? Understand that you are a small part of the world; the world doesn’t revolve around homosexuals. We’re all created equal…right?

reply to post by seabag



The State decided,so for those who believe in it,there are States that do recognize it.


Its not for the Federal Government to do so,or a President to SAY so.


MHO..............

reply to post by seabag

If you’re waiting for my tolerance of your choice as a free citizen to live your life and be treated equally then you’ve arrived…because I don’t give a crap what you do! More power to you! What’s the problem?

If you don't give a crap, what's the beef with gay marriage? You're hung up on a word? I made an amazing dish and the marriage of garlic and basil added to it's flavor... Are you scared God will be mad at you because other people interpret a word differently?

Let me get this straight (ha). So you aren't doing anything wrong in God's eyes. You are not having having gay sex (I assume...) but you would quash the dreams of men and women in same sex partnerships based on some perceived slight against God? Shouldn't God deal with that? If it isn't hurting anyone, I don't understand why you feel it's your duty to prevent it. Do you want to ban porn, imagination and hands too? Should I not be allowed to spend time with my ladyfriend because we aren't married?

I don't get it. Should there be a law barring me from sleeping with women I'm not married to? Should I only have sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation? Is it wrong for me to lay with an animal? My dog sleeps on the bed every night...

You take the Bible at face value when it suites you. You use a book meant to teach love as an instrument of hate.

reply to post by grayghost


Again that is your right just remember every head will bow and every tongue will

confess at the great white throne of judgement.


ok I honestly dont understand what that means..
you know what on second thought its ok I dont need to know

Good Luck!

reply to post by KillThePoor


How the hell does one tie evil Wall Street into North Carolina Voters voting on same sex marriage.

They voted democracy in action and last time i checked Wall Street isn't in North Carolina.

Originally posted by KillThePoor
I think the most ironic part of this fiasco is the loudest criers of freedom and individual liberty as well as small government and getting government out of their lives are the ones voting for denying rights to one group of people that another group gets to enjoy.

Yeah. At least one member of the 'tea party caucus', Howard Coble, who was elected on 'small government' issues supported this.

Huge surprise, I know.

Whether you agree with this or not, this is what America is all about. The lost art to let States rule what they want or not want without the Fed dictating is really what we need to support. That is why we are called United States and not just one big State. The good part is if you do not like it you can leave to a state that agrees with your views. When the Fed steps in where do you go?