Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

These iceholes have violated others fargen rights!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • These iceholes have violated others fargen rights!

    NC passes Amendment 1

    60% of people endorse constitutional amendment that prevents same-sex couples having any kind of legal union


    Voters in North Carolina have approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, according to the Associated Press.

    It will become the 30th state to define marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. With more than half the precincts reporting, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 60% for to 40% against.

    Same-sex marriage has been illegal in the state since a law enacted in 1996. The amendment will enshrine the ban in the state constitution. It can now only be amended by another vote by the people.

    The amendment declares that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognised in this state".

    Supporters of Amendment 1 declared a victory for "God's institution" of marriage. "With God's grace we have won at overwhelming victory," Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Votes For Marriage NC, told supporters.

    "We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "The whole point is you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

    Jeremy Kennedy, of the Coalition to Protect All NC Families, said: "It is just a skirmish in a battle, a war that we will win."

    In an emotional speech, he told supporters they had "left no stone unturned" in fighting the amendment.

    "Tonight we walk away proud with our heads held high and we will continue to fight this."

    Twenty-eight states had already passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. The amendment in North Carolina goes beyond current state law by preventing other forms of domestic unions from carrying legal status.

    Lawyers and campaigners for the anti-amendment campaign have warned this could cause a host of problems for unmarried couples, including erasing health benefits for the children of public employees in certain parts of the state. They also say it could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples and impact victims of domestic violence. The term "domestic legal union" is not defined by North Carolina law.

    Earlier on Tuesday a senior official at the board of elections in the state capital said the election to decide on a state constitutional amendment was the "craziest in 13 years".

    Gary Sims, the deputy director of Wake County board of elections in Raleigh, told the Guardian there were "some really angry people" on both sides of the highly charged debate.
    Observers from the Republican party had sought to "challenge and confront" precinct officials from the board and were "clogging up the phone lines" back at Wake County headquarters. "This is the craziest election I've seen in 13 years" said Sims, at his office next to the courthouse.

    "We've seen political party observers who are not precinct officials. They can ask to be observers. They want to challenge and confront and it's a problem for our precinct officials."

    He said the reason for the confrontations varied, from calling up the board of elections to complain that there wasn't a chair for them to sit on to pushing officials to get people to show ID at the polls.

    "They have been clogging up the phone lines and getting mad at us," said Sims. "People have to state their names and addresses and we check them. But they are challenging officials to make them show ID. They have an agenda, the ones that we've been getting trouble from."

    When asked whether the trouble was coming from the groups for or against Amendment 1, Sims said: "Put it this way: we had zero Democratic party observers." He added: "I've probably said more than I should."

    There were also problems with voters not being registered turning up to vote, he said. "We are seeing a very high turnout." The state has already seen record number of early voters.

    The outcome of the referendum is being closely monitored across America. President Barack Obama and former president Bill Clinton, who recorded telephone calls to voters, have asked them to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, put out television ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.

    Billy Graham, the evangelical preacher who at age 93 remains influential in the state where he has a stretch of road named after him, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

    The opposing sides spent a combined $3m on their campaigns.

    Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York and the District of Columbia allow gay and lesbian unions. Maryland, New Jersey and Washington state passed laws this year approving same-sex marriage, but Governor Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey's law and opponents of Maryland's and Washington's laws are threatening ballot initiatives to overturn them.

  • #2
    But it's okay to marry your first cousin.....as long as its not your gay first cousin.

    Comment


    • #3
      Good on them. 10th amendment in action
      I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
        Good on them. 10th amendment in action
        It's nobody's right to deny the rights of others.

        Comment


        • #5
          Geez, maybe they should vote to reinstate segregation...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Treasure Chest View Post
            Geez, maybe they should vote to reinstate segregation...
            Welcome to the regression of society. The far right were worried about society going down the drain, here it is, and it's at their feet as well.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by racrguy View Post
              It's nobody's right to deny the rights of others.
              They don't have a right to be married, which is why you have to go to government to get it, have to fill out forms and then go to someone else to get it approved. A right is something you can exercise without the aid of someone else.
              I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Treasure Chest View Post
                Geez, maybe they should vote to reinstate segregation...
                Completely different, we have a constitutional amendment preventing that. That means states decided to give up the power to decide the issue to the federal government. Not a single state has given up the power to declare marriages to the federal government and thus, the federal government should keep their yaps shut on the issue.

                This is a proper exercise of the 10th amendment. If someone doesn't like the amendment, they are free not to live there. That's the kicker, choice.
                I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                  They don't have a right to be married, which is why you have to go to government to get it, have to fill out forms and then go to someone else to get it approved. A right is something you can exercise without the aid of someone else.
                  It's a black persons right to go to school and sit next to a white kid. It's a womans right to vote. Your equivocation is incorrect.

                  Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                  Completely different, we have a constitutional amendment preventing that. That means states decided to give up the power to decide the issue to the federal government. Not a single state has given up the power to declare marriages to the federal government and thus, the federal government should keep their yaps shut on the issue.

                  This is a proper exercise of the 10th amendment. If someone doesn't like the amendment, they are free not to live there. That's the kicker, choice.
                  Here we are, faced with another situation where you agree with the injustice because you agree with the issue.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                    It's a black persons right to go to school and sit next to a white kid. It's a womans right to vote. Your equivocation is incorrect.
                    You do not have a right to education. You also do not have a right to have your school subsidized by taxpayers. It IS a woman's right to vote, there's a constitutional amendment for that. Want to keep going?
                    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                      You do not have a right to education. You also do not have a right to have your school subsidized by taxpayers. It IS a woman's right to vote, there's a constitutional amendment for that. Want to keep going?
                      They don't have a right to vote, which is why you have to go to government to get it, have to fill out forms and then go to someone else to get it approved. A right is something you can exercise without the aid of someone else.


                      I changed 3 words.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                        Here we are, faced with another situation where you agree with the injustice because you agree with the issue.
                        What injustice? The state executed it's constitutionally protected right and came up with a law that fits within it's powers. I have to keep my trap shut on New York's gun ban but that's an exercise of their 10th amendment right to regulate guns in their state and this is the state of NC to exercise who they will recognize as married in their state.

                        10th amendment. You don't have to like every exercise of it, but you do have to respect that it's entirely legal.
                        I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                          They don't have a right to vote, which is why you have to go to government to get it, have to fill out forms and then go to someone else to get it approved. A right is something you can exercise without the aid of someone else.


                          I changed 3 words.
                          Wrong, the constitution recognizes their right to vote, thus it exists. Marriage is not a right same as health care isn't. You require others to exercise it.
                          I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                            What injustice? The state executed it's constitutionally protected right and came up with a law that fits within it's powers. I have to keep my trap shut on New York's gun ban but that's an exercise of their 10th amendment right to regulate guns in their state and this is the state of NC to exercise who they will recognize as married in their state.

                            10th amendment. You don't have to like every exercise of it, but you do have to respect that it's entirely legal.
                            What about the 14th amendment of the US constitution? Why do the marriage laws apply to some people but not others? You were arguing exactly this point on on the "hate crimes" topic.
                            Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                            Wrong, the constitution recognizes their right to vote, thus it exists. Marriage is not a right same as health care isn't. You require others to exercise it.
                            People still have to fill out forms and it has to be approved. All that requires the aid of someone else. Care to try again?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This is one of the times I agree with the "liberal" viewpoint. There should not be any interference from state or federal government in how two adult humans choose to represent their relationship.

                              I'm glad this has come up. It takes an unconstitutional state law or judicial stance before the Supreme Court will do anything about it. But of course, debate will be ongoing, just like Roe v Wade.

                              I feel like we're just being childish when "dealing" with problems like this, when this country is full to the brim with real problems we should focus our energies on.
                              When the government pays, the government controls.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X