North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban

May 8, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NJ.com

North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment today defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.

Comments
1,161 - 1,180 of 5,908 Comments Last updated Nov 25, 2012

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1217 May 14, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
"When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one."
Constitutional law scholar Andrew Koppelman
“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling (Prop 8) is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed."
Constitutional scholar John Eastman
“If there is such a right(same sex marriage) it will have to be manufactured by the justices out of whole cloth."
Richard Posner of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Posner has been called "the world’s most distinguished legal scholar."
If Posner is such a "distinguished legal scholar" then why isn't he on the SCOTUS where is opinion would actually matter?

His opinion has no more value than any other Court of Appeals judge.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1218 May 14, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Racial bans were/are different than gay/polygamous bans..
And its not ME who knows the inextrable pull of logic is important but the Justices of SCOTUS...
and its not me who has been on notice since Roe its the 4/5 members your counting on....
You managed to miss the point...
And gay bans are different than polygamous bans. Limiting marriage to 2 people can easily be justified constitutionally; in fact it already HAS been justified constitutionally.

Just what do you think you or any of the anti-gays can do about any SCOTUS justice who votes in favor of marriage equality?

Oooh, will you call them nasty names.......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1219 May 14, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh sorry - Sure
That promoting intact married childbearing is a rational basis/compelling state interest fundemental constiutional right..
Only a single(lone) man & a single(lone) woman can produce their child together...this is the basis for the right in the first place (Skinner/Zabloki/Loving/Baker ect.)
Once you severe that right from its biological basis all you have left is feeling (Why cant I marry the person(s) I Love!!!???!!)
This gives polyamorists and multiple other arrangments liceance to wonder why the court is arbitrarily excluding them.
They can wonder all they want; it's not an arbitrary exclusion. There are numerous legal and ethical problems with polygamy. Remember, we've seen what actually happens when polygamy is allowed; young girls are forced to marry against their will because their parents forced them into it. Polygamists also marry mother/daughter combinations & sisters & and other close relatives. That's why the federal govt insisted the Utah territory ban polygamy prior to granting statehood.

Cry wolf all you want, but people with even half a brain know polygamy isn't going to be legalized just because gays start getting married.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1220 May 14, 2012
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
But yet the "right" to marry is withheld from siblings entirely because of the procreation issue.
<quoted text>
Possibly true. But us crazy modern people have decided that civilization is better than not having civilization.
<quoted text>
A gay couple HAS NEVER procreated. They always need a third party. Is that third party to be part of the marriage as well?
I thought you were against polygamy....
Wrong yet again. Marriage is withhild from siblings because they already have an existing kinship relationship, and because of the closeness of that relationship there is too great a liklihood of undue influence on one party or the other. The question of free will to consent to the relationship comes into doubt.

That's why it is still illegal for sterile siblings to marry, or olderly siblings who can no longer procreate. It's not solely about precreative issues. That's why same-sex siblings are still banned from marrying each other.

The "third party" is no more of an issue in same-sex marriages than it is in opposite-sex marriags who use a third party for procreation or adoption.

Try again.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1221 May 14, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice Job... It wont get through, but nice job.
Once feelings are the basis for marriage there is no reason not to extend the title/rights of marriage to any number of marriages including siblings, polyagamists, roomates, or any group(ing) of individuals who make the claim.
Only a rootedness in procration expalins why we have marriage to begin with & why we continue to value it at all.
Once that is broken you simply have the goverment extending benifits for no apparent reason other than the feelings of the individuals involved.
And yet polygamist & siblings can marrying Massachusetts or any other state or country which allows same-sex couples to marry.

Hmmmm, sounds like your predictions are wrong.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1222 May 14, 2012
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you going down this rabbit-hole? It is irrelevant. There is an age at which people are allowed to get married and that is determined by each state. It is different all around the world. In many states it is 15. In a blue state it is 13.
If a person violates that, they are violating the law. Allowing polygamy would not change that.
It requires parental consent for an underage child to marry. The problem with polygamy is the history of parents not just consenting but FORCING their underage girls to marry an old man against their will.

THAT is the history of polygamy in America, and THAT is why it will never be legal in this country.
WeTheSheeple

Oscoda, MI

#1223 May 14, 2012
The anti-gays know the only tactic left is to try to scare the sheeple into believing polygamy & incest marriages are right around the corner if same-sex couples are allowed to marry.

It the EXACT SAME tactic used by the racist fighting inter-racial marriages.

EXACTLY THE SAME.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#1225 May 15, 2012
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Because society has decided that it is worth investing in keeping my wife and I together since we can create a child without planning on the spur of the moment.
You can't. At least not with a gay partner.
That's your excuse for excluding me from equal rights....

You can create a child without planning???

So can any horny 15 year old.
Realist

Greensboro, NC

#1226 May 15, 2012
The homosexual community which includes Obama are attempting to make this an intellectual debate over civil rights. It is not ! The homosexual community biggest challenge is to legitimize a disgusting behavior which breeds disease and mental illness among its victims.
Their goal is to be accepted as normal and along with the norm comes a total breakdown of society.
Our potential future ? Goggle "The Dancing Boys of Afganistan" where young boys are hunted down, bought from their parents, dressed as women and taught to dance in front of men. They are then gang raped by these homosexual men.
A society is destroyed an inch at a time.
tard

Charlottesville, VA

#1227 May 15, 2012
glad to see tax payer money isnt being wasted on the economy

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#1228 May 15, 2012
Realist wrote:
The homosexual community which includes Obama are attempting to make this an intellectual debate over civil rights. It is not ! The homosexual community biggest challenge is to legitimize a disgusting behavior which breeds disease and mental illness among its victims.
Their goal is to be accepted as normal and along with the norm comes a total breakdown of society.
Our potential future ? Goggle "The Dancing Boys of Afganistan" where young boys are hunted down, bought from their parents, dressed as women and taught to dance in front of men. They are then gang raped by these homosexual men.
A society is destroyed an inch at a time.
Sick, hateful liars like you are a blight on society.

You are dangerous to everyone.

Haters and spreaders of lies are the lowest of the low.
The Troll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#1229 May 15, 2012
Realist wrote:
The homosexual community which includes Obama are attempting to make this an intellectual debate over civil rights. It is not ! The homosexual community biggest challenge is to legitimize a disgusting behavior yap yap yap blah blah blah....
So you think things should be banned just because YOU find them "disgusting"? I think hard-boiled eggs and disco music are disgusting, so shall we ban them too?

Here's a little something for you to chew on, bigot boy: The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association of Social Workers all agree that homosexuality isn't inherently harmful, isn't a choice and can't be changed, and that attempting to change it is harmful.

I'll gladly take their scientifically-proven, peer-reviewed word for it over the word of a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Neanderthal know-nothing like you any old day of the week.
America Is Not The Same

Overland Park, KS

#1230 May 15, 2012
Realist wrote:
The homosexual community which includes Obama are attempting to make this an intellectual debate over civil rights. It is not ! The homosexual community biggest challenge is to legitimize a disgusting behavior which breeds disease and mental illness among its victims.
Their goal is to be accepted as normal and along with the norm comes a total breakdown of society.
Our potential future ? Goggle "The Dancing Boys of Afganistan" where young boys are hunted down, bought from their parents, dressed as women and taught to dance in front of men. They are then gang raped by these homosexual men.
A society is destroyed an inch at a time.
Right
The morals and values of America are being trashed by a conspiracy movement. We are becoming a Godless society. It a Communist movement which was started back in the late 50.
Odumba is a puppet to rush in a New World Order

The Conspiracy Within and The Manchurian President
Both good books to read
America Is Not The Same

Overland Park, KS

#1231 May 15, 2012
Gay Mom is on Topix pushing he Godless disgusting behavior all day long

If she was a moral person she would be attending to her children and her house and not on Topix pushing her disgusting practice.
Shall I say child abuse
America Is Not The Same

Overland Park, KS

#1232 May 15, 2012
America is headed to the days of
Sodom and Gomorrah

With all the Radical Liberals agendas

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#1233 May 15, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see straight people signing up for these alternate protections. They opt for the simpler path.
That's just plain ignorance. they didn't invent those protections for gay people. They existed long before people willingly came out of the closet.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I checked, gay people ARE taxpayers. You don't get to decide which citizens get which benefits based on their different levels of contribution. What are you, communist?
Actually you do. For example, those without kids pay taxes just like those with kids, but they can't claim the child tax credit. Those who have their mortgage paid off don't get to deduct the interest like those with a mortgage do.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
All taxpayers benefit from all other taxpayers, and they should all have the full slate of citizen's rights, just for BEING a taxpaying citizen. You can't just deny someone marriage, because you think they won't use it to the benefit you prefer.
I just gave you two examples of just that.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see anyone preventing people with Down's syndrome from getting married. Will THEIR marriages benefit society?
Honestly, I'm surprised that is not outlawed, given the past. But those with Downs can indeed have normal kids. But the rate of defect is even higher than for incest. I don't know. I don't know how many Downs kids survived a hundred or so years ago.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah, being an active, participating member of the society I support is such a convenience.
Oh dang. I forgot that you cannot be an "participating member of the society" unless the gov't blesses your relationship.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
There are plenty of smart reasons for applying some restrictions to marriage. Just none for restricting the gender of the participants.
Wrong. There are reasons to prohibit people from entering those relationships at all (hence incestuous relationships are illegal in most states), but that doesn't mean all that are allowed should be encouraged and financially rewarded.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. Did you have any other information about this decades-old law?
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE15...
My first sourse was wrong on the date though.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a whole CREEL full of red herrings, don't you?
I have no problem with polygamy. But if one man has 8 wives, and another man only has 1, then there just MIGHT be a question of disequality there.
Why, do you think he owns them???
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text> Polygamy has HAD deeper study, and we often see that it's just 1 man trying to establish his own personal cult or harem.
Why are you so sexist? Why do you assume it is a man with multiple wives? it can just as easily be the other way around.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>This doesn't leave me with good feelings about the practice. But, if enough people nationwide, or worldwide, were to make a good case for it, I'd be willing to hear them out.
Why does the number of supporters matter? Do rights depend on how many supporters there are?

Right now some polls show a little over half support gay marriage. How do you think the polls would turn out if the question was phrases as "Do you support gay marriage knowing that it will cause Social Security to cease being self-sustaining 2 years earlier?"

I'll be the number would look different then.
Realist

Greensboro, NC

#1234 May 15, 2012
Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
Sick, hateful liars like you are a blight on society.
You are dangerous to everyone.
Haters and spreaders of lies are the lowest of the low.
Come on Gay Mom, you acknowledged yourself that Gays are not NORMAL by saying that you wanted to live a normal life by having children.
You are a real work of art !

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#1235 May 15, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the current structures, married couples actually take a tax HIT.
It's a lot more than taxes--especially if you are in the military.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#1236 May 15, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Although the perception of polygamy as being subjugative to women is not automatically universal throughout polygamy, it's hardly a made-up stereotype. It's a label that polygamy has EARNED.
Most stereotypes are earned. For example, when gay men come out of the closet, why do so many of them suddenly develop a lisp and a fruity walk? That one is definitely earned. I've seen it happen a couple of times.

And stereotypically, gay marriages have a bitch and a butch. We can't ignore that victimization either then.
Realist

Greensboro, NC

#1237 May 15, 2012
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think things should be banned just because YOU find them "disgusting"? I think hard-boiled eggs and disco music are disgusting, so shall we ban them too?
Here's a little something for you to chew on, bigot boy: The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association of Social Workers all agree that homosexuality isn't inherently harmful, isn't a choice and can't be changed, and that attempting to change it is harmful.
I'll gladly take their scientifically-proven, peer-reviewed word for it over the word of a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Neanderthal know-nothing like you any old day of the week.
You can rationalize all you want to about whether homosexual behavior is healthy or not, but being rational ends when reality begins with AIDS. You are in DENIAL AND HILARIOUS.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Arkansas Police Chief Resigns After Calling Rep... 7 min MustBAMistake 2
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 min Respect71 2,968
Residents see Europe best for gays and lesbians... 10 min RalphB 26
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 12 min Tuco Blondie 882
Gay Marriage Vs. the First Amendment 15 min Reverend Alan 379
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 28 min Jooosh04 1,025
3 states, plaintiffs want Supreme Court to hear... 35 min WeTheSheeple 1
Legislature Says No to "Gay Panic" Defense 38 min RalphB 48
Judge critical of states defending gay marriage... 50 min RalphB 58
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr anonymous 54,838
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 9 hr Frankie Rizzo 493
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••