Well guess what? With the passage of A1 there will be a quick and definitive ruling on the legality of gay marriage in NC (in favor of gay marriage). Same effect, different avenue.

5/8/2012 2:54:27 PM

Quote :

"so it's not changing the current state of things."

It absolutely will change the current state of things. By dissolving domestic partnerships, partners and children lose their health insurance. I don't want my fiance to lose her health insurance.

5/8/2012 2:56:57 PM

Quote :

"It absolutely will change the current state of things. By dissolving domestic partnerships, partners and children lose their health insurance. I don't want my fiance to lose her health insurance."

Only if -- surprise! -- a judge decides that the amendment is to be interpreted that way. Which not a single one will.

Like I said earlier, these issues will cause the question of gay marriage in NC to be ruled upon definitively and in a quicker manner than if the status quo were to be maintained.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ...]

5/8/2012 2:58:21 PM

^ You have a lot more faith in judges than most people do.

5/8/2012 2:58:58 PM

^^Have you even read the fucking amendment? I feel trolled.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2012 2:59:22 PM

Quote :

"Only if -- surprise! -- a judge decides that the amendment is to be interpreted that way. Which not a single one will."

what makes you think that?

and what makes you think it will be overturned? has it been overturned in the other states where a similar amendment has passed?

5/8/2012 3:01:03 PM

Yes I have. But you're making the mistake that many do of assuming that the instant it passes EVERYTHING WILL CHANGE FOREVER INSTANTLY.

Which is not what happens.

The first thing that will happen is the amendment will be challenged.

AND IT WILL BE DEFEATED IF CHALLENGED. That's the part you guys miss.

Then it will NEVER APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AGAIN.

You guys can't think outside of the box enough to realize that A1 will settle the question once and for all, and quickly.

5/8/2012 3:01:49 PM

^ Because that has already happened in every other state that has passed a same sex marriage amendment

5/8/2012 3:03:45 PM

THEN I GUESS EVERYONE SHOULD JUST VOTE FOR IT

5/8/2012 3:03:55 PM

Quote :

"Only if -- surprise! -- a judge decides that the amendment is to be interpreted that way. Which not a single one will"

wait, you mean we're at the mercy of...activist judges?

5/8/2012 3:03:59 PM

^ hahahahahahaha

ahahahahahaha
ahahahahaha

this is the dumbest shit I've heard about in a long time

5/8/2012 3:05:07 PM

Quote :

"what makes you think that? and what makes you think it will be overturned? has it been overturned in the other states where a similar amendment has passed?"

5/8/2012 3:05:35 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

5/8/2012 3:08:08 PM

I think A1 passing will likely speed up the process to allowing gay marriage in NC. The people for this amendment are blinded by their religious beliefs and aren't thinking of very likely impacts from A1 passing. Because A1 has become such a huge issue, pro-gay marriage people have rallied, raised money, gained support, and organized. This will likely bleed over into challenging A1 after being passed to keep their momentum going. I'd be very surprised if the interest groups/lobbyists against A1 (at this point) don't really care either way, because now with the issue being so big and with a large amount of support, and likely donations, they are likely better able to challenge this.

5/8/2012 3:08:52 PM

^ Someone else who gets it.

It's not ultimately a bad thing guys.

5/8/2012 3:11:36 PM

Quote :

"As results come in, you'll be able to see how the Amendment's looking here: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/79717/en/md.html?cid=425000010"

$20 says most of the eastern counties will be blue.

5/8/2012 3:12:52 PM

again i ask, why hasn't this happened in all the other states that have passed similar amendments? or has it?

5/8/2012 3:13:13 PM

^ No other states have an amendment worded as loosely as this one. The difference here is that in theory a man/woman civil union could be recognized as invalid. Which would immediately be struck down if challenged, bringing the amendment down with it.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM. Reason : ...]

5/8/2012 3:13:46 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/new-poll-50-support-legal-same-sex-marriages/

Quote :

"According to a Gallup survey released Tuesday, 50% of Americans say that same sex marriages should be recognized as legal, with 48% saying such marriages should not be legal."

I hope within the next decade there will be an amendment to the US constitution making it so the government can't discriminate against the right to marry between any TWO CONSENTING, NON-RELATED HUMAN BEINGS OF LEGAL AGE.

At the very least, states should be made to recognize unions from other states...but I guess that's kind of a states' rights issue...but if the government can regulate trade and citizenship between states then why not this?

5/8/2012 3:14:33 PM

^^and that's what assures you that this one will be overturned?

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 3:14:46 PM

"Only domestic legal union" doesn't sound loose but you're right that it sounds like a field day for lawyers

5/8/2012 3:15:20 PM

Quote :

"The difference here is that in theory a man/woman civil union could be recognized as invalid. Which would immediately be struck down if challenged, bringing the amendment down with it."

In my edit.

5/8/2012 3:15:35 PM

forgive me, i'm unfamiliar with how it's worded in other states, but this is the only one that could be interpreted to not reconize man/woman civil unions?

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM. Reason : i just don't see how you can be so confident in it being overturned]

5/8/2012 3:18:15 PM

Quote :

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section 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."

It's saying that marriage between a man and a woman is the only union recognized in this state -- i.e., not even a hetero civil union is valid. Other state amendments say things to the effect of "a marriage is only considered a valid union in this state IF between a man and a woman".

Do you catch the distinction?

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ...]

5/8/2012 3:21:34 PM

Quote :

"As results come in, you'll be able to see how the Amendment's looking here: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/79717/en/md.html?cid=425000010""

couldn't they have picked colors that aren't in any way fucking similar?

5/8/2012 3:25:36 PM

Quote :

"i just don't see how you can be so confident in it being overturned"

I think he/she is trolling and/or doesn't have a dog in the fight (i.e. doesn't have a domestic partner or child relying on his/her health insurance, and is not gay).

5/8/2012 3:28:25 PM

Quote :

"Do you catch the distinction?"

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure if I believe you. How do you know this? Have you looked at the language in all the other states who have passed amendments? SC, Georgia, Florida, Alabama... I'm pretty sure Virginia and Michigan's goes farther than what you're saying.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 3:29:56 PM

Quote :

"I think he/she is trolling and/or doesn't have a dog in the fight (i.e. doesn't have a domestic partner or child relying on his/her health insurance, and is not gay)."

You're right, I don't. But you're also wrong in thinking that non gay domestic partners and/or their children will instantly be stripped of health benefits. That stuff will immediately be challenged, not sure why you think it won't. And it won't hold up when it is challenged.

If anything, A1 is hastening a definitive ruling on gay marriage in this state.

5/8/2012 3:31:12 PM

http://ow.ly/aMre6

5/8/2012 3:31:28 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure if I believe you. How do you know this? Have you looked at the language in all the other states who have passed amendments? SC, Georgia, Florida, Alabama... I'm pretty sure Virginia and Michigan's goes farther than what you're saying."

Yes I have.

Michigan:

Quote :

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

You would agree, not the same as NC's. Just a strict "marriage is a man and woman" amendment.

Virginia:

Quote :

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

The extra bit there is basically saying that there will be no NEW arrangement that is supposed to mimic marriage in all but the man and woman part.

5/8/2012 3:35:02 PM

Thanks, that's interesting, that makes me feel a little better, but not much.

I still find it completely ridiculous that we're wasting time and money on this stupid shit.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 3:52:19 PM

^

5/8/2012 3:55:14 PM

millions of dollars being wasted through lawsuits in the future just flashed before my eyes

5/8/2012 4:04:54 PM

today we are all homosexuals

5/8/2012 4:09:52 PM

Ironically, by making the wording so broad and somewhat saying that other domestic unions aren't "valid", I think it might be a lot more subject to challenge, and put NC a lot closer to allowing gay marriage.

But the entire point of civil rights in a democracy is supposed to be that bigotry is ultimately self-defeating.

5/8/2012 4:16:23 PM

I'm for gay marriage so I did my part and voted "For"

5/8/2012 4:18:49 PM

lol

5/8/2012 4:20:24 PM

I voted "for" because if I can't have evan then no one will!

5/8/2012 4:22:15 PM

No matter which way this goes it will force the courts to determine the constitutionality. It is important the right judges are put in place.

5/8/2012 4:22:42 PM

Quote :

"millions of dollars being wasted through lawsuits in the future just flashed before my eyes"

Same thing would've happened with an amendment explicitly allowing gay marriage. The lawsuits would just be coming from different parties.

I think you guys are missing the bigger picture. In order for gay marriage to be legalized the issue has to be approached in one direction or another. The ultimate direction of the country is towards legalized gay marriage. Just because it's not happening "right this instant" doesn't mean it won't. Progress has been made and is being made, but like everything in life it takes time.

5/8/2012 4:31:14 PM

Quote :

"Same thing would've happened with an amendment explicitly allowing gay marriage. The lawsuits would just be coming from different parties."

how about no amendment at all?

i don't really care if gays are recongized by the government as being "married". It's just a word. But I think that if they make a legal commitment, they should receive the same rights as married folks.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 4:36:25 PM

Quote :

"how about no amendment at all?"

The point is, keeping the status quo would still mean that gay marriages aren't recognized and wouldn't be until something like A1 (either for or against) came up. So why not just get it out of the way? The sooner the question is approached from a legal standpoint, the sooner it can change.

5/8/2012 4:37:53 PM

trolling people on Facebook regarding amendment 1 has made my day

5/8/2012 5:23:39 PM

I posted this on Facebook earlier

Quote :

"It's a little late for a political statement about this but oh well. 1) I am a Christian 2) I believe a biblical marriage should be between a man and a woman 3) I am AGAINST Ammendment One Consider the following sins: Lying, coveting your neighbor's spouse/possessions, Disrespecting your parents, Putting things before God, Not honoring the Sabbath. These sins are no more or less acceptable to God than any other, so which one of these should we have a constitutional amendment against next? It is not the business of the government to enforce biblical principles or "protect the sanctity" of anything. Sorry for the rant, and God bless."

5/8/2012 5:27:18 PM

^ well said. You can be against something morally but still believe its a fucking bad idea for the government to get further involved with additional legislation and laws that restrict personal liberties.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 5:57 PM. Reason : d]

5/8/2012 5:57:18 PM

bravo!

5/8/2012 6:02:11 PM

Is gay marriage over yet? I got shit to do!

5/8/2012 6:17:31 PM

oh hey there's a thread for this. What idiot would actually vote for this? This puts our state back decades.

^^^^ well said.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 6:22 PM. Reason : h]

5/8/2012 6:21:19 PM

V Yes, they do. I asked a stupid question. I was all, they posted the link hours ago! Where are all the results?!?! HERP DERP!


[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 6:49:28 PM

Don't they wait until after voting to put out results?

5/8/2012 6:58:00 PM