A little more background: http://www.americanindependent.com/202377/three-anti-gay-groups-were-pivotal-in-n-c-marriage-amendment-push

Quote :

"Did you know that the average life span of a homosexual is 39 years as opposed to 78 for heterosexual women and 76 for heterosexual men? Read your social history and you will find that most societies that condoned homosexual behavior did not survive past one generation."

I love the absolute stupidity being said by these people!

11/7/2011 11:03:22 AM

Quote :

"Read your social history and you will find that most societies that condoned homosexual behavior did not survive past one generation."

I'd love to know which societies he's referring to

11/7/2011 11:12:43 AM

If I had to venture a guess it would probably be both Sodom and Gomorrah.

11/7/2011 11:29:10 AM

Great speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/12/178368.htm

12/12/2011 1:15:18 PM

Thanks for keeping this thread updated

12/12/2011 2:09:41 PM

Equality NC and a few other groups created a coalition group to work against this amendment:

http://protectncfamilies.org/

For my part I've met with one of their faith outreach people, helped run a workshop against the amendment in Durham that had nearly 100 people in attendance, met with the Rocky Mount PFLAG as a guest speaker to talk about strategy to defeat the amendment, attended another PFLAG meeting with some college students from Wesleyan, went to a vigil against the amendment in Greenville, a rally against the amendment in Raleigh, ran a voter registration drives with NCSU GLBT group during their t-shirt give away that got about 100 people registered, attended the NC Policy watch crucial conversation event with Equality NC and other groups working against the event, brought up defeating the amendment as a part of some occupy events, designed/order/distributed bumper stickers against the amendment with wording based on what the polling said would be most effective, talked to a UU church in Greenville about hosting a workshop there, helped distribute anti-amendment literature, done countless e-mails/phone calls/online social networking activities, and taught voter registration at "train-the-trainers" workshop in Greensboro that will spawn events/seminars/workshops against the amendment all across the state.

I've seen so much on the ground organizing and people power from North Carolinians all over the state in the last 3 months, that my disposition is much improved on our ability to defeat it, even when NOM (National Organization for Marriage whose main goal is to disband/prevent marriages) starts dumping big out of state money to buy tv ads for this amendment. I think a conversation with someone you know from your community beats a tv ad from an out of state group every time as long as you can do enough of it. NOM did a bus tour in 2010 busing people into states to complain that they didn't have marriage discrimination amendments. This photo is from that event with some of the attendees from the larger counter-NOM rally. I think it perfectly symbolizes out of state money versus citizens of the state standing against them.



If anyone wants to give, we may not be able to do TV ads, or at least not as many as NOM, but radio ads, mailings, and organizing support are important: Click here to donate to Protect NC Families to help defeat this amendment.

12/12/2011 7:10:21 PM

Great graphic explaining the inequality:

http://imgur.com/Q1nCX

12/13/2011 12:36:38 PM

Kern that shit I mean goddamn

12/13/2011 12:38:11 PM

I don't think I've heard the toasters, dogs, children and corpses argument near as much as I've heard:

12/13/2011 1:17:22 PM

^yeah...since they can all give consent, it must be okay!

12/13/2011 2:18:21 PM

Quote :

"Kern that shit I mean goddamn"

it's got the font, kerning and broken english of an instruction manual for a cheap chinese product

C A U T I O N :   I t ' s     i s     i l l    a d v i s e     t o    b e    m a r r y     t o a s t e r 

12/13/2011 3:17:25 PM

^^^ Personally I don't give a crap if consenting adults want to practice polygamy, as long as all parties to the polygamy are game.

12/13/2011 3:22:26 PM

Sure, but it's a legal and tax nightmare when you think about the implications of divorce.

12/13/2011 3:38:46 PM

^^^^^^^

why does "citizenship" have anything to do with anything? My wife and I got married 4 1/2 years ago and she still isn't a citizen.

12/14/2011 1:38:31 PM

Quote :

"^yeah...since they can all give consent, it must be okay!"

Was this sarcasm? Because it should be ok.

12/14/2011 2:16:38 PM

so what all the liberals supporting this bill are saying is that they want to legalize polygamy.

Good Going ... I think you will win this battle.

Why don't these groups just call it something else and fight for that. As a moderate christian republican, I think anyone should be able to decide who their "partner with benefits" is and be treated equal to a legally married heterosexual couple. There is plenty of people who support the idea of equal benefits. Calling it by the same name should be irrelevant in this battle, if we are really talking about equality. Legal Unions called Legal Unions would be much more widely accepted, even in traditionally conservative areas.

I think these uppity gay folk just want to have something to get all EMO about, and so they have chosen this. Any publicity is good publicity, and so the more they cry and scream the more publicity they get. Heaven forbid they find a worthy compromise that would shut them up for more than a year. Unspeakable

12/14/2011 2:37:35 PM

If it's not a big deal, why do you care that they use that word?

Quote :

"Heaven forbid they find a worthy compromise that would shut them up for more than a year"

A worthy compromise? The two positions are "give me equal rights" and "go fuck yourself." What's the compromise between these two?

12/14/2011 2:42:22 PM

Compromise, in my opinion, is DEFINED by both parties not getting what they want.

As long as both groups are unhappy about the decision, then its probably a compromise.

So, the right wing Gay Haters give up that gays are being MORE equally recognized by the government and given a legally binding union to each other.

The Left wing Gay Lovers give up simply 1 thing ... its not "called" marriage. They get everything else.

Honestly, I think that's probably a compromise.

12/14/2011 3:06:16 PM

Quote :

"Why don't these groups just call it something else and fight for that."

so, something separate but equal?

12/14/2011 3:08:04 PM

Gay Jim Crow?

12/14/2011 3:15:35 PM

People in this thread might be interested to know that Thomas Jefferson, the great, enlightened champion of civil liberty, introduced a bill in Virginia that would have required castration as a penalty for sodomy.

More interestingly, he really was the social liberal of his day, and his bill was rejected because it was too light on crimes that should remain capital.

12/14/2011 3:21:53 PM

well this thread has turned ridiculous with the last couple of posts

12/14/2011 3:25:45 PM

Quote :

"The Left wing Gay Lovers give up simply 1 thing ... its not "called" marriage. "

Yeah, that's the real sticking point here

Pretty much just semantics at this point

12/14/2011 3:29:56 PM

Fuck this bigoted shit. Fuck it.

12/14/2011 3:40:33 PM

^many up

you cannot personify dogs or animals. anthropomorphism is fun, but scientifically not accurate. and what is the control group for your consenting adults/citizens/non child-corpse-toaster-animal?

oh, that's right, breeders. please come back with a rational argument.

12/14/2011 4:51:34 PM

Quote :

"I think these uppity gay folk just want to have something to get all EMO about, and so they have chosen this. Any publicity is good publicity, and so the more they cry and scream the more publicity they get. Heaven forbid they find a worthy compromise that would shut them up for more than a year."

Bringing the discussion back to the amendment that is actually on the ballot, the options are vote Against (marriage recognition remains illegal) and For (domestic partnerships for straight & gay couples in the state are ended as potentially are domestic violence protection coverage as happened in Ohio, forever prevents the possibility of civil unions or any other compromise, and potentially gay couples have a much tougher time at being able to make end of life decisions, inheritance decisions, decisions if someone becomes incapacitated, difficulties on getting on each others health insurance, etc).

While I think full equality is the right way to go, anyone who is for even the smallest level of compromise is against this amendment since it prevents that possibility.

12/14/2011 6:43:27 PM

What percent does it have to get in order to pass?

12/15/2011 12:20:50 AM

51% of american adults are married. Marriage is already a mockery of what romantics think it is. Why keep up the pretense? It's a complete fucking joke. We have reality TV shows about sham marriages for money, now. What the fuck, retards? Make a constitutional amendment outlawing that.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 1:04 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2011 1:01:58 AM

this is the most well written/thought out piece on the subject that I've seen:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-logical-fallacy-gay-marriage-opponents-depend-upon/251486/

1/17/2012 7:21:14 PM

Civil disobedience:

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/01/25/NC_Lesbian_Couple_Found_Guilty_of_Trespassing/

Quote :

"A North Carolina lesbian couple who were arrested last year for staging a sit-in at the Buncombe County Register of Deeds office after being denied a marriage license were found guilty Tuesday of second-degree trespassing. As part of the Coalition for Southern Equality’s “We Do” Campaign, Rev. Kathryn Cartledge and her partner of 30 years, Elizabeth Eve, were among the first to request a license in October, and after their second attempt they refused to leave and were arrested and charged on October 14. Cartledge, 65, and Eve, 66, have two children and four grandchildren."

1/25/2012 8:08:28 PM

What gets me on all this is that as of right now gay people can not marry in NC. So the state representatives want to make a bill to make it illegal. Then the following occurs like in every state: Bill passes, overturned by judge, gays can marry. Bill makers defeated by making the bill.

1/26/2012 12:15:09 PM

I could care less if someone practices polygamy, but I enjoyed reading this argument:

Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences.
A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so every day. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage or child protection issue.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

1/26/2012 1:26:40 PM

Survey of 203,697 incoming freshman at colleges and universities across the nation.

http://heri.ucla.edu/pr-display.php?prQry=88

Quote :

"An unprecedented 71.3 percent of incoming college students indicated that same-sex couples should have the right to legal marital status, compared with 64.9 percent in 2009, a remarkable 6.4 percentage-point increase over a two-year period."

Quote :

"We are rapidly approaching the point where it will be a definitive minority opinion amongst college students that same-sex couples should be deprived of the right to legal marriage."

2/1/2012 7:50:29 PM

Proposition 8 in California has been deemed unconstitutional!

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012-02-07-Decision-on-Merits.pdf

2/7/2012 1:32:10 PM

It's amazing. The same style/type/etc. arguments exist in both the gay rights and gun rights worlds, for and against. Bullshit, far fetched, slippery slope argument against; logic and facts for. Why can't people just have their gays and guns and keep government out of the way?

2/7/2012 2:22:27 PM

what a shocker. a liberal federal court ruled in favor of a liberal cause. stop the presses

2/7/2012 11:19:21 PM

It annoys me that this is even an issue. With all the shit we're in right now, it seems like this should not be a huge controversy. A human being wants to marry another human being, and this takes a shitload of time, money, and resources to determine if we're "okay" with that. The Constitution is all about equality, written pretty clearly in there, so stfu about it already. This shit pisses me off so much and I'm not even gay.

2/7/2012 11:41:25 PM

Quote :

"The Constitution is all about equality"

Gays are treated equally now. A straight man cant marry a man either.

Personally I would like to see gays be allowed to marry so we can focus on important issues that could affect my life

2/8/2012 6:33:31 AM

I haven't posted in awhile, and this topic has my interest. Can somebody explain to me why an amendment is needed? I don't care which side of the fence you happen to be on, why is an amendment needed? Can changes/updates not be made to state laws as needed? Why an amendment?

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 10:41 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2012 10:39:51 PM

^State law already prohibits such marriages. But the amendment could further to remove domestic partnerships for straight and gay people, potentially end some rights and domestic violence protections for couples gay and straight, make it harder to have wills and other legal documents of gay couples recognized by courts, make end of life decision making and hospital visitation harder too.

In that sense, it offers something existing state law doesn't. It digs government deeper into private lives, interferes more with private contracts, and spends taxpayer money to make it happen. You know, conservative values. (Even the Libertarian Party of NC has come out against such an amendment before, and Gary Johnson who will probably be the Libertarian candidate for President this time around supports marriage equality).

2/9/2012 11:39:37 PM

^^The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent removing the existing legislation without also having to remove the Amendment. They're trying to add a shield to their already bigoted law to make it even more difficult for North Carolina to become a non-discriminatory state.

They're doing it now because they thought it would be a time when registered Democrats wouldn't come out to vote. Oops.

2/10/2012 11:16:30 AM

I wonder if this factored in the dems pressuring bev to step down?

2/10/2012 12:28:00 PM

Probably more than a little. Hell, it might have factored into her personal decision-making but I have a feeling 2 years of getting shit nonstop from your constituents (not saying she didn't deserve it) might have been a larger factor.

2/10/2012 1:09:50 PM

^ Yep.

2/10/2012 2:33:08 PM

LOVE WE ARE WORKING ON ISSUES LIKE THIS WHEN THERE ARE LITTLE/NO JOBS IN MOST RURAL AREAS OF NC

2/10/2012 2:36:25 PM

Quote :

"They're doing it now because they thought it would be a time when registered Democrats wouldn't come out to vote. Oops."

and, IIRC, they originally proposed to do it in the general, but democrats then bitched about the timing, so they moved it to the primary, where democrats are, again, bitching about the timing. in short, the democrats are bitching

top of the previous page shows this fact

[Edited on February 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM. Reason : ]

2/10/2012 6:11:55 PM

Yes, the noble republicans trying to avoid making it a "political" issue by changing it to an even more convenient time for them.

2/12/2012 2:03:46 AM

imo the whole concept of marriage violates the principle of equal protection under the law. Why should a couple be granted legal benefits just because they entered into a contract that are not also given to single couples?

2/12/2012 11:49:52 AM

^^ get off your fucking holier than thou schtick. you prove my god damned point: that democrats would bitch about the timing NO MATTER WHEN IT WAS DONE. I understand you don't like the proposal, but to act like "there would have been a better time to vote on it" is bullshit when you will NEVER say there was a good time to vote on it. democrats bitching and whining about "OOOOOOOOOOOH, THE EVIL TIMIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNG!!!!!!" are about as disingenuous as it comes.

the fact is, there are two times this year it can be voted upon: the presidential primary or the general election. you fuckers didn't want it in the general, so it's goin in primary. if the democratic party is so pissed off that it is being brought to a vote during one of those times, then they should suggest a better time and then pay to have ANOTHER election themselves to handle the matter. otherwise they can shut the fuck up about the timing.

[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2012 1:56:15 PM

Reading the first post, it's a pretty broad amendment... domestic violence and gay marriage are two separate issues, but they want to sell the bill for domestic violence and then squeeze gay marriage in there while no one is looking and grab the attention for college kids...

I still don't know what they actual proposition is!

Pretty shady politics...

2/12/2012 2:17:20 PM