^^^ http://www.WakeVotesEarly.com

5/1/2012 9:33:22 PM

So it looks like the most downtown-ish place that's open the full hours is

Roberts Community Center
1300 E. Martin Street
Raleigh, NC 27610

And that means these hours apply.

Quote :

"Friday April 27 11 a.m. - 7 p.m. Saturday April 28 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. Sunday April 29 1 p.m. - 5 p.m. Monday - Friday April 30 -May 4 11 a.m. - 7 p.m. Saturday May 5 10 a.m. - 1 p.m."

Then the board of elections place closes at 5 or before.

What do you need in order to early vote? Someone told me the Republicans were trying to make it required that we show a drivers license and title to at least 40 acres of land

5/1/2012 11:18:26 PM

^what they're pushing isn't far off from that, but they haven't got the bill into law yet, though it might be there in time for the general election

if you're registered to vote at your current location already, you won't need a license or land deed, but if you do need to register or update your information, then take an idea, bank statement, or something proving your current address when you go to early vote... just don't wait until May 8th, you can't update your stuff then, only during one stop early voting

this site might help:
http://ncelectionconnection.com/
and this one:
http://www.ncsbe.gov/
and this one:
http://www.wakegov.com/elections/default.htm

[Edited on May 2, 2012 at 2:18 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2012 2:17:56 AM

But what does "current location" mean? My normal polling place isn't one of the early voting locations. Do you just mean address? Heck, with how the districts are drawn, I have a hard time understanding how anyone would hope to match a district with an early voting location.

5/2/2012 2:49:15 AM

Maybe this has already been answered, but what is the point of this amendment? For you folks in favor, what do you gain from this amendment? Gay marriage is already illegal and that law has stood for some time now. A court can't challenge it, as it must be brought to the court, not the other way around. All this amendment does is open the state to federal review and the ability for a court to make a ruling on it (is how I understand this works), which, if precedence rules, is likely to get ruled unconstitutional.

[Edited on May 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2012 9:49:31 AM

Has it been ruled unconstitutional in other states? I don't think that it has.

5/2/2012 9:56:27 AM

California?

5/2/2012 10:02:01 AM

Quote :

"For you folks in favor, what do you gain from this amendment?"

They get to declare a hundred thousand heterosexual couples in north carolina unmarried and the children of those relationships bastards.

5/2/2012 10:31:22 AM

Quote :

"Maybe this has already been answered, but what is the point of this amendment? For you folks in favor, what do you gain from this amendment? Gay marriage is already illegal and that law has stood for some time now. A court can't challenge it, as it must be brought to the court, not the other way around. All this amendment does is open the state to federal review and the ability for a court to make a ruling on it (is how I understand this works), which, if precedence rules, is likely to get ruled unconstitutional."

10:1 that anyone sincerely answering this question uses the term "activist judges".

5/2/2012 10:52:21 AM

MrFrog, you can vote at any Early Voting site in Wake County. Each early voting location has ALL of the possible ballot styles so you aren't tied to voting at any one location.

If you are not already registered you may register and vote the same day at an early voting location. The requirements are you must have lived in Wake County for at least 30 days, and you must show a form of ID that lists your pre-printed name AND current address to verify that you are a Wake County citizen.

Quote :

"Acceptable forms of identification include: A North Carolina driver’s license with current address A utility bill with name and current address A telephone or mobile phone bill An electric or gas bill A cable television bill A water or sewage bill A document with name and current address from a local, state, or U.S. government agency, such as: A passport A government-issued photo ID U.S. military ID A license to hunt, fish, own a gun, etc. A property or other tax bill Automotive or vehicle registration Certified documentation of naturalization A public housing or Social Service Agency document A check, invoice, or letter from a government agency A birth certificate A student photo ID along with a document from the school showing the student’s name and current address A paycheck or paycheck stub from an employer or a W-2 statement A bank statement or bank-issued credit card statement "

If you do not have an acceptable form of ID to prove your residence in Wake County then you can vote provisionally and you have up to 7 days after the election day to provide proper ID to the BOE for your provisional ballot to count.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?ID=32

[Edited on May 2, 2012 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/2/2012 12:52:52 PM

Quote :

"They get to declare a hundred thousand heterosexual couples in north carolina unmarried and the children of those relationships bastards."

so..... why not just get married then?

5/2/2012 1:14:05 PM

Because they don't want to and shouldn't have to. The point is that this amendment changes nothing vis a vis homosexual marriage but will cause many changes to existing domestic partnerships.

5/2/2012 1:17:59 PM

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/05/02/wife-of-nc-state-senator-says-amendment-one-is-necessaryto-protect-the-caucasian-race/

5/2/2012 1:41:50 PM

Other than sheer don't-blame-me politics, why was this legislation not decided by our elected representatives? I'm sure we elected them to make decisions like this for us. Sounds like it failed several times in congress, then they decided to just dump it on the ignorant masses.

5/2/2012 1:48:24 PM

Ok, well I voted to make NC a hell-bound gay wonderland of vice and sodomy today.

5/2/2012 2:07:33 PM

Quote :

"Nance said he recorded a conversation with the woman, whose name is Jodie Brunstetter, on video, and that she confirmed that she used the term “Caucasian” in a discussion about the marriage amendment, but insisted that otherwise her comments had been taken out of context by other poll workers. …Nance paraphrased the remarks, as told to him by those who were present: “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.” Nance said he recruited a friend, who works for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, to witness his interview with Jodie Brunstetter. He said Brunstetter reluctantly acknowledged that she had used the term “Caucasian” and then repeated the statement previously attributed to her, but substituted the pronoun “we” for “Caucasian. Nance said Brunstetter insisted there was nothing racial about her remarks, but could not explain why she used the term “Caucasian.” "

5/2/2012 2:24:27 PM

Quote :

"Ok, well I voted to make NC a hell-bound gay wonderland of vice and sodomy today."

5/2/2012 2:36:50 PM

^^lol

http://yesweeklyblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/racialized-remark-about-marriage.html

Quote :

"Me: You didn't tell that one lady that it was to preserve the Caucasian race because they were becoming a minority? Brunsetter: No. Me: She's lying? Brunsetter: No. It's just that same sex marriages are not having children. Me: Yeahm but you didn't say anything about Caucasians, white people, preserving them that's why it was written? Brunsetter: No I'm afraid they have made it a racial issue when it is not. Me: She didn't say it was a racial issue. She said that you had said that opart of the reason it had been sponsored and written was to preserve the white race. (a moment later) … you didn't say anything about Caucasians? Brunsetter: I probably said the word. Me: You didn't tell her anything about Caucasians? Silence. Me: I want you to clear it up if you could. Brunsetter: Right now I am a little confused myself because there has been confusion here today about this amendment where it is very simple. The opponents are saying things that are not true and there has been a lot of conversation back and forth. Right now I have some heat stroke going on. Um there has been lots of confusion. Me: Did you say anything about Caucasians? Brunsetter: If I did it wasn't anything race related. Me: But it is about identifying a race. No context on Caucasians? Brunsetter: There has been so much talk about this point that there is just a lot of confusion. Me: You're not going to be able to explain it? Brunsetter: Well, it's a little hard."

5/2/2012 2:48:03 PM

Quote :

"Because they don't want to and shouldn't have to."

Then why should they receive the same benefits and protections that married couples do?

5/2/2012 3:18:34 PM

They don't and they're not arguing that they should. They're arguing that they should continue to recieve the domestic protections they currently recieve which are entirely separate from the government benefit of being married.

2 different types of relationships, 2 different types of civil benefits.

5/2/2012 3:25:58 PM

Quote :

"three cities – Durham, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill – recognize gender non-specific domestic partnerships 2,3. At the time of this writing, there were 36 domestic partnerships registered in Carrboro and 202 in Chapel Hill. [...] It appears that amendment One would invalidate them."

5/2/2012 3:49:05 PM

Quote :

"Why should joe bumfuck prevent jane lesbian from marrying jenny lesbian with a vote because his religion called fucking 3rd grade dibs on the "marriage" dictionary entry hundreds of years ago?"

I don't think he should. But I don't think you are comprehending my argument. I'm saying don't change the meaning of a word in order to change a law. Just change the fucking law. I think it's important to look at laws in the actual context of, you know, the words used to describe them. Marriage has a clear and obvious definition: one man, one woman. The ONLY way we talk about any other kind of institution is not to use the word "marriage" by itself, but to add other words. That should tell you something about how our brains are really comprehending the word.

Quote :

"aaronburro, any response to the point that gay marriage is already illegal and all this amendment will really do is void a hundred thousand heterosexual marriages?"

I don't what you're expecting me to say, given that I'm not in favour of this amendment.

Quote :

"aaronburro, your arguments remind me of the "separate but equal" arguments of the past "

Only because you are just having a knee-jerk reaction, putting words into my mouth, probably assuming I support this crap amendment, and don't understand what I'm actually arguing. Care to show where anyone in the "separate but equal" discussion was commenting on the definition of marriage?

Quote :

"haha aaronburro continues to be a piece of shit excuse for a human."

Why, because I think we ought to change laws themselves, instead of just changing the meanings of words in laws?

5/2/2012 7:52:43 PM

I've been seeing a lot more "FOR" posts from people on Facebook recently... people i wouldn't expect to be Fors.

Quote :

"Marriage has a clear and obvious definition: one man, one woman. The ONLY way we talk about any other kind of institution is not to use the word "marriage" by itself, but to add other words."

This isn't true at all. It depends on where you are and when you are.

No one uses a different word when talking about people in the Bible married to multiple women, or when discussing Muslims who are married to multiple women, or people in the past who were married to children.

Like every word in every language, the meaning is contemporary, and it's increasingly evolving in our society to include the gays, without qualification.

Even if I were against gay marriage, the country is headed this direction anyway, this amendment WILL eventually be over turned, as well as the law that it is redundant of. It's just a matter of time. It's sad anyone would still promote bigotry whilst realizing this inevitability.

[Edited on May 2, 2012 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/2/2012 9:38:40 PM

good read

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/01/2034592/who-the-amendment-is-aimed-at.html

5/2/2012 9:40:49 PM

Quote :

"No one uses a different word when talking about people in the Bible married to multiple women, or when discussing Muslims who are married to multiple women, or people in the past who were married to children."

I just started reading Steinbeck's Cannery Row. It takes place in Montery California during the Great Depression. One of the resident's is married to two women residents.

5/2/2012 9:53:22 PM

^^ I'm not promoting ANY bigotry. I'm simply saying to overturn the laws, themselves, if you don't like them, like I've said at least once before. The laws on the books that granted benefits to "married" people were done so with a clear and obvious meaning of the word "marriage," a meaning that, despite what you think, still means "one man, one woman." That means that if we don't like what those laws say, WE SHOULD FUCKING REPEAL THEM. You obviously think it's OK to just change the meaning of words in laws and roll with it. Let me know how you feel about that when the gov't comes in and says "freedom of speech" means "requirement to only say what the gov't thinks is good."

Quote :

"One of the resident's is married to two women residents."

and you think that disproves my claim how? He has two separate marriages. And both "marriages" involve, say it with me, "one man, one woman."

[Edited on May 2, 2012 at 9:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/2/2012 9:55:40 PM

there have been societies throughout history that have had marriages between two men, from China to Rome. and there are at least 10 modern day countries that allow marriages between two men or two women.

5/2/2012 10:03:29 PM

Quote :

"^^ I'm not promoting ANY bigotry. I'm simply saying to overturn the laws, themselves, if you don't like them, like I've said at least once before. The laws on the books that granted benefits to "married" people were done so with a clear and obvious meaning of the word "marriage," a meaning that, despite what you think, still means "one man, one woman." That means that if we don't like what those laws say, WE SHOULD FUCKING REPEAL THEM. You obviously think it's OK to just change the meaning of words in laws and roll with it. Let me know how you feel about that when the gov't comes in and says "freedom of speech" means "requirement to only say what the gov't thinks is good.""

1) I wasn't suggesting you were promoting bigotry, but people using your rationale do.

2) what you are saying makes no sense on the context of Amendment 1. First, it's irrelevant if the existing laws concerning marriage were written with the "intention" of "one man one woman" if they don't explicitly say this. There are literally countless examples of this in law, but just think of the first amendment. When it was written there was some "intention" of what free speech means, but do you think the founders could fathom how it affects the Internet, SOPA/PIPA, or the system of megacorporations we have today? Of course not, which is why the court systems interpret laws written in the past to determine how they might be relevant for new developments.

What you seem to be saying is that when society evolves, and an existing structure that could EASILY cover this new evolution exists, but whose original authors may not have "intended" for it to, this law should be repealed. This is senseless.

And it's not clear, but you also seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be working against Amendment 1, they should instead be working to repeal or change existing marriage law? The 2 acts are mutually exclusive.

5/2/2012 10:08:06 PM

doesn't mean that, when OUR laws were written, they were even BEGINNING to use it in that way. But, please, show me the multitude of other nations that specifically define "marriage", in the English language, as anything other than one man, one woman. More than likely, you are thinking of countries that recognize unions that are other than "one man, one woman." Or, you are thinking of countries that recognize "gay marriage," again, adding a describing word in front of the original to show that the original has a clear meaning that doesn't covere anything other than "one man, one woman." Also, show me the countless countries throughout history that have recognized, en masse, "marriage" as anything other than "one man, one woman." Nero doing whatever the fuck he wants is NOT an example of Rome saying that "marriage" could be between two men. Romans fucking everything that moved is also not an example; it's an example of the acceptance of homosexuality

Quote :

"what you are saying makes no sense on the context of Amendment 1"

Of course it doesn't, because I've changed the fucking words to mean something else, which is PRECISELY what the homosexual community has tried to do with the word "marriage."

Quote :

"First, it's irrelevant if the existing laws concerning marriage were written with the "intention" of "one man one woman" if they don't explicitly say this. "

No, it's really not. We OFTEN look at the meanings of the words in laws based on when they were written. Hell, that's a standard liberal argument for why we should ignore some laws. When we look and see that the clear intent of a law was to recognize unions between "one man, one woman", then it is absurd to argue that the law was ever intended or should be used to recognize anything else.

Quote :

"What you seem to be saying is that when society evolves, and an existing structure that could EASILY cover this new evolution exists, but whose original authors may not have "intended" for it to, this law should be repealed. This is senseless."

I'd say that it is far better for the society to make it abundantly clear what its wishes are, so that later on someone else doesn't come in and ask what the real meaning of the word "is" is. That makes more sense. You want to recognize unions between two people, irrespective of gender/sex? Write a law that says so, or that amends the existing one to add that clarification. Then there is no ambiguity. The intent is clear, and we can all agree, at least, on what the law actually says.

Quote :

"And it's not clear, but you also seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be working against Amendment 1, they should instead be working to repeal or change existing marriage law? The 2 acts are mutually exclusive."

I am certainly not saying the former. sorry that that is what you are picking up

5/2/2012 10:09:18 PM

Quote :

"Of course it doesn't, because I've changed the fucking words to mean something else, which is PRECISELY what the homosexual community has tried to do with the word "marriage.""

If this is the crux of your argument, then you are plainly wrong.

What people envision as "marriage" has clearly changed over time, and to this day, is different depending of what country you're in. The meaning of the word "marriage" isn't singular or immutable throughout history.

It's only recently people have fought to stringently define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Gay people in NC still call themselves "married" (i'm assuming, I only know 2 "married" gay couples), there's no even an agreed upon word that would make sense otherwise.

Think of it this way... There are plenty of people demanding that "marriage" be defined as a union before God, but you would never accept this would you? Because obviously people who don't acknowledge the existence of God could still be married. But this argument would probably have gained a lot of traction 50 years ago (when "Under God" and "In God We Trust" became so popular).

Just because you perceive large percentage of people throughout American history to intuitively perceive marriage as being just 1 man and 1 woman [joined before God] doesn't mean that is the only way those words could ever and always be used. I'm not even sure why you would attempt to stick by that argument.

5/2/2012 10:52:12 PM

It seems like marriage should be a lifelong commitment to be intimately exclusive with another person.

5/2/2012 11:32:02 PM

Quote :

"But, please, show me the multitude of other nations that specifically define "marriage", in the English language, as anything other than one man, one woman. "

I'll be honest, i'm not really following your argument, because it's very hard to folllow your arguments. But it sounds like you're arguing what the definition of marriage is, as defined by a modern-day joe american schmoe.

But here's some nations who allow marriages between the same sex (below). Most of them aren't "English language"-speaking nations, and i don't know why that matters, but i'm thinking that your rationale is: "their definition of the translation of the word "marriage" isn't the same as the english definition of "marriage"? (semantics)

Quote :

"Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Same-sex marriages are also performed and recognized in the Brazilian state of Alagoas,[2] Mexico City and parts of the United States. Some jurisdictions that do not perform same-sex marriages recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere: Israel, the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, parts of the United States, and all states of Brazil and Mexico. Australia recognises same-sex marriages only by one partner changing their sex after marriage.[3] As of 2012, proposals exist to introduce same-sex marriage in at least ten other countries."

(yeah, it's wikipedia. tell me where it's wrong)

5/2/2012 11:52:51 PM

Quote :

"But, please, show me the multitude of other nations that specifically define "marriage", in the English language, as anything other than one man, one woman."

This is what is called "moving the goalposts" and is the death knell of an unreasonable argument.

5/3/2012 9:55:19 AM

aaronburro's argument about gay marriage has always been about semantics. He's arguing a point that no one else is arguing. No one supporting marriage equality gives two shits what it is called as long as it provides the same legal protections currently afforded to married couples.

For some reason he can't seem to grasp that.

5/3/2012 11:43:31 AM

This argument here isn't about gay marriage. We are debating an amendment to define only acknowledged marriage (between a man and a woman) as the only recognized union.

The against argument centers around the removal of protections for civil unions, the insane amount of resources and money that the amendment will cost the state, is bad for business, and increases the presences of the federal government in all of our personal lives. The for argument centers around.......I've got nothing and have yet to see any reason presented for it (we already have a law on the books).

Please refrain from the debate on should gay marriage be legal and what the definition of marriage is because that is not what this amendment is about. Let's get back on track here.

5/3/2012 12:00:05 PM

Sure that makes sense, aside from the fact that an amendment to the NC constitution would involve the federal government in our lives....

Yeah, there are about a million reasons to vote against this, I just find it amusing that aaronburro is still arguing about marriage definitions.

5/3/2012 12:03:31 PM

I'm sorry but being against gay marriage is not ancillary to this discussion. It's the missing reasoning you're referencing.

The only reason anyone would be for this is because they are philosophically against gay marriage. Thus, defenses of their philosophy (even terrible defenses in the case of aaronburro) are surely apropos.

5/3/2012 12:04:59 PM

Quote :

"This argument here isn't about gay marriage. We are debating an amendment to define only acknowledged marriage (between a man and a woman) as the only recognized union. "

This is a very good point. The discussion isn't about gay marriage, it's about gay anything, which burro claims that he's not arguing against but he is.

5/3/2012 12:25:04 PM

@aaronburro:

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

Really this amendment comes down to restricting what a domestic legal union is defined as by the State of North Carolina (or clarifying if you want to put it that way).

So, arguing that marriage is this and that is moot to a certain extent. You should be asking yourself is what a domestic legal union is defined as. Instead of calling this the "Marriage Protection Amendment", maybe it should be called the "Domestic Legal Union Restrictive Definition Amendment" instead. Of course, what politician in their right mind would call a piece of legislation by a name concerning its true nature?

[Edited on May 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM. Reason :  ]

5/3/2012 12:32:04 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/02/475141/brunstetter-caucasian/?mobile=nc

wow...

5/3/2012 2:57:54 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro, any response to the point that gay marriage is already illegal and all this amendment will really do is void a hundred thousand heterosexual marriages?"

How will heterosexual marriages be voided?

5/3/2012 3:38:58 PM

Mr. Marriage, Leroy Gingrich, just gave us this little nugget in support of Amendment One. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h19BiPhX2h0 Which marriage is he on now? I'd like to ask Speaker Thom Tillis to comment, but he's too busy overseeing staffers that are having affairs with lobbyists. Way to preserve that sanctity of marriage Republicans.............. Fuck you.

5/3/2012 5:04:18 PM

Hahahahaha. Newt, who's been married 3 times, and who has had affairs whle married, wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage? I don't understand how people can be such hypocrites.

5/3/2012 5:11:07 PM

I just saw that Newt BS video telling NCers to vote yes on this amendment... pleeeeease. That guy was supposedly having affairs and all that too... and here he is talking about protecting the sanctity of marriage and protecting conservatism. AHAHAHAHAH. Shut it Newt.

5/3/2012 5:48:15 PM

5/3/2012 9:12:18 PM

Quote :

"Gay people in NC still call themselves "married""

And I can call myself "President of the USA" but that doesn't make it so.

Quote :

"Think of it this way... There are plenty of people demanding that "marriage" be defined as a union before God, but you would never accept this would you?"

Of course not, as that would be a narrowing of the definition that makes little to no sense, given the historical evidence that non-Abrahamic religions also had marriage ceremonies. Essentially, such an attempt would be entirely the same, in that it would be attempting to redefine the word.

Quote :

"Yeah, there are about a million reasons to vote against this, I just find it amusing that aaronburro is still arguing about marriage definitions."

That's because you don't see a problem with subverting the democratic process by simply changing the meaning of words, instead of changing laws.

Quote :

"I just saw that Newt BS video telling NCers to vote yes on this amendment... pleeeeease. That guy was supposedly having affairs and all that too... and here he is talking about protecting the sanctity of marriage and protecting conservatism. AHAHAHAHAH. Shut it Newt."

Look, man, Newt is DEFINITELY the Family Values candidate. He's had more families than anybody else in the race...

5/3/2012 9:25:15 PM

Quote :

"That's because you don't see a problem with subverting the democratic process by simply changing the meaning of words, instead of changing laws."

The amendment is an effort to change laws. Limiting marriage to a man and a woman is only one of the things that the wording does. The other is that is says that no other domestic union will be recognized by the state.

You're saying we have to fight this battle in the arena of laws separate from the definition of marriage. We're already there. The current discussion is past the definition of marriage, and on the recognition of domestic unions other than marriage. So will you defend the recognition of domestic unions and vote against Amendment 1?

5/3/2012 9:37:54 PM

Quote :

"The amendment is an effort to change laws."

And?

Quote :

"So will you defend the recognition of domestic unions and vote against Amendment 1?"

If I were legally allowed to vote in NC, I'd vote against this Amendment.

5/3/2012 9:41:40 PM

okaaaay

well I didn't read the thread

5/3/2012 9:44:03 PM

Sharia law.

5/4/2012 3:37:17 PM