http://voteagainst.org/

1/11/2012 3:23:39 AM

Is this about the same legislation as the thread in the lounge?

1/11/2012 8:13:14 AM

^
Yup.

From the website in OP:

Quote :

"In addition to prohibiting same-sex marriage, as state law already does, the Amendment would: -Prohibit North Carolina from ever passing legislation that would grant civil unions; -Bar the state from instituting domestic partnership rights; -Strip the domestic partner insurance benefits currently offered to employees by a number of local governments, including Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro, and Mecklenburg and Orange Counties. In addition, courts could interpret the language of the Amendment to ban any rights to state’s hundreds of thousands of unmarried couples—both same and opposite-gender. This would: -Invalidate domestic violence protections for all unmarried partners; -Undercut existing child custody and visitation rights that are designed to protect the best interests of children; -Prevent the state from giving committed couples rights to allow them to order their relationships, including threatening their ability to determine the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains; to make medical decisions if their partner is incapacitated; and to allow second-parent adoptions in order to ensure that both partners have a legal tie to, and financial responsibilities for, the children they are raising. -Invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other."

1/11/2012 8:24:28 AM

Then, as a registered (R) and true conservative, I agree with the OP and hope this freedom-preventing, privacy-invading, religious-based monstrosity is defeated.

1/11/2012 8:43:33 AM

Why get the government involved in marriage at all?

1/11/2012 8:49:24 AM

Well, I think there are several reasons why the legal (government) institution of marriage should exist; or whatever you want to call it, some type of legal contract between consenting adults that is recognized by the government. But aside from not allowing close relatives and children to be married, I'm not sure that the government has much else to do other than collect its tax, issue a license, and recognize the union.

1/11/2012 8:52:37 AM

^
What are those reasons? If you want to enter a contract, make it a contract. Why should there be a "marriage" definition?

1/11/2012 9:03:40 AM

well marriage has to have a definition or it wouldn't exist (speaking legal marriage; not religious). and that definition is what's at stake. I prefer the definition to be along the lines of a legal contract entered into by consenting adults that is recognized by the government.

and why do we need government recognition? well, first off, the government is always going to have to know who its citizens are and some basic information about them, thus it makes since that a married couple is recognized by the government. further, tax benefits, debts, recognition of next of kin/beneficiaries, etc. require the government to recognize a marriage. Lastly, it just makes sense that in many situations of a contract between two private people should have a third party recognize it. Just thinking out loud; I'm sure there are other reasons. Why shouldn't the government be involved?

1/11/2012 9:13:55 AM

oh cool another law that only support laws for those tiny very specific small combinations of marriage. what if a woman wants to have 2 wives? why is everyone so polyphobic? (probably not, but it appears so based on so many who shun its practice still)

obviously the 'intelligent' homo sapiens will be the last species ironically to endorse this practice. pretty much every other species on the planet uses it. let's just avoid the conversation and pretend 1/1 relationships are the end of this issue.

Quote :

"Why get the government involved in marriage at all?"

exactly. get it out of religion/birth/death/marriage/health/etc

oh wait then state ownership lenin state couldn't exist for moron. what a stupid idea of us to get govt out of such issues..

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ,]

1/11/2012 11:53:01 AM

Was that even english?

1/11/2012 1:32:14 PM

FWIW, I don't care how many people want to get married to each other. As long as they're consenting adults, I don't give a shit.

And I don't think it's plausible to divorce government and marriage. And when ever I say marriage, I mean a legal sense and none other.

1/11/2012 1:46:03 PM

^ wait until a shit ton of people get married so they can massively drop their tax burden. then you'll care

1/11/2012 1:46:48 PM

Quote :

"oh cool another law that only support laws for those tiny very specific small combinations of marriage. what if a woman wants to have 2 wives? why is everyone so polyphobic? (probably not, but it appears so based on so many who shun its practice still) obviously the 'intelligent' homo sapiens will be the last species ironically to endorse this practice. pretty much every other species on the planet uses it. let's just avoid the conversation and pretend 1/1 relationships are the end of this issue."

The bible supports polygamy in many places you just have to have the means to support them. Why not? The bible says it's ok.

1/11/2012 2:44:02 PM

if you wanna do that on your own time and your own dime, I sure as fuck won't stop you. but you'll note that the Bible didn't say the gov't should also give you tax breaks for your 8 wives

1/11/2012 3:08:49 PM

No discount for buying in bulk? What kind of operation are they running.

I wouldn't be too opposed to government getting out of marriage, save for recognizing legal contracts couples set up with each other. (Though I think for practical purposes until that happens, allowing marriage for consenting couples makes sense). However, this amendment is a step in the wrong direction, it's getting government's hooks even more dug into marriage regulation.

1/11/2012 6:05:56 PM

Quote :

"get it out of religion/birth/death/marriage/health/etc"

Yep.

1/11/2012 6:37:54 PM

honestly...

the debate about marriage should be changed into a debate about raising children. The only reason that traditional unions (marriages) had a valid claim to additional benefits was because that family unit is tasked with providing for children. The only reason that pooling of resources (and thus taxes) made sense was because of time off from work for a young child.

Quote :

"religion/birth/death/marriage/health/etc"

You forgot education. Education is related to my above point.

So to everyone posting ITT:

stop acting like you can wave your hand and eliminate the problem. Accepting gay marriage is tied to accepting gay adoption. You can reduce the government relationship with wedlock, but only to the minimum family unit necessary. After that your argument still exists.

1/11/2012 9:06:16 PM

Should people be allowed to marry if they have no intention of raising children?

Should single parents be forced to remarry, or have their child(ren) taken away?

1/11/2012 9:44:11 PM

Quote :

"Should people be allowed to marry if they have no intention of raising children?"

No, you see, I gave a "if .. then .."

Let me follow the line of reasoning from what you said. If the institution of marriage does not exist for the purpose of children then I grant the Republicans their argument. Everyone who has personhood should be able to marry anyone else who has personhood. I'm going to put this in bold now, to make sure you don't ignore it and make an irrelevant argument.

The only valid argument to restrict the # and type of people government allows to enter into a marriage contract is that straight couples are better for children.

When you get down to it, marriage is a reflection of pair-bonding mating behavior. That or the other way around. Yes, it is slightly inconsistent to some extent to allow marriage of a straight couple who obviously won't have children, but for the record, there is always some plausible deniability, that "oh they might change their minds". This argument isn't about government dictating something, but government encouraging straight couple family units.

Plus, aside from reproductive capability, it can be argued that strictly developmentally it is better that a child have a mother and father. For instance, saying that a child needs a male and female role model. So marriage could be encouraged (in tax laws and insurance rules) in order to create cohabiting couples who are prime to adopt or make babies. That doesn't necessarily depend on that outcome occurring. Thus, encouraging this family unit will be better for the next generation.

I know this is weak in several places, that's because I'm trying to make sense of Republican views. But to the extent of my knowledge, I've given the only valid argument for why to draw a non-trivial line. Otherwise, the Republicans are right that liberals have no valid way to draw the line - it's marriages for no one or marriages for everyone. I'm saying: stop ignoring this logical / ethical problem.

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2012 10:52:59 PM

The less social engineering the government does, the better. THAT is the way America was intended to be, for better or worse.

1/11/2012 11:25:26 PM

^ are you being sarcastic?

The gov. engaged in WAY more social engineering back in the day than they do now.

1/11/2012 11:39:20 PM

I try to steer as far away from social issues as possible for several reasons...

But I find it hard to believe that a kid who grows up in a stable same sex home will be less prepared for the real world than a kid who grows up in an orphanage or a broken home with severe violence, poverty, etc.

The fact that people are still trying to control other people's lives based on the "morality" that they claim to uphold is very disturbing to me.

1/11/2012 11:48:58 PM

^^ Does that make it ok now?

I know 99% of policies create some form of social engineering but this is just blatant. If this is the direction that society is freely moving towards, there's no way you can legislate it out of existence. Some legislation is dubious on restricting liberty in that they only create an environment in which it could theoretically be "legal" to restrict but only if policies are implemented to do so. This hard codes a restriction on freedom into the state constitution. Pretty cut and dry.

Anyone who supports this amendment should admit that it's because of religious reasons or they just don't like gay people, because it just doesn't make any actual sense in any other context.

1/12/2012 12:37:11 AM

Quote :

"This hard codes a restriction on freedom into the state constitution. Pretty cut and dry."

except it doesn't. there is no restriction on people being able to live with each other here. it's just a restriction on which people who live together will get the recognition of the gov't. there's a difference

1/12/2012 12:40:16 PM

Hospital visitation, end of life decisons, inheritence, car insurance, wills being honored, having the option to buy into a spouses health benefits, legally changing your last name, and countless other situations depend on marriage or at least some level of recognition of a union by the gov. Like it or not, our society bases a whole lot of stuff off the civil recogntion of marriages.

And there are many places that limit the number of unrelated ppl that can live together, so even your thing about restrictions on living together is wrong. Civally recognized marriages or unions in our society determine so much more than that.

1/12/2012 2:36:58 PM

everything you are speaking about is not freedom related, though. you are correct in saying that gov't recognition grants benefits, but that is strictly different than freedom

1/12/2012 2:57:55 PM

Quote :

"everything you are speaking about is not freedom related"

Quote :

"And there are many places that limit the number of unrelated ppl that can live together"

Quote :

"wills being honored"

Quote :

"car insurance"

What the heck is freedom related?

1/12/2012 3:13:57 PM

if a place isn't honoring a will because you aren't married, that's not the fault of the marriage, that's a fault of the place being stupid and not following valid contracts. same with the first thing you stated. car insurance rates are based off of the privilege, as well. the basic freedom to live with whoever the fuck you want still isn't being infringed, with the exception of the stupid "we hate college kids" laws, which still is a byproduct of a stupid place.

1/12/2012 3:16:44 PM

Renters are given legal protection against discrimination based on a number of things.

You can't not rent to a woman because she's pregnant. You can get sued for that. I think there are further protections for married couples that obviously don't apply to gay couples. I guess I don't know what myself, but I imagine someone else does.

1/12/2012 4:31:09 PM

Another function of marriage in our society is sometimes do you get to live in the same country as your sig other?

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/01/14/Binational_Lesbian_Couple_Waits_to_Learn_Their_Fate/

Quote :

"A lesbian couple in Denver is waiting to learn about the next step in their life together, as the end of a federal immigration program may put their relationship in jeopardy.[/quote [quote]"We're very, very nervous," Violeta told Westword Denver."We don't know what to think." Despite being legally married in Iowa, the federal government does not recognize the unions of same-sex partners because of the Defense of Marriage Act."

1/15/2012 3:04:37 AM

Get the government out my church.

1/15/2012 10:26:58 AM

if you support gay marriage then the best thing to do would be to move to a state that allows it then everyone would be happy

1/15/2012 11:09:29 AM

i.e.: FUCK THE POOR

1/15/2012 2:24:51 PM

^^Would not help in ^^^^ that situation, and this amendment has really very little to do with marriage given that it's already illegal in North Carolina, it goes much farther than that. And not everyone wants to move away from all their family and friends and change jobs and buy a new house just to avoid extra attacks like this amendment.

1/15/2012 2:42:09 PM

Quote :

"if you support gay marriage then the best thing to do would be to move to a state that allows it then everyone would be happy"

this argument is worthless.

and it doesn't really address the issue. I, a straight male, don't really care about gay marriage. However, I, as a true conservative, do care about limiting the government's power, role, and control over private lives; thus I am against this amendment. In the end, this amendment, passed or not, won't affect me personally. The government should not interfere (read: prevent) with law abiding citizens consenting to enter a contract between themselves that is otherwise legal and in no way restricts the freedoms of others.

[Edited on January 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2012 12:54:32 PM

it's funny how the freedom to be legally recognized by the federal gov't for shoving an erect penis up another mans ass is by far the overarching theme of our generation

lol
call me when they finally get around to the good shit (all types of polygamy)

also

Quote :

" I do care about limiting the government's power, role, and control over private lives; thus I am against this amendment."

[Edited on January 16, 2012 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ,]

1/16/2012 1:00:25 PM

Quote :

"The government should not interfere (read: prevent) with law abiding citizens consenting to enter a contract between themselves that is otherwise legal and in no way restricts the freedoms of others. "

and where is this amendment doing so? where is this amendment saying that 2 men can't live together? right

1/16/2012 1:01:11 PM

I'm as conservative as they come...but the "other" stuff that is involved in this bill besides the marriage part is what bugs me...I will vote against this for those reasons only.

2/8/2012 4:52:23 PM

Quote :

"Then, as a registered (R) and true conservative, I agree with the OP and hope this freedom-preventing, privacy-invading, religious-based monstrosity is defeated."

co-signed as a true conservative, in my personal opinon unrelated this thread or possibly the ideals of wdprice...i feel we need to quit legislating americans so much and put the hammer down on those that are not citizens that are usurping american dollars

[Edited on February 8, 2012 at 5:19 PM. Reason : y]

2/8/2012 5:17:31 PM

So not only did the NC GOP and Speaker Tillis waste taxpayer money drafting Amendment One, Tillis now admits if it passes it will likely be overturned down the road. So I ask what was the point of doing this in the first place? I thought conservatives were all about not invading personal lives (like this amendment would). No only does it discriminate against gays but it also impacts straight domestic partnerships as well. I have a better idea. Instead of sticking one's head up the ass of the 19th century, how about actually focusing on the real problems the state faces?

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/10911637/

3/27/2012 6:05:47 PM

But the 19th century was so nice.

3/27/2012 6:07:29 PM

Allowing same sex couples isn't going to lessen the lgbt prejudice in this world.

3/28/2012 3:39:45 PM

Quote :

"Allowing same sex couples isn't going to lessen the lgbt prejudice in this world."

Yes...it will?

Either way this is a stupid fucking argument. They deserve the same rights regardless of whether or not it will change the minds of knuckle-dragging bigots.

3/28/2012 3:44:22 PM

^

3/28/2012 3:50:10 PM

this is my favorite argument by the pro homo bigots:

Quote :

"Polygamy doesn’t work because Mother Nature doesn’t create enough females to support the lifestyle."

lol such bullshit

3/28/2012 3:55:44 PM

actually, the people who are pro gay marriage are getting all in arms over this issue...

and forgetting that everyone is entitled to our opinion, and just because someone's opinion doesn't agree with yours, doesn't make them a bigot.

majority rules, not what you think someone may or may not "deserve"

how about we just let the polls do the talking eh?

3/28/2012 3:59:43 PM

Quote :

"and forgetting that everyone is entitled to our opinion, and just because someone's opinion doesn't agree with yours, doesn't make them a bigot."

You're entitled to your opinion. In this case, your opinion makes you a bigot.

3/28/2012 4:03:45 PM

If your opinion is that one group of people should not have the same rights as you based on their sexuality, then you are a bigot.

You're definitely entitled to this opinion, but make no mistake. You may even be part of the majority. The backwards, barbaric, bigoted majority.

3/28/2012 4:05:01 PM

Whoever thinks that the only argument against this amendment is a religious one is just simply wrong.

3/28/2012 4:28:09 PM

Quote :

"If your opinion is that one group of people should not have the same rights as you based on their sexuality"

I'm gonna vote against the amendment (largely on the grounds that I don't give a damn what people what to do if they're not hurting anyone else), but technically everyone has the exact same rights in this regard currently.

3/28/2012 5:29:49 PM