^^^

this is true.

5/4/2012 6:13:35 PM

Vote Against Display in Raleigh:























Apparently 5000+ people took part in this.

5/5/2012 1:02:04 AM

Oh, I see you Supplanter

5/5/2012 1:51:00 AM

I was there tonight!

That display was pretty moving...I hope everyone gets a chance to tour it tomorrow. It's the last day!






[Edited on May 5, 2012 at 1:54 AM. Reason : e]

5/5/2012 1:52:31 AM

Haha thats hilarious... i bet 5% of those people MAX will actually vote but 100% will post their pics on facebook

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

[Edited on May 5, 2012 at 2:01 AM. Reason : Its like active slacktivism]

5/5/2012 2:01:34 AM

DivaBaby19 You are posing with my best good friend in the whole wide world!

5/5/2012 2:02:14 AM

you're right about facebook...but I think like 90% will vote


^yay!!! I ♥ her! She's my boo

[Edited on May 5, 2012 at 2:03 AM. Reason : e]

5/5/2012 2:02:34 AM

It just occurred to me I'll be out of town may 8th. I live in Raleigh but I'm registered on joco too. I dont see myself driving all the way to clayton tomorrow...

5/5/2012 2:03:49 AM

^^, ^^^

She certainly is popular. Oh Swingles, what times we all used to have together!

5/5/2012 2:24:50 AM

well we all should have good times together soon

5/5/2012 2:27:18 AM

I should go tomorrow and find my pic

5/5/2012 8:37:14 AM

oh north carolina...so sad.

5/5/2012 8:51:08 AM

Quote :

"i bet 5% of those people MAX will actually vote but 100% will post their pics on facebook"

Yeah, talk about a good idea for a "Stuff White People Like" post.

"Supporting Gay Rights"

5/5/2012 8:53:53 AM

I think it's more of a "stuff college kids like." I know a lot of white people that don't support gay rights.

5/5/2012 9:21:42 AM

Quote :

"On April 30, 2012 during an early vote session in North Carolina, Jodie Brunstetter, the wife of Senator Peter Brunstetter, reportedly conceded to poll workers that her husband drafted the amendment in part to protect the "Caucasian race".[9]"

what in the world does this even mean? seriously somebody explain. what does this mean?

5/5/2012 9:34:01 AM

It means her husband is a retard.

5/5/2012 11:26:08 AM

I think most rationale people will vote against... this amendment was never needed. Just another push by politicians to appease their base.

Just be sure to get out and vote.

5/5/2012 11:28:35 AM

wait. homosexuals are polluting the Caucasian race by joining their lives together? what?

5/5/2012 11:30:53 AM

you've gotta be a complete fucking moron to vote for this thing

5/5/2012 12:45:15 PM

Voted for separation of church and state this morning.

5/5/2012 12:49:04 PM

I voted four this becuase we neid two protect are childran an maraiges!

5/5/2012 12:49:20 PM

who the fuck is going to protect our spelling?

That should be Amendment 2: Kill all the idiots.

5/5/2012 12:50:06 PM

NC already had a eugenics program back in the early to mid 20th century. Some people got all butt hurt and stopped it though.

5/5/2012 1:01:29 PM

My above comment was meant sarcastically... hopefully most people realize that...

5/5/2012 1:03:10 PM

Slightly more educated Facebook ignorance (caution WORDS):







Full text from fourth reply to the OP:

Quote :

"God also said that He doesn't like lying, stealing, pre-marital sex, drunkenness, idol worship, etc. If the amendment was against those things, I'd vote for it too. Even if you took God completely out of this amendment and just look at nature, its pretty obvious that homosexuality is unnatural. I'm not saying people can't do what they want, however, when it comes to something like the institution of marriage, you can't just add to fixed definition. The interracial marriage ban isn't related to this at all. That forcibly stopped something that was natural and, if we bring God back into it, Biblical."

[Edited on May 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM. Reason : missed one]

5/5/2012 1:34:13 PM

Voted no today

5/5/2012 4:38:15 PM

voted against

5/5/2012 4:46:26 PM

So over the past few days Ive finally noticed FOR signs in Raleigh (before I only saw them in Nash County, big surprise). One of these signs happens to be at the corner of the main road and the road of my complex. I do not like how this location implies I support it...do I have the right to remove it?

5/5/2012 7:45:39 PM

Do not remove the signs, unless you want to be charged with a criminal offense.

[Edited on May 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM. Reason : PRAISE CHRIST]

5/5/2012 7:50:11 PM

Went to a march and rally in Wilson yesterday:







The performance was by Lauren Dossett with an anti-amendment protest song she wrote. You can hear it here:

5/5/2012 8:08:09 PM

Hence why I asked...I wouldnt remove them from someones private property, for example, since I know thats illegal obviously. But who has the right to put them there? Is that city property (sidewalk), or belong to my complex/HOA? I disagree with them speaking for me if so.

5/5/2012 8:20:41 PM

Not a criminal offense to remove signs in public right of ways. If they are on land owned by your HOA you could always call to have them removed. But personally I think it's crappy to remove political signs unless some dick put them on your private property without permission.

5/5/2012 8:23:04 PM

Fareako and I share a Facebook friend.

5/5/2012 8:44:26 PM

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/05/05/woman-arrested-after-caught-redhanded-removing-anti-amendment-one-signs/

Quote :

"“I didn’t feel like I was stealing signs at the time . . . I just looked at it as picking up trash along the side of the road.” These were the words of Heidi Thompson, who was arrested in North Carolina on Wednesday and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor and removing three lawfully placed political signs."

It's unfortunate that this has to be a "political" issue, but it seems like messing with signs can get you in trouble if caught. But it doesn't matter that much at this point. No one is going to change their mind this late in the game because of a sign. If you really want to make your neighborhood look like they're against this crappy legislation, then maybe putting up even more anti-amendment signs are the way to go (bonus points for ones you make yourself that so that looks like it took some care to make rather than 2 seconds to slap down a sign during a drive by sign spamming).

5/5/2012 8:54:12 PM

I don't think the signs so much change minds as they're reminders to people to vote

[Edited on May 5, 2012 at 8:59 PM. Reason : which IS very helpful]

5/5/2012 8:59:31 PM

Hey Supplanter,

We're sorry.

-- Heterosexuals

5/5/2012 9:03:41 PM

^My marriage can't really get more illegal than it already is. It's the courts handling appeals on the basis that unmarried domestic abusers shouldn't be locked up because their unmarried relationship is no longer a state-recognized domestic legal union (like what happened in Ohio), it's widowed seniors in new relationships picking between protections and certain social security benefits, it's kids of unmarried domestic partnered couples whose kids lose health insurance. Just looking at the numbers this cuts off rights for vastly more straights than gays.

And, as Thom Tillis leader of the GOP that put this on the ballot said, this will be repealed by North Carolinians in 20 years or less (although probably sooner by SCOTUS). In the mean time its just a boatload of taxpayer dollars that will be defending this in the courts.

[Edited on May 5, 2012 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2012 9:10:06 PM

Yeah, I don't think so.

Idaho's amendment was worded exactly the same as North Carolina's, has been in place since 2006, and not once has it gone to court because of legal issues behind it. Along with the other 30 states that have amendments just like this, the majority have had no appellate cases.

On of the only exceptions to this was Ohio, where several lower courts considered whether that state’s
marriage amendment rendered existing domestic violence laws unconstitutional. It reached Ohio's supreme court where it was resolved by not applying the marriage amendment to domestic violence laws.

Appellate courts aren't required to follow the decisions of other state's decisions, but often they look to that as a guide, assuming it even makes it to a court.

5/5/2012 9:25:36 PM

I had a discussion about this with a fellow North Carolina expatriate a few days ago. Rather than resort to the Noah Webster argument, he was at least honest enough to admit he supports the amendment because homosexuality makes him extremely uncomfortable.

5/5/2012 9:36:08 PM

closet homo eh?

5/5/2012 9:52:05 PM

He does wear a Tarheel hat pretty much everyday.

5/5/2012 9:53:31 PM

oh, so not even in the closet.

5/5/2012 9:54:58 PM

Well, he didn't actually go to Carolina.

5/5/2012 9:56:07 PM

Oh, so walmart fan.

5/5/2012 9:57:20 PM

^^does anyone? even the professors there don't

5/5/2012 9:57:27 PM

Lol

5/5/2012 10:03:36 PM

http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/dlureportnov8.pdf

Quote :

"The language of our Amendment would restrict protections for all unmarried couples – whether they are straight or same-sex. In addition to prohibiting same-sex marriage, the Amendment: *would prohibit North Carolina from passing civil unions in the future; *would bar the state from creating a domestic partnership status for same-sex couples that would give them some lesser range of protections than married couples; *would eliminate the domestic partner insurance benefits currently offered to their 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 restrict many more protections for unmarried couples, whether they are straight or same-sex. The problem is that no one can say for certain how many more. In prohibiting state validation or recognition of “domestic legal unions,” the proposed Amendment would introduce into the Constitution a phrase whose meaning is unclear, which has never been used in any prior statutory law in North Carolina or interpreted by our courts, and which has never been interpreted by courts in any other state. Given how courts have interpreted amendments in other states, it is very possible, however, that courts would interpret the Amendment to bar the state from giving any protections to unmarried couples – straight or same-sex – based on their relationships. This would: *invalidate domestic violence protections for all unmarried partners; *undercut existing child custody and visitation law that is designed to protect the best interests of children; *prevent the state from giving committed couples protections that help them order their relationships, including the right to --determine the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains; --visit their partner in the hospital in the event of a medical emergency; --to make emergency medical decisions for their partner if their partner is incapacitated; and --to make financial decisions for their partner if their partner is incapacitated. Furthermore, if courts interpreted it in a far-reaching manner, the Amendment could even: *invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other. It is impossible to predict definitively how broadly courts would interpret the Amendment’s prohibitions, given its vague and untested language. However, two things are clear: First, it will take courts years of litigation to settle the Amendment’s meaning. Second, when the dust clears, unmarried couples will have fewer rights over their most important life decisions than they would have had otherwise."

5/5/2012 10:19:28 PM

I've seen that report, and I've also seen this one, which points out all of the assumptions professor Eichner made and the lack of research she did when writing it. If she would have just looked at the history of all the states that have already amended their constitutions, she would have never been so certain about all of the statements she was saying.

http://abiller.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/campbell-law-profs-marriage-amendment-analysis.pdf

Quote :

"However, two things are clear: First, it will take courts years of litigation to settle the Amendment’s meaning. Second, when the dust clears, unmarried couples will have fewer rights over their most important life decisions than they would have had otherwise.""

Not so, Idaho hasn't even had it brought up once in their courts about the meaning of the amendment.

Quote :

"In our view, then, Professor Eichner errs when she claims that “the phrase ‘domestic legal union’ potentially refers to any domestic relationship that receives any legal recognition, protection, or rights from the state.”24 She has not shown that North Carolina courts would apply the term “union” in the proposed Amendment to all unmarried persons who are cohabiting, dating, or just friends, nor can the term “union” reasonably be applied to parentchild, grandparent-grandchild, and sibling relationships. The plain language of the Amendment reaches only domestic unions—marriage and marriage imitations or substitutes—not all domestic relationships. There is no evidence that North Carolina’s proposed Amendment is intended to go further than the marriage amendments in every other state by barring the state, as Professor Eichner claims, from giving unmarried couples “much less significant protections than those accorded married couples.”"

Secondly, the meaning of the amendment and who it will actually apply to is quite simple, and the simplicity of it lies in the wording. The amendment uses the word "union", not "relationship". There is a definitive difference between the two in the eyes of the law, and that difference will be enough to ensure the protection of unmarried domestic couples, so half of that report's argument is instantly invalidated.

tl;dr version:

Quote :

"The Amendment bars validation or recognition of any legal union other than heterosexual marriage. A “domestic legal union” is a marriage or marriage-like relationship, not any relationship between two unmarried persons."

-------------

Quote :

"Current North Carolina law allows control over the disposition of a deceased person’s remains by “a person who has exhibited special care and concern for the decedent and is willing and able to make decisions about the disposition.”27 That person is placed in order of priority behind the deceased’s surviving spouse, children, parents, siblings, and certain other relatives. Professor Eichner construes the proposed Amendment to reach any domestic relationship. She claims that “courts could deem the empowerment of a domestic partner unconstitutional even in this last category if the Amendment were passed on the ground that the disposition of remains is considered a spousal right. Giving rights to a partner based on their relationship would therefore constitute unconstitutional recognition of the relationship.”"

The only thing that the amendment would most definitely interrupt would be the "determination of the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains". But it would not completely bar them from making the decision, it would only put them in line or priority behind certain blood relatives. This is basically the only certain loss of power by the partner.

As for insurance benefits, see the below:

Quote :

"The reasoning used by the Michigan Supreme Court and Kentucky attorney general would not bar North Carolina public employers from covering domestic partners in a way that does not define their relationship in terms of a status similar to marriage."

and

Quote :

"Thus, even if the proposed Amendment passes, same-sex partners still may be able to receive health insurance benefits from public employers. The proposed Amendment also does not prevent private employers from extending health insurance benefits to domestic partners, no matter how those relationships are defined. The amendment specifically provides that it “does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Lastly, if you haven't read this report all the way through, I suggest you do so. It will clear up many of the misconceptions everyone has about the effects of the amendment, and what it is likely to do and what it is likely not to do. It does this by pointing out issues that have already been settled in other states, and explains how similar wording was handled in other states, often for the benefit of partners in a relationship that did not resemble a marriage. Also, the part about Idaho and how nothing has even been brought to court there about it is in there as well. Pretty interesting stuff.

[Edited on May 6, 2012 at 2:27 AM. Reason : yup]

5/6/2012 2:20:41 AM

Delta Rae would get it. Maybe even the dude?

5/6/2012 3:24:52 AM

I find it funny that the assholes in the soapbox hate each other so much based on political opinion, yet they all seem to come together on this one issue.

No, it's not funny, it's pretty awesome in fact...

5/6/2012 3:28:40 AM