i mean what are we gonna do if 3 guys want to get married


legit question. it's not only going to happen it might even be the norm in a couple years. they were born that way and found each other and want the benefits of marriage all together

and yet 0 respectable media coverage or people standing up for it.

3/28/2012 7:27:29 PM

looking forward to seeing the shit hit the fan in about a month, either way. w00t

3/28/2012 8:14:40 PM

Quote :

"i mean what are we gonna do if 3 guys want to get married"

Who fucking cares.

3/30/2012 9:54:49 AM

^

3/30/2012 10:07:14 AM

then put it in the lawbook as legal with the same tax benefits


strangely i see no protests in favor of this human/marriage combination. only for very specific combinations.

[Edited on March 30, 2012 at 10:12 AM. Reason : ,]

3/30/2012 10:10:02 AM

I'm against all marriage tax benefits. Such benefits should only go to people raising children, be they adopted or biological, on a per-child basis. If it were done that way, it wouldn't matter if 1,000 people wanted to enter one big marriage. I see no reason why I should subsidize the shacking-up of childless couples, straight, gay, or polygamous.

Quote :

"strangely i see no protests in favor of this human/marriage combination. only for very specific combinations."

There are plenty of people who would support it. Some Deuteronomy-style Christian Groups, Mormons, Hippies, people who just don't care like me. It's not really politically viable at the moment (The polygamy stigma is even stronger than the homosexuality stigma) so I guess people don't bother.

[Edited on March 30, 2012 at 10:47 AM. Reason : .]

3/30/2012 10:44:51 AM

hey, whadaya know, I agree w/ Str8Foolish for once.

marriage is ingrained in the tax system though, so it's not going away...just one more reason to overhaul the whole thing.

3/30/2012 11:04:03 AM

Latest poll from the highly accurate Public Policy Polling, which just happens to be based in Raleigh.

Quote :

"Raleigh, N.C. – The marriage amendment which will be on the ballot during the May 8th North Carolina primary continues to lead for passage by 20 points, but if voters are informed of its negative consequences for the potential future passage of civil unions for gay couples, it would narrowly fail. 58% of likely primary voters say right now that they would vote “yes,” while 38% plan to vote “no.” But at the same time, 51% of these voters support some form of legal recognition for gay couples’ relationships, either full marriage or civil unions. 34% of those folks are planning to vote for the amendment. Because of that, if informed that the amendment would ban both marriage and civil unions for gay couples, support goes down 17 points to 41%, and opposition rises 4% to 42%. Part of the problem is that voters are not well informed about what the amendment does. A 34% plurality say they are not sure on that question. Almost as many (31%) do know that it would ban both gay marriage and civil unions, but then not many fewer (28%) think it would only ban marriage. 7% actually think it would legalize gay marriage. Those who think it bans solely marriage rights are voting 67-30 for it, so 8% of North Carolinians, while misinformed, are voting against the measure simply because they think it bans same-sex marriage alone. Of course, those who think a “yes” vote actually legalizes these unions are voting by the same margin for it. "

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/nc-marriage-amendment-up-20-close-if-voters-informed.html

3/30/2012 11:15:08 AM

Quote :

"Part of the problem is that voters are not well informed about what the amendment they are voting for does."

Democracy 101

3/31/2012 12:50:37 PM

^^

Quote :

"Q4 Do you think that a yes vote on Amendment 1 bans just gay marriage, bans both gay marriage and civil unions, legalizes gay marriage, or are you not sure? ... Legalizes gay marriage................................... 7% ..."

3/31/2012 4:18:00 PM

seems like those 7% should be barred from voting

3/31/2012 8:28:01 PM

The anti amendment 1 people haven't done a good job explaining why I should also be against it.

I've yet to see a tldr bulleted list of why I should be against it.

3/31/2012 9:28:47 PM

^ i view things differently. the burden should be on the legislators to convince me why i should vote YES, not on citizens telling me why i should vote no. if you want to ammend something, you damn well better have a good reason to do it. and if you don't, then screw you for wasting our time and resources with this bullshit.

4/2/2012 1:48:58 PM

yeah but you are not the majority. most of the bible thumping Republicans around here just hear "to ban gay marriage check YES".

4/2/2012 5:01:52 PM

Quote :

"I've yet to see a tldr bulleted list of why I should be against it."

4/2/2012 9:08:10 PM

they should probably work on that list..
#1 and #10 look like filler
and honestly #3 would just piss me off as a tax payer in general... oh, so you're threatening to cost me money if i don't vote the way you want me to... riiiight


[Edited on April 2, 2012 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2012 10:40:37 PM

that doesn't invalidate the other 7 reasons to vote against it.

4/16/2012 3:52:33 PM

#3 is essentially saying "You know this won't stand so why are we going to spend the money to pass it and then remove it?"

I also don't see what's wrong with #1 or #10. I will be embarassed to be a North Carolinian if this shit passes.

4/16/2012 4:12:04 PM

I had hoped that with Butt Lube dropping out that Republican primary turnout would be lowered to a point where reasonable minded people would have a shot at defeating this. I'm still quite nervous.

4/16/2012 4:17:59 PM

Quote :

"Fry: and honestly #3 would just piss me off as a tax payer in general... oh, so you're threatening to cost me money if i don't vote the way you want me to... riiiight"

Can't speak for the people who wrote #3 on that particular list, but it goes beyond a typical legal challenge like the one against Prop 8 in California -- in NC's case, what the General Assembly approved isn't what's going to actually be on the ballot, so there will be legal costs over determining what will actually go into the Constitution before we even get to any subsequent legal issues.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 4:20 PM. Reason : ---]

4/16/2012 4:19:40 PM

Over a hundred thousand happily married heterosexual families in NC will have their "domestic partnerships" invalidated by this amendment.

We need to be making it easier for people to get "married", whatever form they choose to use, not making it more restrictive.

4/16/2012 5:01:33 PM

Everywhere I look, I see signs that say, "Vote NO on Amendment 1."

I can't say that I've seen any that say, "Vote YES on Amendment 1."

However, the polls seem to suggest otherwise.

4/20/2012 1:05:34 AM

The people who care about equal rights are having to fight an uphill battle. The people who shit on them (hey, look they're all Christians, what a fucking surprise) don't have to lift a finger.

I thought we were the best Southern state, but I'm about to be proved wrong.

4/20/2012 1:10:31 AM

^^Take a drive through Nash County...youll see plenty of Yes signs

4/25/2012 10:08:38 AM

I saw my first vote "YES" sign today in Charlotte, I was disappointed.

4/25/2012 10:45:41 AM

constitutions should grant rights to the people, not restrict them.

4/25/2012 11:57:43 AM

Quote :

"constitutions should grant rights to the people, not restrict them severely limited rights to governments, and heavily restrict them otherwise."

4/25/2012 12:30:50 PM

Guess what it means when rights are granted to the people?

4/25/2012 5:08:53 PM

Rights are not granted. Rights exist independent of any government or group. However, governments, groups, and people can and often do restrict the rights of individuals.

4/25/2012 5:23:24 PM

Yesterday I did one-stop voting and registration here in Randolph County. I abandoned the Republican Party and promptly voted in its primary. It felt strange filling in the circle next to "Ron Paul," but I managed.

I voted against the amendment and would not have gone to the trouble of re-registering and voting had it not been on there.

There are far more "yes" signs around these parts than "no" ones.

4/25/2012 5:35:14 PM

I also voted for Ron Paul in the Ohio primary :hfive:

4/25/2012 5:49:19 PM

Quote :

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

4/25/2012 8:00:04 PM

Quote :

"Guess what it means when rights are granted to the people? "

By default it means that the people have no rights except those which are bestowed upon them by some higher authority such as the government, or their masters.

By comparison, the founding fathers envisioned a country wherein the government derived it's authority by grant of the people. Hence the constitution explicitly grants powers and rights to the government rather than the other way around.

4/25/2012 8:14:40 PM

Quote :

"Everywhere I look, I see signs that say, "Vote NO on Amendment 1." I can't say that I've seen any that say, "Vote YES on Amendment 1." However, the polls seem to suggest otherwise. "

I worked in Lenoir all this week and Saw "Vote Yes" signs fucking everywhere. It was

4/25/2012 8:48:46 PM

I hadn't seen a single pro-amendment sign until I was in Pinehurst this weekend.

4/25/2012 9:49:06 PM

4/25/2012 10:51:54 PM

4/26/2012 11:27:56 AM

The last 4 are on point...

4/26/2012 12:31:36 PM

^^+1

4/26/2012 3:38:13 PM

Anyone have a list of who voted to pass this bill thats up for reelection? I can easily weed out people to NOT vote for based on their support of this bill or SOPA/PIPA.

4/26/2012 4:31:39 PM

Senate
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=S&RCS=933

House
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=H&RCS=1295

State legislature is refreshingly transparent.

4/26/2012 5:13:23 PM

^thanks for posting that

4/26/2012 6:49:52 PM

http://www.patmccrory.com/2012/04/pat-mccrory-issue-statements/

Quote :

"Do you support the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in North Carolina as between one man and one woman? I will vote yes on the amendment because I believe that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman."

Way to pander to the Jeebus lovers, Pat.

[Edited on April 30, 2012 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ]

4/30/2012 6:15:28 PM

It's funny that they use the word marriage so much, but the language of the amendment is "domestic legal union" which is much much broader.

4/30/2012 6:27:44 PM

^^ he just lost a vote because of that

and I voted for him in '08

4/30/2012 10:21:59 PM

If this passes... get ready to open the lawsuit floodgates!

4/30/2012 11:08:09 PM

i mean unless you are worried about some (same sex person) coming and sweeping you off your feet against your will and marrying you then i really thing you would be better off minding your own goddamn business.

Rightwing Republican: homosexual

Hitler : Jews

5/1/2012 12:08:50 AM

Rightwing Republican: homosexual

Hitler : homosexual


wouldn't that also work?

5/1/2012 12:10:08 AM

I thought this was somewhat interesting.

[Edited on May 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM. Reason : s]

5/1/2012 2:17:57 PM

^yep, it is very interesting. it should be posted in the "for" thread too.

5/1/2012 2:32:12 PM