They should have called it a civil union and not violated the word "Marriage" but it is not like they respect our vote anyway. I saw a Democrat Registering voter's the other day...... he was in the graveyard writing down names! Oh well I am now going to lobby for "Marriage" of more than one spouse, two girls and one guy as a spouse.... heck even animals. Why can not someone marry a dog. Their are enough that lay down with them already! Let them now pronounce you Husband and Dog! Live Long and watch the utter destruction of the laws and decency in our land
It's not our place to specify who goes to heaven and who doesn’t. Unless you assume you can speak for God? Speculating on someones judgement will only leave you with a closed gate when it's your turn. Matthew 7:14 Good luck. With your ego, you're going to need it.
It was not the article in whihc I was interested, but the quotes. I remembered them at the time. That could possibly happen, but it would be overturned at the first appeal if there was not a valid legal basis. Not unless there could be some basis for a violation of rights granted under the Constitution. The similarities between same sex and interracial marriage laws have been pointed out many times in the media, which is why it was known the courts would eventually strike it down. That is the point, it was in front of the Supreme Court and they said there was no case for overturning the ban. That legal precedent is what the judge in Asheville used to strike down North Carolina's laws and what will strike down the others in the circuits involved. Had the Supreme Court taken the appeal there would have had to be some possibility of the ban being upheld, but that was not the case.
Something which may help understand what the legal basis was for the way the decision affected the law. NC amended the state constitution to essentiall ban same sex marriage. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits any state from enacting a law which violates the rights of a citizen. Thus, the federal courts would be used to determine the violation of the rights. If the US Constitution had been amended to ban same sex marriage, there would have been no question raised in the courts as there is by definition no violation of the Constitution. The same has happened in states where gun control laws, for example, were found to be overly restrictive and violated the rights of the citizens. I know of no similar action concerning the death penalty because there is no basis for a rights violation for not killing someone. There is also no precedent for the death penalty to be creul and unusual punishment at face value. Some methods can be considered so, but so far no ban. This does not mean it could not happen in the future as society changes in its views, but that would be a long process. Again, the basis for the case was expected by all involved to eventually be found to be discriminatory in the courts, but just not this quickly. Once the courts ruled, the appeals courts upheld the ruling, and the SCOTUS indicated agreement with the appeals court by not accepting the case, the NC ban could not hold up to a review and was struck down, just like the old laws preventing interracial marriage were a few decades ago. Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I can see this happening now that the definition of marriage has been opened. Less than 2% of the population just pushed this through, surely there's an equal amount of animal lovers that would love a tax break as well.
Where did you get " Less than 2% of the population just pushed this through"? Here's some "actual facts" that might clear up your miscalculation for others who might actually take you serious........http://www.wral.com/fact-check-did-60-percent-of-nc-s-population-back-gay-marriage-ban-/14063284/. "Results from the May 8, 2012, primary election show 1,317,178 voters backed the marriage amendment; 840,802 voters opposed it. While that means 61 percent of those who voted backed the amendment, it doesn't mean 61 percent of all North Carolinians did or do today. North Carolina's current population is closing in on 10 million people. The 2010 Census fixed the state's population at 9.5 million, and in July 2012, just after the referendum, the best-guess estimate was 9.7 million. Strictly speaking, roughly 1.3 million out of those 9.7 million people, or 13 percent of the state's population, cast ballots in favor of the amendment. Granted, those were the folks who showed up, so they had the largest voice in the matter. However, it would be misleading to say that only 13 percent of the state backed marriage. Polls at the time predicted the ballot measure would win handily. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic pollster, for example, predicted 59 percent of voters would back the amendment. Another caveat: There are 6.6 million registered voters in the state, which leaves the opinions of at least 3 million people unaccounted for in election-oriented surveys, although a lot of those are people under the age of 18. The importance of registered voters versus general population comes into focus by looking at the Elon University Poll from April 2012, which drew its sample from all North Carolina residents. It found, "Six out of 10 people in North Carolina would oppose an amendment to the state constitution that prevents any same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships or civil unions, according to the latest Elon University Poll." Only 32 percent of state residents backed the amendment as described by the poll." Facts, baby, facts! Sherry
I support gay marriage as long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman. Let me simplify it for you heathens. You can't plug a lamp in to a lamp, it won't light up. I hope you people feel good about yourselves for supporting these people as they commit crimes against nature.
I don't feel good about it, I feel GREAT about it! As for the rest of your post it wasn't worth repeating.
Sherry, I saw the fact checker on WRAL too, but here's what no one seems to get about that. Did the vote represent 60% of North Carolinians? NO But it did represent 60% of the people who SHOWED up to vote. The rest of people from NC? Well, haven't we always said you can't have a voice/or a right to complain if you don't vote? And Wayne, I understand "how" the judge was able to do it, I just don't personally agree, nor do I think it fit into the requirements except on technicalities.
You're a good man, I just wish you weren't so misguided. :lol: Serious question, should public buildings add a third and fourth restroom category for gay men and gay women? What is the difference between allowing an openly gay man or a woman in to the men's room? Or probably even a bigger issue, wouldn't a lesbian woman in the ladies room be the same threat to privacy as allowing a man in there?
I think it is fine the way it is right now, these fellow human beings have always been here and always will. We already have laws to address public behavior.
Love And Commitment I support two people in love marrying each other, and it seems a bit silly to try to qualify it beyond that. In this point, I agree with the Libertarians...we don't need Big Government telling 'certain people' who they can and cannot fall in love with, and then deny those same 'certain people' the ability to marry. ...but you just said you would support a gay man marrying a gay woman. Somehow, I doubt that such an arrangement would result in very much 'lighting up'... ...which was, I believe, your primary consideration for allowing two people to marry. :roll: I'm suspect that there are lots of 'interesting' acts which straight married couples do consensually behind closed doors which might be considered 'crimes against nature', but I really don't see how those action ought to be the concern of anybody else. Sex is only one part of a healthy relationship, and sex (as well as just about everything else) should be secondary to the love and commitment which two people agree to share when they enter into marriage. I am happy to see that our Society has progressed to the point where we can allow two people to enter into a lifelong partnership based on love and commitment, and anyone who feels "threatened" by this ought to examine their own insecurities before sneering and finger-pointing at the few lucky people who not only have found each other, but have also FINALLY been able to enjoy the marital commitment most of us have always taken for granted as our Right. I just don't see why something so basic and relatable as mutual, consensual love and commitment should be so hard for some people to accept.
I don't think we need separate ones, but then I am not a woman, and unfortunately there are some individuals who feel a need to breed regardless of the woman's choice.
