(05-08-2012 08:40 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 08:33 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Conservatives lose out to Christians once again.. of course it'll be a short lived victory, but still an unfortunate embarrassment for this great country of ours.

What ever, are you saying another ACTIVIST judge will declare the duely ratified constitution of a state as "unconstitutional"? It is actually a win for religous freedom. The government has NO, NONE, ZERO business in defining marriage, but if ACTIVIST judges are going to legislate this is necessary.

One reason for marriage:

1) Religous doctorine


If gays want LEGAL recognition then the gubment needs to stop recognizing marriage and go with either civil unions or householding.

They're only activist judges when they rule the way you don't want them to.

(05-08-2012 10:50 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.

Absolutely. One of the most important principles of democracy is minority rights. Everyone should be able to marry whoever they love - people shouldn't be banned from marrying just because the majority finds it "wrong". You make good points.

What's the reason that we're a republic instead of a democracy again?

(05-08-2012 10:50 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.

Personally, I say let them get married. Freedom is what this country is about.

Historically, though, marriage has always been subject to state legislation. This is not really anything new or novel. The age of consent is legislated. Waiting periods, blood tests, bigamy, licensing... Everything about marriage is legislated at the state level.

This isn't any different.

(05-08-2012 10:59 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  What's the reason that we're a republic instead of a democracy again?

Because its ineffective on a large day-to-day basis?

(05-08-2012 10:38 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:00 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:46 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The denial of civil rights through a popular vote is repugnant.

"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."

Don't see it prohibiting people from getting married or whatever they want. But it does mean that the state is not required to recognize it. No civil rights violated.

This tyranny of the majority that you are supporting may one day be turned on you.

You mean like it was in 2008? Again, what tyranny? I don't see it calling for the state gay police. I don't see it legalizing the burning of gay homes. The people of the state of North Carolina have voted that the government will only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. Additionally, it does not prohibit private parties to engage in private contracts (i.e. gay marriages/domestic unions). Its as simple as that.

(05-08-2012 11:22 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:38 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:00 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:46 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The denial of civil rights through a popular vote is repugnant.

"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."

Don't see it prohibiting people from getting married or whatever they want. But it does mean that the state is not required to recognize it. No civil rights violated.

This tyranny of the majority that you are supporting may one day be turned on you.

You mean like it was in 2008? Again, what tyranny? I don't see it calling for the state gay police. I don't see it legalizing the burning of gay homes. The people of the state of North Carolina have voted that the government will only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. Additionally, it does not prohibit private parties to engage in private contracts (i.e. gay marriages/domestic unions). Its as simple as that.

There are a ton of concerns that people have that haven't been denied. I can only assume that they are true.

Liberals hate it when their own methods are shoved up their as$es.

Figuratively speaking that is.

(05-08-2012 11:22 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:38 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:00 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:46 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The denial of civil rights through a popular vote is repugnant.

"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."


Don't see it prohibiting people from getting married or whatever they want. But it does mean that the state is not required to recognize it. No civil rights violated.

This tyranny of the majority that you are supporting may one day be turned on you.

You mean like it was in 2008? Again, what tyranny? I don't see it calling for the state gay police. I don't see it legalizing the burning of gay homes. The people of the state of North Carolina have voted that the government will only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. Additionally, it does not prohibit private parties to engage in private contracts (i.e. gay marriages/domestic unions). Its as simple as that.

No, it's as simple as equal protection under the law. Codified bigotry is still bigotry.

(05-08-2012 08:40 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  The government has NO, NONE, ZERO business in defining marriage,

My mind is f*cking BLOWN that you really just said that. And saw NOTHING ironic and/or hypocritical while saying it.

(05-08-2012 10:06 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I just like that the people who favored the amendment did it because they just loooved traditional marriage. They love it so much that some of them have had 3 or 4 traditional marriages.

True Dat.

(05-08-2012 10:50 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.

Pastor Neimoller warned us.

(05-09-2012 03:47 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 08:40 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  The government has NO, NONE, ZERO business in defining marriage,

My mind is f*cking BLOWN that you really just said that. And saw NOTHING ironic and/or hypocritical while saying it.

While I totally agree with the statement....It does show the disconnect between what people think and what they do in regard to making laws that are designed to control others even if they adhere to the principle of non aggression.

(05-09-2012 03:47 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 08:40 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  The government has NO, NONE, ZERO business in defining marriage,

My mind is f*cking BLOWN that you really just said that. And saw NOTHING ironic and/or hypocritical while saying it.

MY POINT, don't f*cking re-define what was already defined. If people don't like the definition of marriage change the legal recognition of what a household is to something else and leave marriage to religious institutions to define. That reasoning shouldn't be all that mind blowing. THE GAY AGENDA wants gubment to define it so they can take the Religous institutions out of the marriage business unless they allow GAYS to marry in their house of worship. Don't doubt this for a minute, look what THE GAY AGENDA did to the Catholic Church on adoption.

This thread is funny. I agree with T-Monay. What were we told when social medicine was crammed down our throat...oh yeah...pound sand. So...pound sand. LOL

(05-09-2012 05:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:50 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.

Pastor Neimoller warned us.

First they came for gay marriage and I said nothing...

(05-08-2012 10:50 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.

YET is the key word in your post. NO ONE is forcing churches to marry gays ,YET, but as I posted earlier, THE GAY AGENDA already removed the Catholic Church from assisting in adoption because the Catholic Church would not allow gays to use the Catholic Church adoption services. It won't take a year if GAY marriage is dictated by the gubment as legal before THE GAY AGENDA crowd starts throwing a hissy fit and screaming discrimination because churches won't let them marry in their house of worship, which will lead to the gubment dictating that churches marry gay couples too, or stop performing marriages.

I don't know why the southern states keep insisting on embarrassing themselves. At least this time the people of the south get to pick their regrets democratically.

(05-09-2012 08:08 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:50 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.

YET is the key word in your post. NO ONE is forcing churches to marry gays ,YET, but as I posted earlier, THE GAY AGENDA already removed the Catholic Church from assisting in adoption because the Catholic Church would not allow gays to use the Catholic Church adoption services. It won't take a year if GAY marriage is dictated by the gubment as legal before THE GAY AGENDA crowd starts throwing a hissy fit and screaming discrimination because churches won't let them marry in their house of worship, which will lead to the gubment dictating that churches marry gay couples too, or stop performing marriages.

This is the main reason I voted for it. I have no problems allowing civil unions all the benefits of married straight couples but I have a real problem with the radical militant gay agenda attacking the definition of marriage and what I believe will ultimately lead to the Gov. forcing churches to marry homosexuals.