North Carolina Bans Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions

[Hallistar]

World peace and harmony? Funny how you allow your 'beliefs' to enable you supporting the denial of other human beings' freedoms.

How is America going to fall into ruin again? Is it because of those evil liberals that want to make the world a better place?

I see what you mean. I should no longer forbid robbing stores and killing other people because it goes against the Ten Commandments.

They probably think they are doing good. However, the West has gone into a noticeably decline since it enacted more liberal legislation in the twentieth century. I do not think this is a coincidence.

You don't need your ten commandments to still be against murder and theft. Since it is in the best interests of the constituent members of a society to not be murdered or stolen from, that is why it is outlawed.

How has the west gone into noticeable decline? By not constraining blacks to the lower role and by not having women solely as the housemaids/homemakers and giving them more freedom?

[Northern Dominus]

It remains to be seen how that will play out in the courts.

I think realistically, the amendment will be construed narrowly in NC courts, in which case the only thing it really changes is that it becomes harder to change NC law to provide recognition for civil unions or gay marriage, and it "proofs" the [already existing, folks, just like in most of the country] laws barring gay marriage from challenges based on the state constitution.

For those of you engaged in hyperbole, I'd like to remind you that this makes North Carolina the 30-somethingth state to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and that this is the status quo in most of the country. The fact that North Carolina has passed this amendment is disappointing, but nothing special; and as I pointed out, it happens to have done so largely on the strength of ignorance of the fact that the amendment bans civil unions from being recognized, combined with the narrower pool of voters participating in the primary [vs general] election.

So cool your jets. North Carolina is not behaving particularly different from the rest of the country.

Gay marriage is illegal in over 40 states - including California, where I currently live. Proposition 8 may have been overturned, but any actual change on the ground is waiting for an en banc review of the 9th circuit case, followed [likely] by subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

Yeah, but see, the other states all did it sheepishly, like they didn't really mean it. Like a junior varsity kid might use the word "faggot" in front of his Dad a few minutes after his Dad uses it.

But North Carolina, they were all Southern and blatant about it, driving in circles around the capital building, shouting "No'mo Homo!" and "John Waters is a sub-par film maker surviving on the adulation of a loyal band of other jizz monkeys!"

So, screw them.

Exactly. This wasn't a semi-quiet pandering to the extreme right, this was blatant and obvious. The really irritating part was not only did the majority of the state vote in favor, but the opposition was nary to be seen nor heard.

If the state legislature in Illinois tried that sort of ban, I guarantee you that there would be daily rallies in at least Sprinfield, Chicago, and Champaign-Urbana. And if it passed, well the damage and the fallout would be catastrophic to say the least.

So no, the dumb hicks passed it, they get to live with the consequences and the rest of the nations disdain and disgust.

[Tahar Joblis]

Yeah, but see, the other states all did it sheepishly, like they didn't really mean it. Like a junior varsity kid might use the word "faggot" in front of his Dad a few minutes after his Dad uses it.

But North Carolina, they were all Southern and blatant about it, driving in circles around the capital building, shouting "No'mo Homo!" and "John Waters is a sub-par film maker surviving on the adulation of a loyal band of other jizz monkeys!"

So, screw them.

Actually, most of those states did so in the general election. North Carolina did it during a primary election - the equivalent of the dead of night - and it passed only because most of the people voting for it had no idea it banned civil unions.

Lots of folks in NC are very upset that it passed, and will be working to get it thrown out.

[Hammurab]

I see what you mean. I should no longer forbid robbing stores and killing other people because it goes against the Ten Commandments.

They probably think they are doing good. However, the West has gone into a noticeably decline since it enacted more liberal legislation in the twentieth century. I do not think this is a coincidence.

You don't need your ten commandments to still be against murder and theft. Since it is in the best interests of the constituent members of a society to not be murdered or stolen from, that is why it is outlawed.

How has the west gone into noticeable decline? By not constraining blacks to the lower role and by not having women solely as the housemaids/homemakers and giving them more freedom?

Yeah. I'm scared of anyone whose reason to not kill or rob is "the Ten Commandments".

If a person didn't instinctively arrive at any number of sound arguments against those things, across a spectrum of complexity, impetus, and philosophical mode, that preemptively occurred to them prior to "God Says Its Bad", then that person worries me.

[Northern Dominus]

Yeah, but see, the other states all did it sheepishly, like they didn't really mean it. Like a junior varsity kid might use the word "faggot" in front of his Dad a few minutes after his Dad uses it.

But North Carolina, they were all Southern and blatant about it, driving in circles around the capital building, shouting "No'mo Homo!" and "John Waters is a sub-par film maker surviving on the adulation of a loyal band of other jizz monkeys!"

So, screw them.

Actually, most of those states did so in the general election. North Carolina did it during a primary election - the equivalent of the dead of night - and it passed only because most of the people voting for it had no idea it banned civil unions.

Lots of folks in NC are very upset that it passed, and will be working to get it thrown out.

Oh right, all those inbred rednecks from the sticks who believe what some bigoted asshole screaming from a pulpit while glancing at a holy book that voted in favor of the amendment are just APPALLED that it banned civil unions.

[Tahar Joblis]

The really irritating part was not only did the majority of the state vote in favor, but the opposition was nary to be seen nor heard.

This is where I call bullshit on you and shame on you for being ignorant.

The opposition was lively, and in fact out-fundraised the supporters of the amendment. It was just too late to get all the information out.

I haven't lived in NC since 2009, and I got a dozen phone calls telling me I needed to get to the polls to defeat Amendment One.

The opposition was - and still is - heated.

[Orcoa]

Thank you North Carolina, For showing us that you are nothing more but a bunch of dickless rednecks with shit for brains. I hope you burn in hell

[Northern Dominus]

The really irritating part was not only did the majority of the state vote in favor, but the opposition was nary to be seen nor heard.

This is where I call bullshit on you and shame on you for being ignorant.

The opposition was lively, and in fact out-fundraised the supporters of the amendment. It was just too late to get all the information out.

I haven't lived in NC since 2009, and I got a dozen phone calls telling me I needed to get to the polls to defeat Amendment One.

The opposition was - and still is - heated.

Where's the protests in the streets? Where are the angry mobs surrounding legilsators? Where is Tami Fitzgerald running from a hail of rotten fruit and bricks?

[Hammurab]

Yeah, but see, the other states all did it sheepishly, like they didn't really mean it. Like a junior varsity kid might use the word "faggot" in front of his Dad a few minutes after his Dad uses it.

But North Carolina, they were all Southern and blatant about it, driving in circles around the capital building, shouting "No'mo Homo!" and "John Waters is a sub-par film maker surviving on the adulation of a loyal band of other jizz monkeys!"

So, screw them.

Actually, most of those states did so in the general election. North Carolina did it during a primary election - the equivalent of the dead of night - and it passed only because most of the people voting for it had no idea it banned civil unions.

Lots of folks in NC are very upset that it passed, and will be working to get it thrown out.

(emphasis added)

Okay, that's compelling, I'd hanker to hear more about that.

[Astrolinium]

Thank you North Carolina, For showing us that you are nothing more but a bunch of dickless rednecks with shit for brains. I hope you burn in hell

Please don't generalize. It's not like it passed with an insurmountably overwhelming majority.

[Orcoa]

Thank you North Carolina, For showing us that you are nothing more but a bunch of dickless rednecks with shit for brains. I hope you burn in hell

Please don't generalize. It's not like it passed with an insurmountably overwhelming majority.

Does not matter, It passed anyway so yes I'm going to blame the state for it.

[Gallogach]

North Carolina banned gay marriages? Good for them, its their choice. The only reason this is an issue is because of legal unions between two people such as a man and a woman. If the legal system decides they dont want to recognize the legal contract between two men, so be it. It is not like they are criminalizing the act. So how is this discrimination?

[Orcoa]

North Carolina banned gay marriages? Good for them, its their choice. The only reason this is an issue is because of legal unions between two people such as a man and a woman. If the legal system decides they dont want to recognize the legal contract between two men, so be it. It is not like they are criminalizing the act. So how is this discrimination?

Wow...this post hurt my eyes

Really? Do I have to explain to you why this is such a bad move?

[Archliva]

North Carolina banned gay marriages? Good for them, its their choice. The only reason this is an issue is because of legal unions between two people such as a man and a woman. If the legal system decides they dont want to recognize the legal contract between two men, so be it. It is not like they are criminalizing the act. So how is this discrimination?

>implying discrimination can only happen after criminalization

lol

brutal

[Nova Nacio]

North Carolina banned gay marriages? Good for them, its their choice. The only reason this is an issue is because of legal unions between two people such as a man and a woman. If the legal system decides they dont want to recognize the legal contract between two men, so be it. It is not like they are criminalizing the act. So how is this discrimination?

Civil Unions are now illegal in NC. No more benefits for civil unions, period - also, this Amendment, made law, means NO MORE BENEFITS OR DOMESTIC ABUSE PROTECTIONS for ALL un-married couples and citizens, or their children (no more healthcare, protections from abuse, or education for them!).

Bottom line: Unless you're rich or a corporatist, no marriage for you and no protections for you if you're not married, because the gov't says so!!! In short, more poverty, more lost business and JOBS to people in need of them the most, and worst of all, more criminalization of innocent citizens who do nothing wrong - all to please the rich and corporates in our country who need to leave, or better yet, DIE, FOR SATANIC SHIT LIKE THIS!!!

[Tahar Joblis]

Actually, most of those states did so in the general election. North Carolina did it during a primary election - the equivalent of the dead of night - and it passed only because most of the people voting for it had no idea it banned civil unions.

Lots of folks in NC are very upset that it passed, and will be working to get it thrown out.

(emphasis added)

Okay, that's compelling, I'd hanker to hear more about that.

PPP poll.

Basically, PPP's poll showed a +14 margin in favor of the amendment. When asked:

Q5 If you knew that Amendment One banned both gay marriage and civil unions, would you vote 'yes' or 'no'?

People saying they would vote for it dropped from 55% to 38%, while people saying they would vote against it jumped from 39% to 46%. (People unsure jumped from 4% to 16%; probably more people would have left it blank on their ballots.) It's not certain that it would have passed with an electorate informed of what the amendment actually did; but it would have been a close margin either way according to the polls that tried to investigate that issue.

[Hammurab]

(emphasis added)

Okay, that's compelling, I'd hanker to hear more about that.

PPP poll.

Basically, PPP's poll showed a +14 margin in favor of the amendment. When asked:

Q5 If you knew that Amendment One banned both gay marriage and civil unions, would you vote 'yes' or 'no'?

People saying they would vote for it dropped from 55% to 38%, while people saying they would vote against it jumped from 39% to 46%. (People unsure jumped from 4% to 16%; probably more people would have left it blank on their ballots.) It's not certain that it would have passed with an electorate informed of what the amendment actually did; but it would have been a close margin either way according to the polls that tried to investigate that issue.

I don't know if that's "most people who voted for it didn't know", but it could be "a significant portion didn't know". Maybe enough to make a difference, sure.

[Solanum-Blaatone]

*sigh*

[Tahar Joblis]

PPP poll.

Basically, PPP's poll showed a +14 margin in favor of the amendment. When asked:

Q5 If you knew that Amendment One banned both gay marriage and civil unions, would you vote 'yes' or 'no'?

People saying they would vote for it dropped from 55% to 38%, while people saying they would vote against it jumped from 39% to 46%. (People unsure jumped from 4% to 16%; probably more people would have left it blank on their ballots.) It's not certain that it would have passed with an electorate informed of what the amendment actually did; but it would have been a close margin either way according to the polls that tried to investigate that issue.

I don't know if that's "most people who voted for it didn't know", but it could be "a significant portion didn't know". Maybe enough to make a difference, sure.

A 22 point swing on the actual results would move it to 51% against, 49% for. Within the margins of error, really. It's suggestive, and the combination of that plus the narrower voter pool for it being a primary election should tip it over into the territory of "shouldn't have passed in NC."

The median NC voter is someone who favors same-sex "separate but equal" civil unions, but not gay marriage. Shit happens, though.

[Cerberion]

Au contraire. I think the people have the right to be furious, and they have the right to vote out the politicians that put this in place, and that they have the right to protest, and they have the right to get the absurd amendment overturned if they can get a majority.

Corporations are owned by people, run by people, and the service they provide are bought by people. There is a lot people can do to influence the entity to do "the right thing".

Corporations are organized groups of people with money. As between the powerful and the weak, you are an advocate for the right of the strong to hurt the weak, even by underhanded means. It destroys the very concept of "insurance" if one cannot be "sure" whether there is any coverage until it is too late, but that is what you think should be allowed. Similarly, you don't think minorities should be allowed freedom unless the majority condescends to grant them; the strong should always be allowed to pick on the weak.

Actually I expressed the statement that everyone deserves equal right to freedom. Perhaps you should go rearead what I've written rather than making a scathing judgment on someone who has not only stated that the amendment was absurd but has also stated support for civil unions.

It is individuals such as yourself who are so quick to judge that you can not be bothered to hear what the person is saying.

[Gallogach]

So let me get this straight, you are claiming people are going to lose their jobs or that there will be some form of job loss because civil unions are outlawed. Care to elaborate how not getting married or put in a civil union causes this? And what protections are you referring to that comes with civil unions and why are they so vital? As for civil unions and kids, that seems to be a nonissue at face value in my opinion. Homosexuals cant adopt or have kids in North Carolina so what they have works for them.

Domestic abuse simply becomes assault and should be handled appropriately. Meaning there is also a nonissue. Unless you are implying police will cease enforcing the law because of this ammendment.

North Carolina banned gay marriages? Good for them, its their choice. The only reason this is an issue is because of legal unions between two people such as a man and a woman. If the legal system decides they dont want to recognize the legal contract between two men, so be it. It is not like they are criminalizing the act. So how is this discrimination?

Civil Unions are now illegal in NC. No more benefits for civil unions, period - also, this Amendment, made law, means NO MORE BENEFITS OR DOMESTIC ABUSE PROTECTIONS for ALL un-married couples and citizens, or their children (no more healthcare, protections from abuse, or education for them!).

Bottom line: Unless you're rich or a corporatist, no marriage for you and no protections for you if you're not married, because the gov't says so!!! In short, more poverty, more lost business and JOBS to people in need of them the most, and worst of all, more criminalization of innocent citizens who do nothing wrong - all to please the rich and corporates in our country who need to leave, or better yet, DIE, FOR SATANIC SHIT LIKE THIS!!!

[Dude Ranch]

The only reason that we are even talking about this is that it is based on principles millenia old, said by a man we have barely any evidence of even exists. People need to wake up, realize that they cannot take what is said for granted, make up their minds for the good of all people, and be good to their fellow countrymen. If God (Which I am presuming is a very large part of this North Carolina Bible-belt legislation) had taught his son maybe a little more toleration of different people, do you think that this would even be a problem? No. I don't get what makes people believe they have the right to dictate other peoples lives. I simply do not get it.

[Nova Nacio]

So let me get this straight, you are claiming people are going to lose their jobs or that there will be some form of job loss because civil unions are outlawed. Care to elaborate how not getting married or put in a civil union causes this? And what protections are you referring to that comes with civil unions and why are they so vital? As for civil unions and kids, that seems to be a nonissue at face value in my opinion. Homosexuals cant adopt or have kids in North Carolina so what they have works for them.

Domestic abuse simply becomes assault and should be handled appropriately. Meaning there is also a nonissue. Unless you are implying police will cease enforcing the law because of this ammendment.

With the war on women and children and the poor being waged by the GOP, all you need is to read/look around for proper news - this is just one more state that will be hit hard by this racist, sexist, and rich/corporatist-pandering BS the GOP is doing, all in the name of a religion I AM NOW ASHAMED TO BE APART OF.

The GOP's goal is to use shit like this to discriminate, as well as roll back ALL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS for women, children, the poor, and ALL MINORITIES (like Black people, like MYSELF) who need them to survive in a world doomed to eventual violent revolution and/or anarchy, should these rights die.

[Kaleer]

I found this, and I think it's rather telling.

[Tmutarakhan]

Corporations are organized groups of people with money. As between the powerful and the weak, you are an advocate for the right of the strong to hurt the weak, even by underhanded means. It destroys the very concept of "insurance" if one cannot be "sure" whether there is any coverage until it is too late, but that is what you think should be allowed. Similarly, you don't think minorities should be allowed freedom unless the majority condescends to grant them; the strong should always be allowed to pick on the weak.

Actually I expressed the statement that everyone deserves equal right to freedom.

We were talking about the issue of whether insurance companies might renege on health-care coverage and see if the courts would let them get away with it. Your response was that it would be a good thing if companies had the "right" to be assholes in this way. And, this was your first reaction: to come in and kick people while they're down. Now you claim that you have a prior history of being supportive of civil unions, which you don't: just like on the previous thread, where you also made claims that you had a history of opposing bullying, when you have no record except for making statements against opponents of bullying.