North Carolina and it's new amendment
Offline http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html
( What next ? Are they going to start saying that a man and woman that live together, like my girlfriend and I, can't do so unless we are married ?)
North Carolina voters ban gay marriage civil unions.
by Liz Goodman / The Ticket
North Carolinians voted to change the state constitution Tuesday to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership" in the state is marriage between a man and a woman, according to the AP's projection. The amendment passed 61 to 39 percent with most counties reporting, making North Carolina the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.
The state already outlawed gay marriage, but the constitutional amendment makes it more difficult for politicians to ever change the law. The amendment also means that a handful of North Carolina municipalities that extended benefits to the domestic partners of their employees will no longer be able to do so, since marriage is now the only valid legal partnership in the state. Former President Bill Clinton urged the state's voters not to support the amendment in robocalls, while President Barack Obama's office said he was also against the change.
Supporters of gay marriage out-raised and out-advertised their opponents in the lead up to the vote, emphasizing in TV ads that the amendment could also have repercussions for unmarried straight couples because of its vague language. The anti-amendment coalition raised more than $2 million, according to campaign finance disclosures, most of which came from small and large individual donations. The pro-amendment crowd, called Vote for Marriage NC, raised a little more than $1 million, with most of the money being donated by nonprofit groups, not individuals.
Only 46 percent of voters realized that the amendment would ban civil unions for gay couples as well as marriage, according to a Public Policy Polling poll. A majority of North Carolina voters support civil unions.Minnesota faces a ballot gay marriage ban in November, while Maine activists are hoping that residents have changed their minds and will vote to approve gay marriage this November after repealing its legalization in 2009. Lawmakers in Maryland, Washington and New Jersey passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage this year, though Gov. Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey's law.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
- Login to post comments
This is a no brainer. This is not up for debate. It is dead wrong, period!
No you are not for gay marriage otherwise you'd know how wrong legally and morally this ban is. Don't be half assed about it. You are nothing more than the guy who owns the business telling the blacks, "yea you can eat here, but you have to sit in the back where no one can see you."
Gays are humans and gays love just like heterosexuals and thus should have the legal ability to sign ANY government sanctioned document.
IF you say you are for gay marriage, then fucking support it and don't be half assed about it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You guys are talking about totally different things.
Beyond is saying how it IS.
Brian is saying how it SHOULD BE.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I sometimes wonder how a radio/tv/internet show with these two as the hosts would do. The conflicts would gain significant ratings at first, the only question is if the average educational level would be sufficient to understand the topics under debate.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Holly shit, that has to be the most pathetic childish justification for the ban "We weren't the first state to proclaim homophobia in common law" all this asshole is saying is "Majority rules faggots".
It wasn't right when California did it either dumbass. Slavery was widely accepted and popular too, didn't make it right.
I am ashamed that our species produces assholes like you, wouldn't matter to me what state you live in or what country you lived in. An asshole is an asshole. Do humanity a favor and don't breed you homophobic fucktard!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
?? How can a gay person be homophobic? Shit, that would suck.
And yeah, majority does rule in this country. The American Civil War settled that.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I wasn't aware, or maybe I misread the quote, was the person saying this gay? Well if that were the case it would be an Uncle Tom and a self loathing one at that.
But as far as the Civil War, where did I ever advocate always for or always against either the majority or minority? I am glad the North beat the shit out of the South, in this case the "majority" was on the right side of history. When you are right you are right and the North was right. Not going to shed one fucking tear for any oppressive society.
That would be just like Texas trying to leave the Union today and become a Christian theocracy. The right to self determination is not an absolute nor should it ever be, especially if that "self determination" comes at the cost of oppression which the South wanted to maintain in slavery.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You are such a hero to the gay community, so much of one gay marriage is acceptable in Palestine because their right to self determination has produced gay equality there. Hope they get their own state so their Muslim clerics will be preforming gay marriages, and you know they will.
It is amazing to me the irony of an atheist clamoring over the rights of the minority is too fucking dense to see that just because someone is powerless or weaker in a fight makes them moral. Please oh Superman of rainbows tell me what a bastion of liberalism and pluralism Palestine would create for gays if given a state?
Or maybe we should simply allow them to have their Muslim theocracy and hope they get around to protecting minorities like gays or atheists or Christians or Jews.
I love it when blind people pontificate about the oppressed it sets off my irony meter. Thanks for the laugh hypocrite.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yep, including ones posting in this thread who claim not to be.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Being on the "right side of history" is pretty easy when you have the power to rewrite it.
I find it interesting that out of all the western countries that had slavery only the southern United States had it ended by the sword. Mexico, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Portugal, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, etc. all abolished it peacefully. Here in the US it only cost 600,000 American lives, billions of dollars, and put a huge section of it's country in crushing poverty for a century.
Yeah, good job.
I also find it interesting that every single American ship that brought slaves from Africa to the US were from Northern states. Hyprocisy? They had it.
Or how about the fact that two thirds of all American abolition groups in the US were in southern states in 1830?
Illegalizing slavery was a war act to prevent European recognition of the Confederacy and to hopefully inspire southern slaves to revolt. The average Northerner didn't give a crap about the slaves. Illinois even had a law that made it illegal for a black person to even move there.
But bless those great moral crusader bluebellies. Pbhtt. "Here you go slaves, you'se free now. Oh we know you guys don't have any possessions or know even how to read. Go git yaself a good ol' job and prosper. Just don't move No'th because we'un don't want anys competition for ours factory jobs."
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Thank you Watcher.
At least someone gets what I am saying. It is kind of like arguing about whether or not pot is legal. I smoke it, I want it to be legal, it should be legal but it is regulated by the states and the law that makes it illegal is in fact constitutional.
Gay marriage, I support it, I want it to be legal, I want anyone who wants to enter any kind of marriage contract to be free to do so, but the reality is states regulate marriage and it is constitutional for them to do so.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
What I find amusing is that most people don't even want to get married or at least they don't get married. So more than 60% of people will vote to stop gays from getting married but only around 48% will actually get married. It's like the proverbial gardener's dog who won't eat the cabbages but won't let anyone else eat them either. It's a real life example of people spitefully prevent others from having something that they have little use for or interest in themselves.
The decline of marriage is understandable though because it's a pretty horrible thing. It's like demanding the right to be put in prison.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
It is true that the poorly educated and moderately educated members of America are choosing in larger and larger numbers to not marry. However, the highly educated are just as likely to marry as ever. Moreso their rate of divorce is much lower than it was 30 years ago.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I'm not sure about this thing you're quoting because it seems to be completely unsourced but according to Pew Research the percentage of people in the US with college degrees who are married dropped from 76% to 64% between 1960 and 2010 which is a pretty steep decline and puts the marriage rates of college educated people today well below those of non-college educated people in 1960.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/
So I guess if getting married gives some indication of how smart you are then college educated people today are almost as smart as high school dropouts were 50 years ago.
Similarly if you look at the association between divorce rates and education people with the lowest and highest education levels have basically the same divorce rates.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111103161830.htm
It's no surprise married people have more money the whole point of it is trying to impose a set of values on people by creating economic incentives to do these things.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Well my above quote is taken from this article:
Married and Unmarried Parents
A Research Summary
David Popenoe, PhD
Professor of Sociology
Rutgers University
http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Popenoe/Popenoe-Married.html
But the comment about education levels and marriage you can find all over. Such as:
"When Marriage Disappears is the title of a recent study on the status of marriage in America. (1) According to the study, marriage is “stable” in only one segment of our society - the highly-educated - which comprises about 30% of the population. (p. ix) (2) In the rest of society, marriage is on life support - the divorce rate is high, the number of unwed mothers continues to grow, cohabitation has skyrocketed, fewer children live with both of their parents, and satisfaction with marriage is declining. (p. 14) "
http://wysu.org/commentary.php?recnum=364
"Marriage strong among college educated, but 'retreat from marriage' under way among others"
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765575447/Marriage-strong-among-college-educated-but-retreat-from-marriage-under-way-among-others.html
"The decline in traditional families is especially acute, as Charles Murray describes in Coming Apart: the State of White America, 1960-2010, in working class communities. Highly educated well-off populations continue to marry.
http://www.lizpeek.com/index.php/site/article/from_gingrich_to_romney_to_tebow_--_why_is_the_media_so_out_of_touch_with_a/
"More education means more faith in marriage, new report says"
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-06/living/marriage.trouble.report_1_marriage-and-divorce-mothers-national-marriage-project?_s=PM:LIVING
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I could actually accept pretty much anything you say about the apparent benefits of being married on face value without citation because for me the pertinent question is whether it really has anything to do with marriage.
If the people around you decided that if you are a single mother or couple who lives together they will throw you a party, give you gifts and treat you as if you've done something worthwhile and responsible; If governments said they like what you're doing and they'll give you civil benefits to make your lives easier, afford you a level of social acceptance others don't have to give you more opportunities, and make things even easier for you by discriminating against people who aren't doing what you do then I think the result of that would be obvious.
Given that, I wonder if marriage is so beneficial then why does it need to be propped up in these ways. Why can't it compete with every other social arrangement based on its merit and enrich people's lives on its own?
To me what your citing only show that educated people display more shrewdness in their economic decisions which is something we already knew. I don't see that it says anything about the inherent value of the institution.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft