North Carolina (in before MrFun!)

notyoueither · May 9, 2012, 01:20

Originally Posted by Hauldren Collider

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.

Won't SCOTUS punt the State amendment?

Braindead · May 9, 2012, 02:07

Originally Posted by Asher

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.

Long live Canada, and true freedom.

While you're at it, could you start a thread on land rights for gay whales please?

(Starting with a great big cut and paste article if you please).

Thanks in anticipation Asher.

MrFun · May 9, 2012, 02:43

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

. . . and how the understanding of marriage changed.

Ben just admitted that the understanding of marriage has changed over history?

MrFun · May 9, 2012, 02:44

Oh, and by the way - fvck the people in North Carolina who voted for the amendment.

Ben Kenobi · May 9, 2012, 03:15

Ben just admitted that the understanding of marriage has changed over history?

Have I ever said otherwise? Christian marriage is Christian marriage. The concept that marriage is for life and that divorce is contrary to marriage was an innovation.

Braindead · May 9, 2012, 05:56

Originally Posted by MrFun

Oh, and by the way - fvck the people in North Carolina who voted for the amendment.

I will go you halves in that enterprise. You can have the boys and I will attend to the girls.

Fair?

DinoDoc · May 9, 2012, 09:04

Originally Posted by gribbler

Can someone explain why this was put up for vote in a primary and not a general election? If having the people decide the rights of a minority is so important shouldn't it happen in an election with high turnout?

So you wanted a ballot measure likely to draw people unlikely to vote for President Obama to the polls in a State that he needs to win to be in the general election?

dannubis · May 9, 2012, 09:13

Originally Posted by Hauldren Collider

You could argue all day on this--I don't think there's one conclusively correct answer, but it's my opinion that the distinction between gay marriage and traditional marriage is a perfectly reasonable one.

What possibly could be a reason to distinguish between different types of marriage ? Unless of course you plant to do something with that type of information...

Jon Miller · May 9, 2012, 09:44

Because most people consider them to be different things?

I mean, it is the same as saying that the word 'american' shouldn't be used....

JM

Dauphin · May 9, 2012, 09:44

If Ben is a teacher, does he now know that 'matriculating' doesn't mean he has a degree?

Also, Ben, which gay charity did you donate the $10 that I asked you to donate after venart helped you out?

Elok · May 9, 2012, 09:54

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

Because most people consider them to be different things?

I mean, it is the same as saying that the word 'american' shouldn't be used....

JM

It shouldn't. Nationalities should always be capitalized, at least in English. [/pedantic]

Anyway, arguments about "traditional marriage" are largely missing the point. "Traditional marriage" is, for good or bad, now something of an anachronism largely sustained by tax and other privileges. It's like you're arguing about whether the Post Office should hire homosexuals. The correct question is not "is this in keeping with our historical understanding of how mail delivery should function?" but "whoTF uses the Post Office anymore?"

Oncle Boris · May 9, 2012, 11:33

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

And if it's not a fundamental right, then it's perfectly ok for the state to discriminate.

You're such a douchebag.

Unemployment benefits probably aren't a fundamental right. You think it would be just fine to deny it on the basis of a "niggerity" or "fagness" evaluation?

regexcellent · May 9, 2012, 11:33

I think it would be fair to deny it based on the fact that it pays people to not work.

Oncle Boris · May 9, 2012, 11:38

Originally Posted by regexcellent

I think it would be fair to deny it based on the fact that it pays people to not work.

Let's have a 100% inheritance tax too - it pays people not to work.

If only you knew how close to each other's our beliefs are.

Kuciwalker · May 9, 2012, 11:52

Incentives matter. Maybe we should give the South another incentive to stop oppressing minorities. Who's up for razing Raleigh this time?

gribbler · May 9, 2012, 12:05

Originally Posted by regexcellent

I think it would be fair to deny it based on the fact that it pays people to not work.

They couldn't have gotten the unemployment benefits if they hadn't been employed in the first place.

regexcellent · May 9, 2012, 12:07

Originally Posted by Kuciwalker

Incentives matter. Maybe we should give the South another incentive to stop oppressing minorities. Who's up for razing Raleigh this time?

No, that's a horrible idea. Cisco has major offices there.

Edit: well, not to mention, you know, all the people who live there

kentonio · May 9, 2012, 12:13

Originally Posted by Jon Miller

Because most people consider them to be different things?

Since when was majority supported discrimination ok?

Originally Posted by Dauphin

If Ben is a teacher, does he now know that 'matriculating' doesn't mean he has a degree?

He's a history teacher who knows next to nothing about history. If he can spell 'degree' then I'd be shocked.

Hauldren Collider · May 9, 2012, 12:40

Originally Posted by Kuciwalker

Incentives matter. Maybe we should give the South another incentive to stop oppressing minorities. Who's up for razing Raleigh this time?

I'm guessing that most of the people that opposed the amendment live in Raleigh and the Research Triangle. This would probably be counterproductive.

The Mad Monk · May 9, 2012, 12:57

Should be one heck of a convention this year.

SlowwHand · May 9, 2012, 13:37

Originally Posted by Asher

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.
Serious untrue.
Do they not see the ridiculousness of that scenario? Wake up, America -- your priorities are truly ****ed.

Untrue. The protests are seen as disgusting by the vast majority

Hauldren Collider · May 9, 2012, 13:48

They're seen as disgusting by everyone not in Phelps' stupid church.

The Mad Monk · May 9, 2012, 13:52

You're missing his point. It's that we're proud of the protests, it's that we're proud that we are willing to uphold Freedom of Speech that far. Which, for the most part, we are.

I would take issue with comparing that to gay marriage, unless he means that marriage is a form of political speech.

Asher · May 9, 2012, 13:55

Originally Posted by SlowwHand

Untrue. The protests are seen as disgusting by the vast majority

It doesn't matter if you think it's disgusting.

Americans are in a lather trying to stop two people in love from marrying eachother on the basis of their genitalia while people like Phelps are free to ruin funerals and spread hate. It's a matter of ****ed priorities.

SlowwHand · May 9, 2012, 13:56

Originally Posted by Hauldren Collider

They're seen as disgusting by everyone not in Phelps' stupid church.

Which is a grand total of how many? 30 or so?

klesh · May 9, 2012, 14:03

It's terrible and an injustice to be sure. The state I live in has full on gay marriage, and I felt pretty proud when I attended my first one for a former boss and her wife.

To me, if people want the legal rights afforded by what is called marriage, they should go to town hall and get a civil union... for everybody.
If you want to call it "marriage", find a church that is willing to perform the ceremony and you're then "married". Some churches would refuse you if it were a gay couple, that's that church's loss.

rah · May 9, 2012, 14:13

I used to think that way but listening to all the people here, I've changed my mind. As long as hetero couples can go to town hall and have it called marriage, who am I to say that gay couples shouldn't have exactly the same right. If it were called a civil union for everyone, then I would have less of a problem with it.

MrFun · May 9, 2012, 14:21

klesh · May 9, 2012, 14:29

Originally Posted by rah

I used to think that way but listening to all the people here, I've changed my mind. As long as hetero couples can go to town hall and have it called marriage, who am I to say that gay couples shouldn't have exactly the same right. If it were called a civil union for everyone, then I would have less of a problem with it.

Think what way? That's what I mean by "for everybody".

The government registration bit, for anyone, should be at town hall being called civil union. This gets you your rights to act on behalf of your spouse for medical stuff, lets you do joint taxes and all that jazz. You can be a gay couple, straight couple, whatever.

Government no longer has anything to do with the word "marriage", that can be a church function if you want it.

There is absolutely no reason the government should be regulating morality.