Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[steve_the_slim]

[REDACTED] you [REDACTED] stupid bigoted [DATA EXPUNGED]

NC approves amendment on gay marriage
By MARTHA WAGGONER, Associated Press – 34 minutes ago
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, becoming the latest state to effectively slam the door shut on same-sex marriages.
With most of the precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 61 percent of the vote to 39 percent against. North Carolina is the 30th state to adopt such a ban on gay marriage.
Tami Fitzgerald, who heads the pro-amendment group Vote FOR Marriage NC, said she believes the initiative awoke a silent majority of more active voters in the future.
"I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that marriage is between one man and one woman," Fitzgerald said at a celebration Tuesday night. "The whole point is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults."
In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to oppose the amendment.
Supporters of the amendment responded with marches, television ads and speeches. The Rev. Billy Graham was featured in full-page newspaper ads backing the amendment.
North Carolina law already bans gay marriage, but an amendment effectively seals the door on same-sex marriages.
The amendment also goes beyond state law by voiding other types of domestic unions from carrying legal status, which opponents warn could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples.
The campaign manager for the group that opposed the amendment said the nation watched North Carolina on Tuesday night, wondering how the anti-forces came through.
"I am happy to say that we are stronger for it; we are better for it; our voices are louder now," said Jeremy Kennedy of Protect All NC Families. "We have courage like we never had before, and we have strength to continue on."
Supporters had run their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham, who at 93 remains influential even though his last crusade was in 2005, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.
Both sides spent a combined $3 million on their campaigns.
Six states — all in the Northeast except Iowa — and the District of Columbia allow same sex marriages. In addition, two other states have laws that are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums
The North Carolina amendment was placed on the ballot after Republicans took over control of the state Legislature after the 2010 elections, a role the GOP hadn't enjoyed for 140 years.
Joe Easterling, who described himself as a devout Christian, voted for the amendment at a polling place in Wake Forest.
"I know that some people may argue that the Bible may not necessarily be applicable, or it should not be applicable, on such policy matters. But even looking at nature itself, procreation is impossible without a man and a woman. And because of those things, I think it is important that the state of North Carolina's laws are compatible with the laws of nature but, more importantly, with the laws of God."
Linda Toanone, who voted against the amendment, said people are born gay and it is not their choice.
"We think everybody should have the same rights as everyone else. If you're gay, lesbian, straight — whatever," she said.
North Carolina is the latest presidential swing state to weigh in on gay marriage. Florida, Virginia and Ohio all have constitutional amendments against gay marriage, and Obama's election-year vagueness on gay marriage has come under fresh scrutiny.
Obama, who supports most gay rights, has stopped short of backing gay marriage. Without clarification, he's said for the past year and a half that his personal views on the matter are "evolving."
Education Secretary Arne Duncan broke ranks with the White House on Monday, stating his unequivocal support for same-sex marriage one day after Vice President Joe Biden said he is "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex married couples getting the same rights at heterosexual married couples.
One fault line that could determine the result is generational. Older voters, who tend to be more reliable voters, were expected to back the amendment.
State House Speaker Thom Tillis, a Republican from a Charlotte suburb, said earlier in the day that even if the amendment passed, it would be reversed as today's young adults age — within 20 years. "It's a generational issue," Tillis told a student group at North Carolina State University in March about the amendment he supports.
"Also, that amendment is against women, I believe, because also underneath the amendment, other laws are saying that people who aren't married at all, they can't file for domestic abuse cases, if they're living with their significant other. Which is wrong," Toanone said.
In North Carolina, more than 500,000 voters had cast their ballot before Tuesday, which was more than the 2008 primary when Obama and Hillary Clinton were fighting for the Democratic presidential nomination. Both sides said that bodes well for them.
___
Associated Press writers Allen Reed, Allen G. Breed, Emery P. Dalesio and Gary D. Robertson contributed to this report.
Martha Waggoner can be reached at http://twitter.com/mjwaggonernc
Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



Source:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...3d26ef8e32c0d4

[Reece]

North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, becoming the latest state to effectively slam the door shut on same-sex marriages.

Excellent!

[gimpy117]

hooray for unconstitutional constitutional amendments based solely on religious or personal moral beliefs, rather than objectivity and understanding

Either let them marry or ban all marriage I say.

Makes utterly no sense to ban Gay Marriage, absolutely none.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Either let them marry or ban all marriage I say.

Makes utterly no sense to ban Gay Marriage, absolutely none.

I say ban all marriage, If I had to sit down on an another lecture of how fun the wedding and honeymoon was, there will soon be an increase in widows

[soopaman2]

As the joke says.

Why can't they be as miserable as us?

Oh I know, bible beaters wish to push all their fables on everyone else.

Aesop wrote a cool book about animals, doing wacky things. Silly fairy tales, are only fables.

I believe in the flying spaghetti monster myself. And he don't care if you marry a rock.


http://www.venganza.org/

We don't crusade, nor do we persecute people for thier beliefs. Unless your a scientologist, then your not only silly, but full of crap.
(jk)
Aliens, really? Lulz.

(even then we only laugh, not hate)

[CaptainHaplo]

Gimpy - nothing unconstitutional about it. Each State has the right to define what meets the definition. 28 states before NC had a similiar statement in their constitutions. If it was unconstitutional, you can be assured that the LGBT folks would have had every one of those states before the Supreme Court trying to force a change.

The reality is that, while you and steve_the_slim may not like it, the majority of the country is against redefining marriage. I personally don't care for the amendment - I feel it had some flaws. Still, it passed and did so by a rather large margin.

Whine and complain - it doesn't change the fact that most people were more than informed on this issue. Some supporters chose this simply out of morals, yes. But others did so out of a fiscal sense - Asheville for example decided to provide same sex benefits to its employees - at a LARGE extra cost to the taxpayers. Some don't want to have to fight the battle of "Well if its just about people who love each other - how is it FAIR to say only 2 people can be in love? Why can't polygamy be allowed then?"

There are all kinds of reasons why this was passed. Making generalizations and insulting folks as you and steve_the_slim have done (respectively - you made no insults) - does nothing to further a discussion on the topic. It sounds more like someone who didn't get their way crying over it. I'd like to think that isn't accurate.

@Rilder - personally I would like to see government out of marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between whomever and howmanyever - but let marriage stay a religious institution with no state or federal concern. Unfortunately - both the state and federal gov't have a monetary interest in marriage - so that won't happen.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

@Rilder - personally I would like to see government out of marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between whomever and howmanyever - but let marriage stay a religious institution with no state or federal concern. Unfortunately - both the state and federal gov't have a monetary interest in marriage - so that won't happen.

see, personally this is why I think it's AT LEAST immoral got the government to do this, If not unconstitutional. It's IMO a HUGE overstepping of the Governments grounds. And to deny people civil unions solely based on their sexual orientation? In all other terms this is discrimination. Personally There needs to be a total de-Institutionalization of the secular thing called "marriage", because it's a religious thing. That way, when church groups deny gays and people they don't like marriage the government isn't part of it...and allow civil unions or whatever you like for all people. Essentially, make it where when ANYBODY signs the papers they are "in a union" to the eyes of the government...and then you can do whatever you like with any church or Spaghetti monster after.

[Wolfpack345]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Either let them marry or ban all marriage I say.

Makes utterly no sense to ban Gay Marriage, absolutely none.

I agree why should it realy matter any way....people

[Digger Heinz]

This is a slippery slope... no matter what viewpoints are expressed SOMEONE is going to get upset... so I'll toss my ring into the hat here...

Gay Marriage...

From a legal standpoint... I see no reason why a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, should be denied the benefits of a permanent union... for instance, insurance rates are lowered when the people are "married". That's just one example... there are many others... But you see my point, yes?

Fair skies,

Digger