North Carolina Amendment One "1 Man, 1 Woman"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Seekster:

If you want the government to stop meddling in your affairs than get the government out of marriage completely, who is the government to say what is and is not a marriage. However so long as you ask the government to be the ones issuing marriage licenses and providing benefits then the government has an interest in defining marriage in order to determine which benefits go to whom.

Ah the quote you posted wasnt dealing with gay marriage. It personally attacked and implied we should not allow the gay "lifestyle". As if the american public decide that if a lifestyle is wrong it shouldnt be allowed. Thats biggotted. I have lost all respect i had for this president from this quote. One where he decided that there are lifestyles we "cannot allow". Tell me seekster what if 51% of americans dont want people to live "fat" lifestyles. Or lifestyles where they only work weekends. What do we do then. Ban them? Ban people for living how they want to live? Ban people from living with "ugly" people? Is THAT a lifestyle we can ban? Or decide isnt "allowed"?

ten.to.ten:

Naheal:
That is much worse than I had initially thought. Doesn't that also mean that a man and a woman living together for ten years but haven't quite bothered to do the whole marriage thing wouldn't be recognized by the state.

That's exactly right, but most states don't recognise unmarried couples at all in the first place, no matter how long they've been living together. This is in contrast to other culturally similar English speaking countries like the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand where unmarried couples (straight or gay) are granted all or most of the same rights and responsibilities of married couples if they've been living together for a certain amount of time. North Carolina is one of those states that doesn't recognise unmarried cohabiting partners for benefits, so while Amendment 1 will prevent legislation allowing for the recognition of unmarried couples to take place, it won't remove any recognition for anyone that isn't already there, and straight couples will still at least have the option to marry.

Some speculate that Amendment 1 might interfere with domestic violence laws, by saying that the only type of relationship to be recognised by law is a marriage between a man and a woman, the constitution might end up forbidding the recognition of such a thing as domestic violence within unmarried households. However, I think that in Ohio, which has a similar constitutional amendment, the courts ruled that their amendment doesn't interfere in domestic violence laws, so the NC one probably won't either. The problem with the proposition is how vaguely it's written, so no one would know for sure whether it does or doesn't until a judge interprets it for the first time.

Common-law marriage is weird in the US. The amusing bit is that Utah, of all states, recognizes common-law and California recognizes marriages from other states, regardless of how the marriage contract came about.

An excerpt from the universal declaration of human rights (taken from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

So the united nations says there should be equal rights regarding religion. The resulting family is entitled to "protection by society and the State."

hardlymotivated:

Skeleon:

hardlymotivated:
"Not only is he an adventurer, but a gentleman too!"

Gentleman Adventurer 2012

You're not fooling anybody.
If he were to run for office, you'd still be hardly motivated enough to vote for him.
Voter apathy is a big problem, you know!

I would reply to your post, but I'm too apathetic...

Voting trends remain Stagnant.

:V

On topic: yeah, Seekster threw out another bigoted, stupid opinion, and now I can't really do much in this thread because we're ignoring each other. UNBLOCK ME YOU MEANY, I WANNA BE PART OF THIS FORUM AGAIN!

ReservoirAngel:
I'm so sick of this pointless shit. Bottom line is, either we're all drinking from the same water fountain or we're not.

I was about to make this exact comparison, but it seems you beat me to it. I'll just have to settle for seconding this.

Seekster:
Hmm...that would change my view on it...do you have a source that says this...a reliable (ie not from Huffington or some progressive blog).

Maybe you'll just pretend you didn't see this, but if you really believe that homosexual marriages should have equal benefits then this should piss you off.

Directly quoted from the bill:
http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v3.pdf

"Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

"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"

In short, this bill which you openly praised conflicts with your supposed belief that homosexuals deserve at least equal treatment legally. I don't expect you to turn on the Republicans now, so at least admit this is government-inflicted inequality that you heartily endorse and we'll respect you for honesty.

BiscuitTrouser:

Seekster:

If you want the government to stop meddling in your affairs than get the government out of marriage completely, who is the government to say what is and is not a marriage. However so long as you ask the government to be the ones issuing marriage licenses and providing benefits then the government has an interest in defining marriage in order to determine which benefits go to whom.

Ah the quote you posted wasnt dealing with gay marriage. It personally attacked and implied we should not allow the gay "lifestyle". As if the american public decide that if a lifestyle is wrong it shouldnt be allowed. Thats biggotted. I have lost all respect i had for this president from this quote. One where he decided that there are lifestyles we "cannot allow". Tell me seekster what if 51% of americans dont want people to live "fat" lifestyles. Or lifestyles where they only work weekends. What do we do then. Ban them? Ban people for living how they want to live? Ban people from living with "ugly" people? Is THAT a lifestyle we can ban? Or decide isnt "allowed"?

It's even worse than you were making it sound, he was saying "so long as you ask the government to be the ones issuing marriage licenses and providing benefits then the government has an interest in defining marriage in order to determine which benefits go to whom", meaning he thinks we should delegate the way 300+ million are "allowed" to live their lives (and the benefits they accrue in the living thereof) to the whims of a few thousand.

And here I thought Republicans liked the idea of small government...

Vryyk:

BiscuitTrouser:

Seekster:

If you want the government to stop meddling in your affairs than get the government out of marriage completely, who is the government to say what is and is not a marriage. However so long as you ask the government to be the ones issuing marriage licenses and providing benefits then the government has an interest in defining marriage in order to determine which benefits go to whom.

Ah the quote you posted wasnt dealing with gay marriage. It personally attacked and implied we should not allow the gay "lifestyle". As if the american public decide that if a lifestyle is wrong it shouldnt be allowed. Thats biggotted. I have lost all respect i had for this president from this quote. One where he decided that there are lifestyles we "cannot allow". Tell me seekster what if 51% of americans dont want people to live "fat" lifestyles. Or lifestyles where they only work weekends. What do we do then. Ban them? Ban people for living how they want to live? Ban people from living with "ugly" people? Is THAT a lifestyle we can ban? Or decide isnt "allowed"?

It's even worse than you were making it sound, he was saying "so long as you ask the government to be the ones issuing marriage licenses and providing benefits then the government has an interest in defining marriage in order to determine which benefits go to whom", meaning he thinks we should delegate the way 300+ million are "allowed" to live their lives (and the benefits they accrue in the living thereof) to the whims of a few thousand.

And here I thought Republicans liked the idea of small government...

THANK YOU! I'm glad to know i'm not the only one who notices the curious Republican hypocrisies. Of course Obama's hypocrisies aren't much better. I'd call him a DINO (Democrat in name only) but frankly it feels like the whole fucking party lost it's spine somewhere in the 70s.

Anyway, i think if two people think they love each other they should be allowed to marry. I feel they should take their time and get to know their partner before entering into it mind, but in my opinion gay or lesbian or straight, if you've got someone you trust enough to marry you should be allowed to marry the poor sap. It's almost always religious people who demand it be man and woman only, and frankly they can shut their fucking mouths. With the legal benefits and ramifications that come with marriage religion shouldn't be involved in it beyond the ceremony. I'd say do away with marriage altogether and give civil unions the same rights as married couples, making marriage nothing more than an optional ceremony, but that's just one bastard's opinion.

Rkiver:
Who are they hurting, if it is two consenting adults, does it matter if they are both men or both women? Why if they love each other cannot they have the same legal rights and recognition?

It doesn't matter if the various religions recognise it. It's none of their bloody business. Remove religion from the marriage legalities. Have it so it's all civil unions and if you want religion involved you go do it yourself after you have gotten the legal contract.

It hurts the egos of religious people that's who. Apparently it also takes away their religious freedom...somehow..

Ah yes, because 'DA EEBIL COMMINIST LIBRUL ATHEEST HOMUSEKSHULS ARE TRYIN'A ROON AMURKA AND MAKE EVERY'UN GAY WI' DER EEBIL HOMUSEKSHUL AJENDUH!'

Seekster:
You are asking an odd question. Its not a marriage because its not a marriage. My computer is not a typewriter because it is not a typewriter. I am not sure how else to answer this.

Again, until all those laws I listed were changed, the definition of those things was different. "Black people are't citizens, they're property! They are by their very nature inadequate to us." "Women can't vote, they're women! They are, by definition, unsuited to vote." Then the laws and the opinions of society slowly changed, to the point where now several generations later it's common sense to us. Our definitions have changed.

I know the LGBT community likes to pretend that it is the latest in a long line of groups struggling against oppression but its rather insulting to African-Americans for example for the gay rights movement to compare itself to the civil rights movement. Yes homosexuals have faced injustices, yes there is still discrimination, yes progress should be made, but the degree to which the LGBT community faces discrimination cannot even begin to be compared to that of the African-American community during the 60s and 70s. As for myself I support equal rights for homosexuals. That does not included legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

Why don't same-sex unions deserve the same recognition? Is it that you don't believe they can love each other as fully and completely and with the same intentions as a straight couple? I don't get why you are making the distinction in the first place. You say they are different, but why? What, apart from the genders involved, makes them different and unworthy to call themselves a married couple? Or is the gender thing all there is to it? And if so, why isn't it worth re-evaluating our definition of the word?

Lilani:

Seekster:
You are asking an odd question. Its not a marriage because its not a marriage. My computer is not a typewriter because it is not a typewriter. I am not sure how else to answer this.

Again, until all those laws I listed were changed, the definition of those things was different. "Black people are't citizens, they're property! They are by their very nature inadequate to us." "Women can't vote, they're women! They are, by definition, unsuited to vote." Then the laws and the opinions of society slowly changed, to the point where now several generations later it's common sense to us. Our definitions have changed.

I know the LGBT community likes to pretend that it is the latest in a long line of groups struggling against oppression but its rather insulting to African-Americans for example for the gay rights movement to compare itself to the civil rights movement. Yes homosexuals have faced injustices, yes there is still discrimination, yes progress should be made, but the degree to which the LGBT community faces discrimination cannot even begin to be compared to that of the African-American community during the 60s and 70s. As for myself I support equal rights for homosexuals. That does not included legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

Why don't same-sex unions deserve the same recognition? Is it that you don't believe they can love each other as fully and completely and with the same intentions as a straight couple? I don't get why you are making the distinction in the first place. You say they are different, but why? What, apart from the genders involved, makes them different and unworthy to call themselves a married couple? Or is the gender thing all there is to it? And if so, why isn't it worth re-evaluating our definition of the word?

I've warned him and others that when we are old people, this will be the case. Younger generations will be asking "Why was that a big deal?". People against gay marriage and homosexuality in general will be like that nice grandparent who happens to be racist and occasionally makes things uncomfortable.

Vryyk:

ReservoirAngel:
I'm so sick of this pointless shit. Bottom line is, either we're all drinking from the same water fountain or we're not.

I was about to make this exact comparison, but it seems you beat me to it. I'll just have to settle for seconding this.

I don't get hung up too strongly on the 'separate but equal issue' mostly in part because as is in a lot of American states the LGBTQ community isn't even allowed to drink water to use an analogy.

The issue to me is for equal rights and if that means separate water fountains are attainable with more expedience I'll take the offer. It doesn't mean I won't still be in favor of making things equal in all respects, but getting hung up over the issue has always seemed counterproductive to me.

Bohemian Waltz:
The issue to me is for equal rights and if that means separate water fountains are attainable with more expedience I'll take the offer. It doesn't mean I won't still be in favor of making things equal in all respects, but getting hung up over the issue has always seemed counterproductive to me.

Yeah, it's an argument of approach I've heard a few times. Some supporters fear, though, that accepting separate but equal for gay rights may make it more difficult to make the switch to actual equality, since the religious right would have a rather easier time of arguing "they already have all those same rights, what do they want now?!" or something along those lines. I honestly don't know where I stand on the issue, although I can say that separate but equal does leave a bad aftertaste, especially considering that politicians could attack or change the separate institution and the associated rights more easily if it is a separate one from legal marriage. It's not like there wouldn't be people trying to take the progress made at that point back.

Xan Krieger:
It passed
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/amendment-one-decision-day-has-arrived/nNygw/

Thoughts?

Son of a fucking godsdamn bitch. Okay, everyone. Get your guns. We're going to North Carolina.

Xan Krieger:
It passed
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/amendment-one-decision-day-has-arrived/nNygw/

Thoughts?

Those who supported the amendment would do well to find the nearest razor and shove it up their urethrae. What a bunch of unpardonably stupid cunts.

So it passed.

This was most certainly not a triumph. It's hard to overstate my dissastisfaction.

Gay marriage was already banned in NC, this makes it extremely difficult to repeal that ban. What a bunch of fucking bigots, these North Carolinans be.

evilneko:
So it passed.

This was most certainly not a triumph. It's hard to overstate my dissastisfaction.

Gay marriage was already banned in NC, this makes it extremely difficult to repeal that ban. What a bunch of fucking bigots, these North Carolinans be.

Hey don't generalize, I voted against it and I've lived in this state for 12 years.

Hey everyone, welcome to North Carolina!

Wait... why do all of you have guns and pitchforks?

Don't hurt me! There's nothing I could have done! D:

Stagnant:

On topic: yeah, Seekster threw out another bigoted, stupid opinion, and now I can't really do much in this thread because we're ignoring each other. UNBLOCK ME YOU MEANY, I WANNA BE PART OF THIS FORUM AGAIN!

Those of us on Seekster's block list can have a party. A ... block party?

In all seriousness, this bill is a fucking travesty. Shame on you, North Carolina.

Xan Krieger:

evilneko:
So it passed.

This was most certainly not a triumph. It's hard to overstate my dissastisfaction.

Gay marriage was already banned in NC, this makes it extremely difficult to repeal that ban. What a bunch of fucking bigots, these North Carolinans be.

Hey don't generalize, I voted against it and I've lived in this state for 12 years.

Okay okay, only the majority of North Carolinans are bigots who hate freedom. 40ish percent are freedom-loving patriots.

I'm not exactly surprised. Still disappointed that i live in a state that's half ignorant bigots though.
Edit: Here's the results in full if anyone is interested.

Up next: A family is four. I mean, if we're going to start mandating about what a family is and isn't, why not put a cap on that shit? Get some of those pesky Messicans with eight kids off welfare. This should also help us control job growth better so there are enough jobs to go around.

Why not? Oh right, because the government telling people what makes up a family is super creepy.

Xan Krieger:

evilneko:
So it passed.

This was most certainly not a triumph. It's hard to overstate my dissastisfaction.

Gay marriage was already banned in NC, this makes it extremely difficult to repeal that ban. What a bunch of fucking bigots, these North Carolinans be.

Hey don't generalize, I voted against it and I've lived in this state for 12 years.

That is suprising, I wouldn't have predicted you voted that way, although your reasoning does make sense.

We can only hope that this amendment gets destroyed by the courts.

Dags90:
Up next: A family is four. I mean, if we're going to start mandating about what a family is and isn't, why not put a cap on that shit? Get some of those pesky Messicans with eight kids off welfare. This should also help us control job growth better so there are enough jobs to go around.

Why not? Oh right, because the government telling people what makes up a family is super creepy.

i think north Carolinians probably have more kids in their family then your stereotyped mexican/mormon family. but thats probably my own stereotyped view on things.

while a very stupid and wrong amendment to make, is it surprising to me? no. not because i think NC is full of ignorant hicks, but they aren't the first state to ban or propose a ban on same sex marriages. i think we have a much larger problem here that needs to be discussed more (hopefully calmly) and in depth.

TheDarkEricDraven:
Okay, everyone. Get your guns. We're going to North Carolina.

Yeeeehaw! Road trip!

OT: Not surprised by this. IIRC, most states that have introduced this sort of bill passed it. And of course, the courts will get involved. And thus enters a few years of litigation limbo.

Kudos to North Carolina. And here come the predictable cliche honkings about how anyone who voted for this is a bigot, because of course its not enough to have a different point of view, your a bigot if you disagree with the left on this issue.

Seekster:
Kudos to North Carolina. And here come the predictable cliche honkings about how anyone who voted for this is a bigot, because of course its not enough to have a different point of view, your a bigot if you disagree with the left on this issue.

well lets look a the definition of a bigot.

bigot:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

seems fair to me for them to call some one a bigot. sure they may not hate gays. but they are intolerant of their lifestyle. so intolerant they remove a right that they did not even have yet. the anger from the users on this forum is perfectly fine. i respect your right to hold your views though and wish no man to take them away.

Seekster:
Kudos to North Carolina. And here come the predictable cliche honkings about how anyone who voted for this is a bigot, because of course its not enough to have a different point of view, your a bigot if you disagree with the left on this issue.

How about a horrible person willing to deny other people the same rights and freedoms you enjoy just because of their sexual orientation?

Seekster:
Kudos to North Carolina. And here come the predictable cliche honkings about how anyone who voted for this is a bigot, because of course its not enough to have a different point of view, your a bigot if you disagree with the left on this issue.

"Disagreeing with the left" means voting to deprive others of rights. Yes, that's being a bigot.

Why am I not surprised that you are thrilled with this utterly shameful result?

keiskay:

Seekster:
Kudos to North Carolina. And here come the predictable cliche honkings about how anyone who voted for this is a bigot, because of course its not enough to have a different point of view, your a bigot if you disagree with the left on this issue.

well lets look a the definition of a bigot.

bigot:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

seems fair to me for them to call some one a bigot. sure they may not hate gays. but they are intolerant of their lifestyle. so intolerant they remove a right that they did not even have yet. the anger from the users on this forum is perfectly fine. i respect your right to hold your views though and wish no man to take them away.

Well you beat me too it but hopefully someone will end up overturning this.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Son of a fucking godsdamn bitch. Okay, everyone. Get your guns. We're going to North Carolina.

When and where should we all meet?

keiskay:

Seekster:
Kudos to North Carolina. And here come the predictable cliche honkings about how anyone who voted for this is a bigot, because of course its not enough to have a different point of view, your a bigot if you disagree with the left on this issue.

well lets look a the definition of a bigot.

bigot:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

seems fair to me for them to call some one a bigot. sure they may not hate gays. but they are intolerant of their lifestyle. so intolerant they remove a right that they did not even have yet. the anger from the users on this forum is perfectly fine. i respect your right to hold your views though and wish no man to take them away.

The only bigots I see are the ones on this forum who are intolerant of any point of view that differs from their own. Im serious, I mean look at all this hostility. North Carolina has every right to do this and to assume that even the majority of the majority who voted for this amendment are bigots is itself a form of bigotry or prejudice.

Technically they didn't remove a right, they just made extra sure that a right would not be extended. Same-sex couples in North Carolina have never had the right have their union recognized as a marriage and tonight's result mean that could only be changed by a federal court and since federal precedent in these situations is that the US Constitution does not require that same-sex unions be legally recognized as marriage, the only way that is ever going to happen is if the Supreme Court changes its mind or if the people who want to expand the legal definition of marriage can change enough hearts and minds to overturn this. If they can do that I will respect that decision just as I respect North Carolina's decision tonight.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
Kudos to North Carolina. And here come the predictable cliche honkings about how anyone who voted for this is a bigot, because of course its not enough to have a different point of view, your a bigot if you disagree with the left on this issue.

"Disagreeing with the left" means voting to deprive others of rights. Yes, that's being a bigot.

Why am I not surprised that you are thrilled with this utterly shameful result?

I'm not surprised either. Why? Well probably because he's just a *redacted to avoid mod wrath* wonderful and kind person.

A while back, Washington approved same-sex marriage.

This video should've been played outside the polling places.

Seekster:
Kudos to North Carolina. And here come the predictable cliche honkings about how anyone who voted for this is a bigot, because of course its not enough to have a different point of view, your a bigot if you disagree with the left on this issue.

And here come the predictable clichéd honking about how you're totally not a bigot despite supporting bigoted legislature which outlawed civil unions for same-sex couples. That's not even "separate but equal"; that's blatant discrimination.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked