Quote :

"I see the against signs all over my neighborhood but I've never seen a pro one anywhere. "

I've seen a few, as a matter of fact in and around my neighborhood I've seen 1 against and 3 or 4 in favor of.

4/16/2012 2:18:50 PM

Quote :

"I suspect most of the "pro" amendment peeps are hesitant to advertise their bigotry to the general public."

Lots of people from my hometown are for the amendment. I feel they are rather narrow minded.

4/16/2012 2:19:28 PM

any true conservative should be against this amendment... all this amounts to is MORE government telling people what they can and can't do.

4/16/2012 2:21:13 PM

Quote :

"any true conservative should be against this amendment... all this amounts to is MORE government telling people what they can and can't do."

4/16/2012 2:22:08 PM

Quote :

"any true conservative should be against this amendment... all this amounts to is MORE government telling people what they can and can't do."

4/16/2012 2:22:40 PM

A lot of people get angry when people call Obama Keynesian and then start blabbering away about his birth certificate being real.

See:
http://youtu.be/gBrHkxqNT7s


We need education rather badly in America.

4/16/2012 2:22:46 PM

This is gonna be unpopular in this thread, but I don't care

I'm for the amendment

4/16/2012 2:29:54 PM

Quote :

"I'm for the amendment"

it is unpopular because there is no legal, logical, useful reason for this amendment. Buncha pricks wasting up even MORE congressional time.


name one purpose this amendment would serve and why government officials should spend their time reviewing this issue.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2012 2:31:35 PM

your ideas are bad and you should feel bad

gtfo of democracy

4/16/2012 2:31:47 PM

MORR....I'd like to know why

no hate...seriously curious

4/16/2012 2:32:11 PM

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2012 2:34:07 PM

?

4/16/2012 2:35:29 PM

Amendment 2 is coming next.

NO BLACK MAN SHALL WEAR A HOODIE AND WALK IN A WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD

4/16/2012 2:37:53 PM

Saw this protest downtown


"Back to the pile!"

4/16/2012 2:40:13 PM

I, too, will be voting against enshrining bigotry and discrimination into our state constitution. North Carolina is better than this...

4/16/2012 2:43:53 PM

Quote :

"Buncha pricks wasting up even MORE congressional time."

I think that's what annoys me most about this whole thing. Wasting a bunch of taxpayer dollars to make an amendment on something that is already law in this state.

4/16/2012 2:47:07 PM

The best part is when Thom Tillis, the state speaker, said a week later, "Ehhhh, that may not have been the best thing we could have put forth as a legislature." and just recently saying, "This amendment, if it passes, will likely get overturned in a generation anyways." THEN WHY FUCKING WASTE OUR MONEY ON THIS IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE!?!?!

State Republicans, ladies and gentlemen. 150 years of penned up rage...

4/16/2012 2:51:31 PM

I mean what % of the populace is homosex anyways?

I'm Krallum and I approved this message

4/16/2012 3:21:10 PM

100%

4/16/2012 3:33:09 PM

Quote :

"MORR....I'd like to know why no hate...seriously curious"

Here goes:

- I am a Christian
- I believe in the historical and traditional definition of marriage written in our Constitution, that it should be between one man and one woman
- I believe in protecting the interests of children more so than protecting the interests of same-sex couples
- I believe that the natural male-female dynamic of parenting serves a purpose and that a father cannot be a mother, and that a mother cannot be a father
- I believe that children do best in life when raised by their married mother and father, obviously in a supportive and non-violent household
- I also don’t want NC judges and politicians deciding how marriage is defined based on their own personal views. If we’re going to redefine marriage in the future, I want the citizens to have a say in it.
- I have gay friends and support them. But I could not attend their wedding and pray that God bless their marriage.

4/16/2012 3:33:17 PM

Quote :

"I believe that children do best in life when raised by their married mother and father, obviously in a supportive and non-violent household "

I suppose that works out perfect for the 10% of children raised in homes like that.

4/16/2012 3:34:40 PM

Quote :

"If we’re going to redefine marriage in the future, I want the citizens to have a say in it."

Completely Agree. FINALLY SOMEONE WITH ACTUAL ARGUMENTS

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/16/2012 3:36:39 PM

Questions....

So I completely understand your beliefs and all as I identify myself as a Christian as well, but a lot of what you believe in is not what's actually occurring in today's society. Should we make laws and revise constitutions based on what is happening today or what we wish a dream world would look like?

Is it feasible to hurt those children that are being raised in homes where their biological parents are not married to each other? Should they be denied the rights that those kids with married parents receive?

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM. Reason : e]

4/16/2012 3:39:36 PM

Quote :

"Here goes: - I am a Christian - I believe in the historical and traditional definition of marriage written in our Constitution, that it should be between one man and one woman - I believe in protecting the interests of children more so than protecting the interests of same-sex couples - I believe that the natural male-female dynamic of parenting serves a purpose and that a father cannot be a mother, and that a mother cannot be a father - I believe that children do best in life when raised by their married mother and father, obviously in a supportive and non-violent household - I also don’t want NC judges and politicians deciding how marriage is defined based on their own personal views. If we’re going to redefine marriage in the future, I want the citizens to have a say in it. - I have gay friends and support them. But I could not attend their wedding and pray that God bless their marriage."

None of that explains why the legal rights & protections of non-married couples (regardless of orientation) should be stripped away.

If you want to protect the institution of marriage, then do something about frivolous marriages & quickie divorces.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM. Reason : edit]

4/16/2012 3:41:01 PM

this is the only time that people are attempting to manipulate the constitution to take AWAY rights, when we have usually used it to expand rights of citizens.

4/16/2012 3:42:24 PM

Quote :

"I see the against signs all over my neighborhood but I've never seen a pro one anywhere."

You should drive through my neighborhood. All I see are pro signs

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM. Reason : a]

4/16/2012 3:42:26 PM

Statistically speaking a much higher % of children raised in heterosex households are worse off than homosex. I have quite a few friends who were raised in homosex households and there is really nothing that would distinguish them from anyone else.

Quote :

"this is the only time that people are attempting to manipulate the constitution to take AWAY rights"

U sure about that?

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/16/2012 3:42:36 PM

Quote :

" I believe in protecting the interests of children more so than protecting the interests of same-sex couples"

Quote :

"It's your shitty kid. You fuckin talk to him."

4/16/2012 3:44:11 PM

honestly, I'd rather have had a stable household than one where my parents divorced when I was not even 2 years old, and my dad remarried and mom remarried twice.

4/16/2012 3:44:27 PM

yea, the qualifications you have to get through to adopt a child as a gay couple is expensive and extremely long. There are house checks and all sorts of crazy suff that gay couples go through to adopt a child, as there should be for any adopting couple. The ones selected are financially stable and have been labeled as fit parent, more than I can say for a LOT of people.

the relevance is that children in gay households are just fine.


not saying it is always perfect, but MORR I invite you to watch this.



[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2012 3:44:47 PM

^yeah exactly, not many gay couples on 16 and pregnant

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 3:48 PM. Reason : nvm]

4/16/2012 3:45:13 PM

if only they had that process for everyone, instead of just the homosexuals.

4/16/2012 3:46:53 PM

Quote :

"raiden: None of that explains why the legal rights & protections of non-married couples (regardless of orientation) should be stripped away."

And this right here is a point completely lost in the debate. A lot of heterosexual couples across the state are going to have their rights stripped away as well if this passes.

---

Quote :

"MORR1799: - I also don’t want NC judges and politicians deciding how marriage is defined based on their own personal views. If we’re going to redefine marriage in the future, I want the citizens to have a say in it."

Isn't that the purpose of electing a state legislature?

Quote :

"§ 51-1.2. Marriages between persons of the same gender not valid. Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina. (1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 588, s. 1.)"

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ---]

4/16/2012 3:57:12 PM

I was just thinking about that video and hoping that it would get posted. I'm sure there are plenty of (misguided) "pro" people lurking around but won't post so I hope that seeing something like that will be a bit of a wake up call.

4/16/2012 3:58:47 PM

Quote :

"I believe that the natural male-female dynamic of parenting serves a purpose and that a father cannot be a mother, and that a mother cannot be a father"

4/16/2012 3:59:37 PM

I am woefully under-educated about Amendment 1 (I am planning on doing some research before the actual voting, even though I pretty much know how I'm going to vote anyways).

So, can someone give a rundown on what this thing includes, OTHER than the banning gay marriage thing, cause that's obvious?

4/16/2012 4:00:08 PM

from the soap box.

4/16/2012 4:01:17 PM

Quote :

"Should we make laws and revise constitutions based on what is happening today or what we wish a dream world would look like?"

I think it depends. I don't feel that everything that is happening in today's world is best for society. I think the country has come a long way in some areas, but has taken a step back in others.

4/16/2012 4:02:31 PM

Quote :

"historical and traditional definition of marriage"

people really have to stop saying "historical" here

marriage predates Christianity, historically speaking

not that Christians seem to know or care

4/16/2012 4:03:39 PM

Interesting. I really believe #1 hits the nail on the head, and it encompasses many of the other points in that chart as well. We already don't have any other legal domestic unions. For instance, NC doesn't recognize common law marriages at all. 4, 5, and 6 are already happening in the state. I think #8 is the biggest *change* that would happen from this law, as the others are already embodied in some form or fashion in our current laws.

4/16/2012 4:04:55 PM

Quote :

"If we’re going to redefine marriage in the future, I want the citizens to have a say in it"

No judge, legislator, executive, citizen, or anyone else should have a say in denying the basic, civil, and constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. Freedom should be bestowed upon all, and only when absolutely necessary, the legislature intervene to restrict a freedom because it must be restricted (e.g. adversely and directly impacting the ability of another person to enjoy their freedom, e.g. murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.)

4/16/2012 4:06:54 PM

hey, I agree with wdprice3 on something.

4/16/2012 4:07:59 PM

haha.

4/16/2012 4:09:30 PM

Disagree. If the populace wants to change ANY law or create any law they should be able to. The idea is that people will act in an ethical way and the society will move towards a better solution than one dictated by a KING.

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/16/2012 4:09:51 PM

Quote :

"Beethoven: I am woefully under-educated about Amendment 1 (I am planning on doing some research before the actual voting, even though I pretty much know how I'm going to vote anyways). So, can someone give a rundown on what this thing includes, OTHER than the banning gay marriage thing, cause that's obvious?"

No one's 100% sure, because what was adopted by the General Assembly is not what's appearing on the ballot in May.

Here's the text that the legislature approved:

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."

Here's what voters will see on their ballots:

Quote :

"Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

With the 2nd sentence of the amendment omitted from the ballot, the question becomes whether the 2nd sentence gets included in the ratified amendment (even though voters wouldn't have "voted" on it per se).

If the sentence is not included in the ratified amendment, domestic partner benefits (between men and women of any age who are unmarried) face legal attack plus certain pockets of heterosexual couples -- for example, widows/widowers who are dating but haven't remarried -- would be forced into marriage to have any role in things like end-of-life decisions, medical care, hospital visitation, etc.

Even if the sentence is included, domestic partner benefits could still be offered by employers but anyone (heterosexual or otherwise) in a non-marriage domestic union would face legal issues.

4/16/2012 4:11:03 PM

Quote :

"Disagree. If the populace wants to change ANY law or create any law they should be able to. The idea is that people will act in an ethical way and the society will move towards a better solution than one dictated by a KING. I'm Krallum and I approved this message."

What the populace wants is irrelevant. Sheep vs wolves.

4/16/2012 4:12:04 PM

Quote :

"If the sentence is not included in the ratified amendment, domestic partner benefits (between men and women of any age who are unmarried) face legal attack plus certain pockets of heterosexual couples -- for example, widows/widowers who are dating but haven't remarried -- would be forced into marriage to have any role in things like end-of-life decisions, medical care, hospital visitation, etc."

Can you explain how this would result from the amendment? And how that is different from the way our legal system recognizes legal relationships now?

4/16/2012 4:22:48 PM

i, too, am not adequately informed in regards to all the things this amendment changes.

however, i am fairly confident this will end up passing...even though the people against it have been way more vocal than those in favor

4/16/2012 4:33:02 PM

Quote :

"people really have to stop saying "historical" here marriage predates Christianity, historically speaking not that Christians seem to know or care"

Not really... because if someone is a christian, then they believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, and they were man and wife.

Honestly, I feel that Marriage has always been a religious ceremony, in pretty much all cultures. Marriage is a covenant between a man, his wife, and God.

In that respect, the government shouldn't even define marriage at all, considering they don't have the power to designate people married or not; that should be left up to God. When the government uses the word marriage, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because they honestly don't control that.

What they do have the power to do, is grant them tax benefits and other benefits because they are together. If they want to give benefits to gay people, go for it, just don't force any church to marry them.

As for a secular argument, here is one I have seen:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

Also, in many cases, rights are given and taken based on personal choices. If someone chooses to commit a crime, or to opt out of signing up for something, they omit their right.

Love is a choice, you choose who to love and who not to love. By loving someone of the same sex, you are the one who is choosing to omit your right to marriage. The right has not been taken from you, it's up to you whether you exercise it or not, you just have to meet a set of qualifications.

4/16/2012 5:11:47 PM

just so much fail in that post. don't even know where to start.

do you think that Adam & Eve were Christians? did they follow the teachings of Christ? lol at you

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2012 5:14:53 PM