Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Agiel7

Then again, if I were gay in a state south of the Mason Dixon Line, my priorities would lie in getting the hell out of Dodge (preferably to Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, or Castro Street in San Francisco) over getting hitched.

Why limit it only to gay people? I think this is good advice (at least the first part) for everyone.

[Subnuts]

Okay, North Carolina, how about some constitutional bans on:

• Wearing pants halfway down to the knee.
• Smelling like an ashtray.
• Taking up two seats on the bus.
• Repeatedly slapping the "no touch sensor" when the paper towels don't come out the first time.
• Parking in handicapped spaces without a tag.
• Advertising items in fair condition as "very good."
• Driving through crosswalks while someone is crossing the street and the walk signal is on.
• Gangster rap, any song with auto-tuned vocals, and all contemporary country music.
• Leaving stereos on after 9:30 PM.
• Cell phone domestic disputes in public places.

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

"Separate but equal" is by its very nature unequal.

Cliche's tend to oversimplify so you really shouldn't rely on them in an argument. Your name is different than mine. Does that make us unequal? No. We name things to categorize and identify them, not to make them unequal.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Why limit it only to gay people? I think this is good advice (at least the first part) for everyone.

Please stay home. It's tough enough getting jobs for our own people without having to share them with a bunch of social refugees.

[yubba]

From what I read I'm assumming it was a public vote, 60% to 40%, and some are forgetting, the people spoke, they did the same in 38 other states, they did in California but a judge turned it, it's We the People, and I don't think we need to subsidize what goes on in every bedroom in America, tell me how it would be paid for, the insurance rates would skyrocket things are bad enough as it is, this is a non-issue, how is gay marriage going to make jobs, how is this going to bring down the price of fuel, how is this going to save our country, the issue is that same sex couples want the same benifits afforded to married couples and it can't be paid for.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by yubba

From what I read I'm assumming it was a public vote, 60% to 40%, and some are forgetting, the people spoke, they did the same in 38 other states, they did in California but a judge turned it, it's We the People, and I don't think we need to subsidize what goes on in every bedroom in America, tell me how it would be paid for, the insurance rates would skyrocket things are bad enough as it is, this is a non-issue, how is gay marriage going to make jobs, how is this going to bring down the price of fuel, how is this going to save our country.

The people spoke? The turnout in North Carolina was 34% of registered voters. And you can bet that every baptist church was pushing for their members to get out and vote and bussing them to the polls. That means that 66% of the population didn't really care one way or another if gays are allowed to marry. So if 61% of that 34% of registered voters voted "yes" that means that only 21% of registered voters in the state cared enough to go vote against gay marriage. That's far from an overwhelming mandate.

And insurance rates? Please. What about the economic benefit to the tourism, hospitality, floral, photography, and event planning industries? It's convenient to ignore those numbers, isn't it?

[gimpy117]

oh great...the people spoke....well honestly I think it's more a matter of the wording of the bill.

you can put it 2 ways:

-"marriage between a man and a woman"

or:

-"lets deny gay people their rights based on religious beliefs and bigotry"

which wording was used?

lets face it, If it was called what it really is, rather than some sugar coated idea, I would bet the numbers would be closer. What a travesty. I guess the Law is blind like on the statue...UNLESS you are gay. Maybe we should add a plaque below every statue of blind justice that has a disclaimer that says:

"this statue is representative of the legal system in the united states, unless you are gay. otherwise ignore the symbolism of the aforementioned item".

[yubba]

It's been man and women for thousands of years and all of a sudden it's got to be afforded to everybody right now, gee what would the muslim brotherhood think, Iran not to long ago just hanged 2 gays. Like I said why should we subsidize what goes on in every bedroom in America. That's right the people spoke, get use to it. Denied what rights ????? to work, drive a car, vote, speech, religion, own property, what are they entitled to, that's what it is, entitlements, that's what this is all about. If you are, that upset, then you should have gotten out and voted.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So if 61% of that 34% of registered voters voted "yes" that means that only 21% of registered voters in the state cared enough to go vote against gay marriage. That's far from an overwhelming mandate.

79% of the voters didn't care enough to go vote for gay marriage either, and you can bet that every pro-gay organization in the state was pushing just as hard as the Baptists. I guess maybe their cause is not as popular as some would try to make us believe.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by August

you can bet that every pro-gay organization in the state was pushing just as hard as the Baptists. I guess maybe their cause is not as popular as some would try to make us believe.

Bingo!
They only had Bill Clinton making robo calls (and lying his arse off about what the amendment was). And Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for the anti-amendment coalition admitted that:

Amendment One opponents were better funded than (their) Amendment One rivals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...pfBU_blog.html

The anti-amendment camp had a nearly $1 Million funding advantage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...a5AU_blog.html

A lot of the money came from outside the state - but 70% of the FOR money came from INSIDE the state in amounts UNDER $100 - showing a real grass roots pro-amendment push.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,2168119.story

Its funny, if your not calling the voters bigotted hayseed hicks, your trying to excuse the loss. Get a clue - the PEOPLE don't want gay marriage - from coast to coast (Cali to NC) its proven. Thankfully - we are still a government BY THE PEOPLE - which the left can't stand.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Get a clue - the PEOPLE don't want gay marriage - from coast to coast (Cali to NC) its proven. Thankfully - we are still a government BY THE PEOPLE - which the left can't stand.

If the PEOPLE (meaning everyone) didn't want gay marriage then more than 21% of them would have gotten off their duffs to express that view. I'm sorry, but I can't see how the takeaway is that THE PEOPLE everywhere overwhelmingly don't want gay marriage. The takeaway is that most people don't give a happy monkey screw who's marrying who. You're going to seriously just wave off the fact that the turnout was that low? Just completely ignore the significance of that? I think the apathetic non-voters probably count more towards the "I don't care, go ahead and let them" camp instead of the "let's get our hate on against the gays" group.

And when 21% of the registered voters can take away the rights of an entire group of people who live in the state.... If that's government BY THE PEOPLE, then that's a crappy government.

And yes, they're still bigots.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Thankfully - we are still a government BY THE PEOPLE - which the left can't stand.

Actually, we can't stand people imposing their religious based views on everyone else through the lawmaking process. If you want to pray to God, Buddha, Allah, the invisible sky wizard or whatever, go ahead. But keep it to yourself and out of my legal system.

Oh, and if you guys want to keep splitting hairs and arguing over one poll at a certain point in time, you may be interested in seeing a whole lot of polls over a long time....Gallup, Pew, Quinnipiac, Fox, CNN, ABC, AP, USA Today:



Like I said - inexorable march of progress. It's only a matter of time that this debate becomes as antiquated as the one about interracial marriage.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If the PEOPLE (meaning everyone) didn't want gay marriage then more than 21% of them would have gotten off their duffs to express that view.

Using that logic, only 13% of the total electorate in NC cared enough to vote "for" gay marriage.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how the takeaway is that THE PEOPLE everywhere overwhelmingly don't want gay marriage.

Really? You call 13% "overwhelming", do ya?

The takeaway is that most people don't give a happy monkey screw who's marrying who. You're going to seriously just wave off the fact that the turnout was that low? Just completely ignore the significance of that?

Low turnout? For a primary that is a very LARGE turnout. Its the second highest in over 25 years. Primaries are always lower in turnout compared to general elections - and it was the Democrats who pushed for the matter to be on the primary ballot instead of the general - because they didn't want it to be a "wedge" issue the right could use against Obama - they knew it was going to pass either way. Boy do they have egg on their face now.

I think the apathetic non-voters probably count more towards the "I don't care, go ahead and let them" camp instead of the "let's get our hate on against the gays" group.

And here we once again have the intentional mischaracterization of anyone opposed to gay marriage. You can't accept that anyone could have a different view without being a hate-filled bigot....

Funny - isn't that refusal the definition of a bigot?

Also, you can "think" all you want - but your thoughts have no force of fact. As has been pointed out - polls can say whatever they want, but when it comes to counting the will of the people - voters consistently refute a redefining of marriage. Polls said Carter would beat Reagan - its time to stop living in lala land and deal with the reality of the wishes of hte people.

And when 21% of the registered voters can take away the rights of an entire group of people who live in the state.

No rights were taken away - there was already a law against same sex marriage on the books. Same sex couples had already tried to get licenses to marry and been turned down. Your again trying to single out those who you differ with and blame them for something you don't like - when this changed nothing legally.

And yes, they're still bigots.

Just can't stop calling people names can you? When you can't win an arguement on facts, insult the people who don't agree. Call them names, villify them. In doing that - you make yourself at least as bigotted as they are..

Oh - and just out of curiosity - the homosexuals who voted for the amendment (and thus against gay marriage) - are they bigots too?

Actually, we can't stand people imposing their religious based views on everyone else through the lawmaking process. If you want to pray to God, Buddha, Allah, the invisible sky wizard or whatever, go ahead. But keep it to yourself and out of my legal system.

Who is this "we" you speak of? If you want all religion out of "your" legal system, you better start building a new legal system entirely - because the existing one is founded on religious ideals.

And you might have a hard time finding or inventing one without some religious foundation. Unless of course your ok with murder and thievery being legal. Because as soon as you say murder and theft are crimes - you just got "religious".

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal.

Good luck with whatever "your" legal system turns out to be in that case. I am sure I will like "ours" better!

Because as soon as you say murder and theft are crimes - you just got "religious".

As soon as you say slavery is OK you just got religious.

But hey since you make the mistake of trying to tout scripture lets see again how "good" your knowledge scripture is for a laugh.
Some really basic theology.
Did St. Paul say your claim is bollox?
Which book of your bible did he say it in?
What is that concept that he describes called?
What is the other concept called which you think is the only one?
Fow many millenia have religious leaders and scholars tried to get over the inherent problem with the concept you are trying hold as true?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And here we once again have the intentional mischaracterization of anyone opposed to gay marriage. You can't accept that anyone could have a different view without being a hate-filled bigot....

There was no rational or moral justification for making inter-racial marriages a crime in the Deep South except being a hate-filled bigot.

Why is this debate any different?

No rights were taken away - there was already a law against same sex marriage on the books. Same sex couples had already tried to get licenses to marry
and been turned down. Your again trying to single out those who you differ with
and blame them for something you don't like - when this changed nothing legally.

well if nothing changed, why was there a need for a constitutional amendment?

[August]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

well if nothing changed, why was there a need for a constitutional amendment?

Maybe because outside interests like the national democratic party political machine were dumping millions of dollars into an effort to subvert the peoples wishes?