Another classy state that'll try to forget this happened in 25 years.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/08/po...ss_igoogle_cnn
What a draconian, freedom-hating state. It makes me simultaneously sad, and glad that I renounced my American citizenship and don't have to personally deal with backwater politics.North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban, CNN projects
North Carolina voters have passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, CNN projects, putting a ban that already existed in state law into the state's charter.
With more than 1.5 million votes counted from Tuesday's referendum, supporters of the ban led opponents by a margin of 61% to 39%, according to figures from the State Board of Elections. Its backers prepared to celebrate by serving wedding cake to their supporters in a Raleigh ballroom.
Tami Fitzgerald, the head of Vote for Marriage NC, said she had been confident that "the people of North Carolina would rise up and vote to keep the opposition from redefining traditional marriage.
"We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."
Meanwhile, a spokesman for one of the groups opposing the amendment told CNN, "The numbers are not looking the way we hope they would look."
"We have been down in the polls, and this certainly is not coming as a surprise," said Paul Guequierre, of the Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families. "But it is certainly not what we had hoped for."
The amendment would alter North Carolina's constitution to say that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." Supporters argued that the amendment was needed to stop those trying to redefine marriage and ward off possible future actions of "activist judges."
Opponents called the measure redundant and warned it could result in jeopardizing domestic violence protections for women and affect couples' health benefits.
The amendment was trailing in Charlotte, in the Triangle counties around Raleigh and Chapel Hill, as well as the Winston-Salem-Greensboro area, according to figures from the State Board of Elections. But it was winning by wide margins in rural counties and in the suburbs of Charlotte -- the home of famous evangelist Billy Graham, who endorsed the ballot measure last week.
Follow all the political news at CNN.com's Election Center
Graham's endorsement was a rare move for a preacher who has typically avoided political fights. He took out full-page ads in 14 North Carolina newspapers touting his support for the measure, saying "the Bible is clear -- God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman."
On the other side, former President Bill Clinton opposed the amendment in a recording sent by phone to hundreds of thousands of North Carolina homes.
"So the real effect of the law is not to keep the traditional definition of marriage, you've already done that," Clinton says in the recording. "The real effect of the law will be to hurt families and drive away jobs."
The amendment also would strengthen the state's position against same-sex civil unions, often considered a precursor to the marriage issue. Several municipalities in North Carolina provide benefits to same-sex couples, and Duke University law professor Kathryn Bradley said those rights could be lost with passage of the amendment.
Opinion: Obama keeps his conscience in the closet
Concerns over the measure also honed in on the potential for unintended consequences, she said, affecting issues such as child custody and the prosecution of domestic violence among unmarried couples because of the narrow definition of the new statute.
"Before domestic violence laws, we relied on criminal assault laws, which don't always protect against things like stalking," added Bradley, who says the measure could also affect heterosexual couples.
The state House and Senate voted in 2011 to put the amendment before state voters. Both chambers are Republican-controlled for the first time in the past 140 years.
"This bill's been 12 years in the making," said Maxine Eichner, a law professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "But it's now made possible because Republicans control the legislature."
Should the constitutional amendment gain approval, it would largely prevent the state's judiciary from overturning it. Some 500,000 people had cast ballots on the measure before Tuesday through early voting or absentee ballots.
The only recent public opinion polling on the issue, from a group that does work for Democratic candidates and causes, indicates that a majority of North Carolina voters support the amendment.
Nationally, according to a new Gallup survey, 50% of Americans believe same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, a markedly different position than those polled in past years, suggesting growing acceptance of same-sex marriages.
Some 48% say such marriages should not be legal.
On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said he was "absolutely comfortable" with the idea of same-sex marriage.
"I just think that the good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about, it is a simple proposition: Who do you love? Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person who love?" Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Biden did not mention the North Carolina initiative and added that President Barack Obama has the final word on the administration's policy. Obama has taken the official position that his views on the issue are "evolving."
Before Tuesday, 30 states had voted in favor of constitutional amendments that seek to defend traditional definitions of marriage as a heterosexual union.
"Of states without constitutional amendments on marriage, 45% (nine of 20) eventually recognize same-sex marriage, either by direct judicial decree, by legislative action, or by a ruling requiring that same-sex marriages from other states be treated as valid," the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriages, said in a statement. "Among the 30 states with marriage amendments, none have been repealed."
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In February, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire signed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage beginning in June, but opponents there have pledged to block the bill and called for voters to decide the issue.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed into law a bill that permits same-sex couples to wed in that state as of January 1, 2013.
Long live Canada, and true freedom.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Remind me, did Canada ever put it up for a vote?
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Asher, you should consider the fact that it was banned before, only now it's just Extra-Banned with a capital B. This changes nothing. It's basically symbolic.
EDIT: Actually, it changes one thing. It prevents judges from legislating on the issue from the bench. So you could see this is as voters asserting their rights and the rights of the legislature against the judiciary.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Yup. Free vote in the house of commons.Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi
It just proves that they're extra bigoted and extra scared.
"legislating from the bench" is doublespeak for "passing judgement based on current laws in ways that contradict popular opinion amongst rednecks". You're better than that, HC.
Any true freedom-loving American would support gay marriage. Anyone who doesn't can't claim to love freedom. It's as simple as that. You're legislating relationships between consenting adults. It's absurd on its face.
It's utterly ****ing bizarre that most Americans seem proud of the fact that you can have Westboro disrupt soldier's funerals with their hate speech and propaganda, but they think it's okay for the government to step in and regulate personal relationships.
Do they not see the ridiculousness of that scenario? Wake up, America -- your priorities are truly ****ed.
So the people never had a say? Odd that.Yup. Free vote in the house of commons.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
So you want the government to stop issuing marriage licenses?government to step in and regulate personal relationships.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Actually Westboro can do that if others can do that; governments are allowed to ban protests at funerals in general, just not specifically "GOD HATES FAGS" ones.
Anyway I think free speech is significantly more important than marriage, at least within the context of "inalienable rights."
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the rust belt where industry won't go
They're not banning homosexuality, Asher. No one is legislating to say you can't have a gay partner. You just aren't conferred state benefits for being in such a relationship. Considering that in most states that have gay marriage, it was passed by court order and not legislation, and that there is a totally valid legal principle by which you can consider this to be legislating from the bench (real judicial activism, we're not talking about Brown v. Board here), it seems perfectly reasonable to me to send a message to the supreme court of whatever state you live in that the Constitution of your state is not quite so elastic.
I'm not gonna deny that a lot of support for this is homophobia-driven bigotry, or try to justify the religious ****. I don't care about any of that. I DO very much care about courts deciding to invent rights as a way to implement policy that is not politically popular but they think is correct. That isn't the court system's job.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Do you understand how a representative democracy works, Ben?
People elect representatives which vote on issues in the legislature. The legislature legalized gay marriage by a very large margin.
Even if this went to a ridiculous referendum, gay marriage support has been well in majority territory in Canada for many, many years. Even the Conservatives won't touch that issue with a ten-foot pole and support gay marriage now.
Last numbers I saw were 60-65% in favour of same-sex marriage in Canada.
YES.
I cannot emphasize that enough.
The government should be out of the marriage game entirely.
What you're saying is hate speech is more important than marriage.
Americans typically conflate hate speech with free speech because nuance is lost on them. There are plenty of restrictions on free speech in the US (slander, public panic, etc).
One vote, Stronach's.People elect representatives which vote on issues in the legislature. The legislature legalized gay marriage by a very large margin.
I still believe the people should have their say, and that they should have had their say back in 2005. It strikes me as amusing that you're in favor of government intervention so long as it's to your benefit.Even if this went to a ridiculous referendum, gay marriage support has been well in majority territory in Canada for many, many years. Even the Conservatives won't touch that issue with a ten-foot pole and support gay marriage now.
Well, then. Put it up for a vote, if you feel so confident. Province by province.Last numbers I saw were 60-65% in favour of same-sex marriage in Canada.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Just that if your gay partner is hospitalized, you aren't allowed to visit them when it's "family only". Or when he dies without a will, all of his assets go to his kin and not to his partner.
You don't understand the rulings. They aren't inventing rights, they're interpreting rights and laws in ways that you disagree with. Tough **** - that's the job of courts.I DO very much care about courts deciding to invent rights as a way to implement policy that is not politically popular but they think is correct. That isn't the court system's job.
I'm not quite sure how calling homosexuality sinful constitutes 'slander'.Americans typically conflate hate speech with free speech because nuance is lost on them. There are plenty of restrictions on free speech in the US (slander, public panic, etc).
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Yes, this is a terrific idea by someone who preaches fiscal conservatism. Let's call for a special referendum that only religious nuts want that everyone knows won't change anything and is ultimately ****ing pointless because every court in the land has also ruled that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.
What the ****? Where did this come from?
Jesus ****ing Christ, Ben. Shove a dildo in your mouth, put a gerbil in your ass, pull up the fiddling priest video and back away from the keyboard.
So, IOW - you're against gay marriage. Does it feel good to be a bigot Asher?I cannot emphasize that enough.
The government should be out of the marriage game entirely.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Indeed. Why not put everything up for referendum. After all, if it isn't voted for province by province, how can you know the people really support it? It's not a democracy unless it's a direct democracy!
What an idiot.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
I'm for marriage equality.
If the state is granting it, it's not fair to discriminate.
But they shouldn't be granting them.
Wow, that's amazing. Ben hasn't lost his game at all in the last six months.
He's still a lying, bigoted, dishonest and above all else--mentally retarded--cuntwagon.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Ben and his ilk have been run out of Canadian politics for that kind of nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day
It doesn't mention it in the wiki, but they actually did get the requisite 3% of Canada to rename Stockwell to Doris.The Alliance's direct democracy proposals, which would have required a referendum on any proposal supported by a petition signed by 3% of Canadian voters, was also frequently targeted as a suggestion of a hidden agenda. Some asserted that "special interest" groups would use the low requirements to put contentious subjects to a national referendum.Day never did endorse the 3% threshold. He maintained that he felt it was too low and that the criteria for referenda needed to be improved. The proposal was satirized by Rick Mercer of This Hour Has 22 Minutes, where he proposed a national petition for a referendum to demand that Day change his first name to Doris.
Come now. A ****wagon sounds rather fun to me.
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
If you think the state shouldn't grant it, then you have to agree that government-recognized marriages are NOT in fact a civil right.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
I believe the civil right is against discrimination. At least, this is the case in Canada. I don't care how the US does it.
There is no right to marriage - there is a right to be free from discrimination on sexual orientation, amongst other things.
The sad truth is, Ben is probably the best counterargument that exists to everything I've said in this thread.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
And if it's not a fundamental right, then it's perfectly ok for the state to discriminate.If you think the state shouldn't grant it, then you have to agree that government-recognized marriages are NOT in fact a civil right.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Imagine - states having rights? Who knew?Indeed. Why not put everything up for referendum. After all, if it isn't voted for province by province, how can you know the people really support it? It's not a democracy unless it's a direct democracy!
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks