Amendment One passes by NC vote

[katiegrrl0]

As restricted by the US Constitution. The states cannot discriminate against people just because the majority wants to do so without some legitimate reason to do so. Eventually such laws will get struck down.

I honestly believe it will happen with anti-ssm laws/amendments within the next 10 years. Maybe sooner.

These amendments will all be brought down. It is just a matter of time. The courts will in the end make the decision. People cannot be trusted to give anyone rights. This is why the courts need to take the lead. They eventually will. Religious belief has no business making laws and keeping people from equal rights. DADT has fallen and marriage will be next. We have to continue the fight.

 

[X Factor]

These amendments will all be brought down. It is just a matter of time. The courts will in the end make the decision. People cannot be trusted to give anyone rights. This is why the courts need to take the lead. They eventually will. Religious belief has no business making laws and keeping people from equal rights. DADT has fallen and marriage will be next. We have to continue the fight.

It's probably not the best thing to say that you're looking forward to marriage "falling". I understand what you meant, though.

 

[soccerboy22]

It's probably not the best thing to say that you're looking forward to marriage "falling". I understand what you meant, though.

Eh. I look forward to some marriages failing, like any Kardashian.

 

[X Factor]

I would say that is stupid. And part of my reasoning for saying that I can hate these three people, and I cannot stress that enough that we are talking about the very minority, is the tone of voice that they had when we were talking about it. When I listened to those three talked it wasn't some normal conversation, their tone changed, but unforunately I cannot reproduce that. And for the record I do not think most of the people that voted for Amendment 1 did so out of hatred, I think most of it was done out of religious views and generational difference, and so while I disagree with them I do not hate them for it.

Fair enough, Soccer, and I do understand the anger here. Many people, though, who support SSM now had to get there by reconciling their religious beliefs with reasons they believe SSM should be legal. I'm just wondering at the utility of telling people going through that thought process that anything less than whole-hearted immediate support for SSM, makes them hateful bigots.

 

[katiegrrl0]

or two people? or someone of the same immediate family?

You have a standard in your head of what marriage is to you. I accept that. It is fine to have that ideal for yourself. Why would you want to restrict others to their view? Why when these marriages do not effect you in any way in your life would you withhold such a right. If two men marry how does this alter your being? If two women marry how does this alter your view. You need not accept us in our vows and may even disregard the marriage as some apparition but it does nothing against you. It hurts you in no way. Yet you stand against others sharing in the right to be wed. What reason can you give for being against it?

 

[soccerboy22]

Fair enough, Soccer, and I do understand the anger here. Many people, though, who support SSM now had to get there by reconciling their religious beliefs with reasons they believe SSM should be legal. I'm just wondering at the utility of telling people going through that thought process that anything less than whole-hearted immediate support for SSM, makes them hateful bigots.

I do not think it does good, but I also am not going to judge the comments that happened right away last night. Emotions ran pretty high in NC and I had many friends who were upset and posting things on facebook last night that have calmed down and are acting a bit more rational now.

 

[katiegrrl0]

I haven't presented any logic on slippery slope here - I tend to argue that it is all or nothing; that either Loving v Virginia gives just as much legitimacy to SSM as it does to Polygamous and Incestual marriage, or that it gives none at all.

and upon what do you insist that "consent" must be part of the definition of marriage? there are plenty of cultures that don't buy that at all.

What would be the harm to you from any of the relationships mentioned if the partners entire and give consent. There are some nations which do not require consent and there do exist arranged marriages. But as for the US consent is required and how do any of the relationships alter your life at all. You just want to sit in other peoples bedrooms and judge what they do as far as I can tell. You want to dictate what others can and can't do in the privacy of their relationship. My same sex marriage does not infringe on your values as all. It does not infringe on your religious beliefs at all. You are entitled to those beliefs. But you want to make your personal beliefs law which alters my life. My beliefs do not infringe on your heterosexual values and religious values at all.

 

[katiegrrl0]

:lol: sometimes I do wonder.

But no, here I am talking about the spread of no-fault divorce, the treatment of marriage as anything less than a life-time fusion of two persons into one, and the havoc on our families and children that this has wrecked. We have turned marriage into not simply an optional basis of family, but into a hobby. Into a fad. Into a whim, into a means of self-expression. The kids are the ones being raised in broken homes, and going on to form their own. No I do not think we have made many wise decisions about marriage lately at all.

No fault was a change in the divorce laws and not the marriage laws. How does a change in the divorce law have anything to do with laws on being able to marry?

 

[katiegrrl0]

Well, I supported both DADT (which I thought to be a good compromise) and I support allowing an employer to fire an employee for any reason up to and including "because you're straight" and "because it's Tuesday". You're going to have a hard time convincing me that that makes me a bigoted hater of my little sister.



:shrug: I have no idea, I am only me. I know that I am pretty open to the points in my life where I recognize I was in the wrong and deliberately chose to believe wrong things because it was what I wanted to believe because it allowed me to be with the person I loved. But who knows if that would follow me.

My brother stands against homosexuals and our rights. I frankly would not piss on him if he were on fire. Perhaps you would catch on to the pain your stance causes if she begins to feel the same way toward you as I do my brother.

 

[cpwill]

What would be the harm to you from any of the relationships mentioned if the partners entire and give consent.

The only way that I get harmed in this process is through various mechanisms that the SSM movement has pursued. Those who would attack representational government because it isn't giving them the result they want are attacking my representational government. Win by popular vote and that's a done deal.

There are some nations which do not require consent and there do exist arranged marriages. But as for the US consent is required and how do any of the relationships alter your life at all.

Yes. and in most states, a man-woman facet is required as well. That, like consent, is part of our definition of marriage.

You just want to sit in other peoples bedrooms and judge what they do as far as I can tell. You want to dictate what others can and can't do in the privacy of their relationship

If you believe this, then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[cpwill]

My brother stands against homosexuals and our rights. I frankly would not piss on him if he were on fire

Well, my sister knows that what is more important is the fact that we love each other, and can disagree while still doing so. That's why she came out to me first - because she knew that no matter what I was going to have her back and emotionally support her when she took the news to the rest of the family. Because we love each other. My family does that well - I am saddened the more and more I learn that that is not as common an experience as I thought. I'm sorry that you feel the need to hate your brother because he disagrees with you. But no, if in her anger at society-at-large my sister were to begin to think vociferously of me, it would not alter my stance. Sadly enough for both of you - your negative reinforcement probably serves for your brother as confirmation of his opinions.

 

[cpwill]

I do not think it does good, but I also am not going to judge the comments that happened right away last night. Emotions ran pretty high in NC and I had many friends who were upset and posting things on facebook last night that have calmed down and are acting a bit more rational now.

emotion =/= excuse

 

[cpwill]

SSM is good for state & Federal revenue.

so I say, let's get all we can get.

I'm sorry I don't really get this reasoning.

:lol: the marriage penalty. I have to admit, that's unique.

 

[cpwill]

These amendments will all be brought down. It is just a matter of time. The courts will in the end make the decision. People cannot be trusted to give anyone rights. This is why the courts need to take the lead.

The courts in our nation have supported slavery, forcible sterilization, and all manner of abuses of our liberties and rights. They are nothing but men and women, and not to be trusted more than any other entity with our rights.

 

[soccerboy22]

emotion =/= excuse

Not an excuse, but makes it a little easier looking over some things that were said.

 

[cpwill]

I'm shocked that so many people literally have hatred for those that oppose SSM. It's hypocritical and it makes those with hatred and bland judgements towards those that voted for this prop just as bad themselves as those they want to perceive as being hate filled bigots.

You should all be ashamed and I'm frankly disgusted by it. I guess it's ok to call NC an inbred ****hole or say that those that oppose SSM are just hate mongering bigots :shrug: The hypocrisy in this is simply astounding and such ignorance from either side has absolutely no place in the debate. Those that believe this and spout it off should really check their hearts because there may be some hatred towards those that they disagree with.

Truth. Lost some respect for people I considered highly in this discussion .

 

[Kal'Stang]

The only way that I get harmed in this process is through various mechanisms that the SSM movement has pursued. Those who would attack representational government because it isn't giving them the result they want are attacking my representational government. Win by popular vote and that's a done deal.

What happened in NC wasn't representational. It was democratic. IE mob rule. Every time a state has tried to do the representational bit they got over ruled via mob rule and referendums.

 

[cpwill]

:roll: And so you consider State Constitutions to be mob rule? The election of Senators is mob rule?


please.

 

[Kal'Stang]

:roll: And so you consider State Constitutions to be mob rule? The election of Senators is mob rule?


please.

There is a difference between electing representitives by the masses and voting in a law by the masses. (no matter the law) Surely you know the difference between a Representitive government (which we have) vs Democratic government (which we don't have)?

 

[Omgitsme]

mostly because advocates want to have their cake and eat it too on this question. I want a firm standard applied here. Either Loving v Virginia means that the state does not have the right to deny a marriage license to those who apply, or it doesn't. I think you are the only one I have seen thus far willing to admit the actual implications of their own logic with regards to this - which tells me that others who bring it up may be less building a case, and more searching for evidence to support what they already prefer.

Loving V Virginia may not or may apply to other types of marriages. Again I havent thought about it enough to tell. There may be other factors involved in polygamous marriage or marriage between two family members that makes it not apply to them. What I am trying to do is show why Loving V Virginia applies to SSM. So please can you answer the question?

 

[cmakaioz]

What happened in NC wasn't representational. It was democratic. IE mob rule. Every time a state has tried to do the representational bit they got over ruled via mob rule and referendums.

No. Democracy is NOT majoritarianism...which in turn is not plurality rule (U.S. and state electoral contests are conducted on a plurality-rule basis).

Democracy is handling policy and decisions in proportion to how strongly one is predictably impacted by such decisions.

The NC ban was/is indeed a case of mob rule, but not in the sense of majoritarianism. Rather, it was/is mob rule with regards to its reliance upon appeal to crowd hysteria, emotive appeal, and (yes) bigotry.

Bigotry, by the way, is not limited to overt hatred. Bigotry is the presumption of exceptionalism in causality, a kind of group-think model of causation such the universe supposedly works one way for group A, and a different way for group B (and beyond). You don't need to be hateful to engage in bigotry; one need only accept a premise based upon attributing a different causality to the groups involved.

All of the following are examples of bigotry, though not all of them involve overt hatred:

• "(U.S.) Americans love freedom, but those Russians don't care about freedom."
• "Men are logical and patient when face with a problem, while women are impulsive and emotional."
• "Israelis just want to live their lives in peace, but Palestinians just live to destroy."
• Adults live in the real world, while students don't face any real problems."
• Heterosexuals marry for love and companionship, while homosexuals marry for other reasons.

etc.

 

[Helix]

these anti-gay laws will have to be tossed in federal court. at that point, it doesn't matter what the amendment says. the amendments all violate the equal protection clause. hopefully a majority of SCOTUS judges will decide to uphold the constitution on this issue.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No. Democracy is NOT majoritarianism...which in turn is not plurality rule (U.S. and state electoral contests are conducted on a plurality-rule basis).

Didn't say that it was majoritarianism. But it IS mob rule. Whatever mob rules mob gets. Minorities may get a say, (which means its not majoritarianism) but that doesn't mean that it isn't mob rule.

Democracy is handling policy and decisions in proportion to how strongly one is predictably impacted by such decisions.

No, democracy is a bunch of people voting on an issue (such as SSM) and the majority of those votes denotes whether a law will pass or not. What you described can only be applied to an individual. There is no voting when it comes to individuals, only decisions.

The NC ban was/is indeed a case of mob rule, but not in the sense of majoritarianism. Rather, it was/is mob rule with regards to its reliance upon appeal to crowd hysteria, emotive appeal, and (yes) bigotry.

Ok so you agree with me that it was mob rule.

Bigotry, by the way, is not limited to overt hatred. Bigotry is the presumption of exceptionalism in causality, a kind of group-think model of causation such the universe supposedly works one way for group A, and a different way for group B (and beyond). You don't need to be hateful to engage in bigotry; one need only accept a premise based upon attributing a different causality to the groups involved.

All of the following are examples of bigotry, though not all of them involve overt hatred:

• "(U.S.) Americans love freedom, but those Russians don't care about freedom."
• "Men are logical and patient when face with a problem, while women are impulsive and emotional."
• "Israelis just want to live their lives in peace, but Palestinians just live to destroy."
• Adults live in the real world, while students don't face any real problems."
• Heterosexuals marry for love and companionship, while homosexuals marry for other reasons.

etc.

I agree that in the case of NC it was more than likely done because of bigotry. However I have to say that mob rule does not have to include bigotry. Mob rule can happen because of any reason...even valid ones.

 

[Verthaine]

I'm shocked that so many people literally have hatred for those that oppose SSM. It's hypocritical and it makes those with hatred and bland judgements towards those that voted for this prop just as bad themselves as those they want to perceive as being hate filled bigots.

You should all be ashamed and I'm frankly disgusted by it. I guess it's ok to call NC an inbred ****hole or say that those that oppose SSM are just hate mongering bigots :shrug: The hypocrisy in this is simply astounding and such ignorance from either side has absolutely no place in the debate. Those that believe this and spout it off should really check their hearts because there may be some hatred towards those that they disagree with.

One of the hardest things a loving father can go through is to watch his youngest daughter cry and be powerless to do anything about it.To have her ask me "why" and I can't give her the answer.How do I explain to her why people don't want her to achieve happiness with the person she love.
I see my daughters tears.
I feel my daughters pain.
And there is nothing I can do about it.

So how does that make me feel?
It makes me feel angry.
It makes me pissed off.
So you know what?
I despise those that hurt my child right now.
I despise their beliefs for hurting my child right now.
For every tear she cried,I despise those that hurt my child.
You can rationalize and reason why there shouldn't be SSM,but that doesn't turn back those tears.
So right now,I really couldn't care less about other peoples feelings.
At this moment I couldn't care less about other peoples beliefs.
Right now all I feel is hate and anger.
The anger of a father who is powerless to stop his daughters pain.
The hate for those who would deny my child her happiness.
Right now,rationality and reasoning have no room in my heart.
Right now,my child is in pain,so can you tell me digbe what I need to do to end her pain?

 

[cpwill]

Loving V Virginia may not or may apply to other types of marriages. Again I havent thought about it enough to tell. There may be other factors involved in polygamous marriage or marriage between two family members that makes it not apply to them. What I am trying to do is show why Loving V Virginia applies to SSM. So please can you answer the question?

What was your answer? It might or it might not.