Quote :

"While unmarried people have nothing to gain and everything to lose from the law"

I don't understand this. An unmarried gay person has much to gain if the amendment did not pass.

Quote :

"I wonder, unmarried people voted for this bill? Does them protecting marriage make sense?"

This seems broad. An engaged person planning to get married that voted for the bill doesn't seem strange.

Quote :

"money talks. All i ever saw was advertisement for "Vote Yes". "

huh? The "vote against" side raised twice as much money.

Quote :

"Way to go NC. Speaking as a Yankee, our perception of your state has now fallen to the Georgia/Alabama tier."

Guys, the Yankees think lowly of us! Obviously their opinions are very important! We should try to change and be more like them!!! It's a shame that we even declare ourselves a state!

Quote :

"^^ its actually 16 yr olds"

technically, he's right. 14-year olds can marry in NC as long as they're pregnant and the parents agree that marriage is the best thing for them.

5/9/2012 11:31:46 AM

In case anyone wants to read that awesome part of our backwater law:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_51/GS_51-2.1.html

5/9/2012 11:46:07 AM

I'm willing to bet that many of the people who are complaining about rights bring restricted are done of the same people that would vote to abolish nc CHPs.

5/9/2012 12:44:16 PM

Morr, i'm starting to understand why you voted for this.

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ]

5/9/2012 12:54:57 PM

Quote :

"I'm willing to bet that many of the people who are complaining about rights bring restricted are done of the same people that would vote to abolish nc CHPs."

A)I'm not one of those people.
B)"Many" is superfluous to the point of making your statement nonsensical. Yes, there exist people who are not entirely consistent with their views. "Small government" conservatives that support amending the state constitution to double-down on their religiously-inspired bigotry, for instance.

5/9/2012 1:18:50 PM

nvm, off topic

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2012 1:51:35 PM

Quote :

"^^ its actually 16 yr olds"

Nope http://www.montylaw.com/north-carolina-family-laws/marriage-laws.aspx

Minors between the ages of 14-16 may lawfully marry if the prospective wife is pregnant, or has given birth, and intends to marry the father of her child. The marriage of minors between the ages of 14-16 must also be authorized by a district court.

5/9/2012 2:19:20 PM

This gay marriage shit is being blown way out of proportion. Now, liberals are talking about how this is the same form of oppression that the blacks and women faced. SMH.

Sure they are denied rights to marry and civil unions, but I don't know if this is on the level of a full blown oppression like you can't vote or sit next to me in a restaurant.

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM. Reason : a]

5/9/2012 3:40:59 PM

They are not being treated as equal citizens. It doesn't matter to what degree.

5/9/2012 3:55:19 PM

Sure, but to say "just like the blacks/women" is a bit too much

5/9/2012 3:59:16 PM

The progression of events is similar in nature. The degree of oppression is not even close. Still, drawing comparisons between the two is completely appropriate.

5/9/2012 4:36:28 PM

Quote :

"Way to go NC. Speaking as a Yankee, our perception of your state has now fallen to the Georgia/Alabama tier. Good to know you can still marry 14 year olds there, as long as it's a straight marriage."

Is California on that same tier?

Quote :

"But 1st cousins are still game. gg, bigots."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#United_States_2

At least NC doesn't allow double first cousins to marry, more than you can say about redneck backwaters like New York, Massachusetts and California.

5/9/2012 6:28:10 PM

Well the vote was a lot closer in California, 52%-48% and it'll probably be overturned by the SCOTUS anyway

People also forget that California has plenty of hucklebuck Christian idiots who live far from the coasts and major cities too

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/9/2012 6:39:37 PM

Quote :

"You're seriously suggesting people run from their problems?"

No, not at all. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. One of the reasons our nation was founded with notion of somewhat autonomous states was so that each state could have its own policies and the policies could compete on their own merits. If people didn't like one state's policies, they could simply move. They weren't supposed to "run away from their problems," they were supposed to vote with their feet. It's a much better system than one monolithic federal gov't, because it's much easier to change addresses within a country than to change addresses to another country. Surely you understand this concept.

Quote :

"Which is the only thing that matters from a legal protection standpoint, so yes, for all intents and purposes we have now outlawed gay marriage"

no, we haven't. Not until we forcibly prevent two men from pledging their lives together are we outlawing gay "marriage".

Quote :

"14th amendment, discrimination based on gender."

Bullshit. men can get married, women can get married. no one is prevented from marrying anyone. Gov't benefits are not rights, you must qualify for them. Everyone is able to qualify for the benefits of marriage.

Quote :

"They are not being treated as equal citizens. It doesn't matter to what degree."

Actually, yes, they are. I guarantee you that if a gay man shows up to get a marriage license with a woman, he will get that license.

5/9/2012 7:47:13 PM

That has to be the most rediculous thing that you hve ever said.

5/9/2012 7:50:35 PM

Quote :

"Actually, yes, they are. I guarantee you that if a gay man shows up to get a marriage license with a woman, he will get that license."

I'm not sure if you could be more obtuse if you tried. Are you seriously suggesting that because they could have a sham marriage to someone who they don't want to marry that they have the same rights as 2 other consenting adults that wish to marry each other?

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if heterosexual marriage was outlawed? How would you feel if I said, "Well you can just marry a dude so stfu, the definition of marriage must be preserved."

You are a bigot.

5/9/2012 8:17:00 PM

I think he is, disco_stu. I think he is.

5/9/2012 8:28:49 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously suggesting that because they could have a sham marriage to someone who they don't want to marry that they have the same rights as 2 other consenting adults that wish to marry each other?"

Yes. if they wanted those benefits, they could have a sham marriage. You don't have a right to get those benefits with whoever the fuck you want.

Quote :

"What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if heterosexual marriage was outlawed?"

Well, first off, no one is being prevented from engaging in gay "marriage," so this question is out of place.

Quote :

"How would you feel if I said, "Well you can just marry a dude so stfu, the definition of marriage must be preserved.""

I wouldn't like it. But that wouldn't mean that I had any rights denied to me.

Quote :

"You are a bigot."

Thanks for proving that you've lost the argument. Your only retort to me showing you what the law actually says and provides is to call me a bigot. I'm sorry for telling you what the law actually says. How dare I ever say such a terrible thing!

5/9/2012 8:34:10 PM

Quote :

"Yes. if they wanted those benefits, they could have a sham marriage. You don't have a right to get those benefits with whoever the fuck you want. "

Two consenting adults should. That's it. No further equivocation on meaning of words or the current law required. If there is a subset of two consenting adults that can now and two other consenting adults that cannot there's the inequality.

Quote :

"Well, first off, no one is being prevented from engaging in gay "marriage," so this question is out of place. "

Except they are, though I'm sure you quoted "marriage" because your bigoted ass doesn't count homosexual marriages as "marriage".

Quote :

"I wouldn't like it. But that wouldn't mean that I had any rights denied to me. "

Bullshit. I don't care what your semantic garbage definition of "rights" is either.

Quote :

"Thanks for proving that you've lost the argument. Your only retort to me showing you what the law actually says and provides is to call me a bigot. I'm sorry for telling you what the law actually says. How dare I ever say such a terrible thing!"

My only retort? It was the last line after several lines that you quoted in this message. Learn to count, bigot. Every insult is not an ad hominem.

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2012 8:37:59 PM

Quote :

"Two consenting adults should. That's it. No further equivocation on meaning of words or the current law required. If there is a subset of two consenting adults that can now and two other consenting adults that cannot there's the inequality."

I can't disagree with this. But, as I told God earlier, this is what you get when you allow social engineering.

Quote :

"Except they are, though I'm sure you quoted "marriage" because your bigoted ass doesn't count homosexual marriages as "marriage"."

Really? I walked through downtown charlotte today and I didn't see anyone being pilloried for having a same-sex partner. I didn't see anyone hanging from a tree with a sign that said "fag-lover". Last I checked, Supplanter is still alive and well. Literally no gay person in NC today who considered himself married has been coerced or punished in any way by the state into ending or recanting his vows.

Quote :

"Bullshit. I don't care what your semantic garbage definition of "rights" is either."

Then you don't care about the actual discussion at hand, because the discussion is "has anyone had their rights removed." You can't answer that without a basic understanding of what a "right" is, something you are sorely lacking.

Quote :

"My only retort? It was the last line after several lines that you quoted in this message. Learn to count, bigot. Every insult is not an ad hominem."

Yes, that was your retort. You can't show that a benefit is a right, so you just call me a bigot, which makes no sense. I can't be bigoted simply for saying how things fucking are. I can't be a bigot simply for saying "this is how the gov't works and this is what is actually allowed." Quit throwing around insults, especially when they aren't warranted

5/9/2012 8:57:34 PM

While you may be right in that legal considerations are not explicitly granted under the constitution for marriage and people don't have the 'right' to have these. However, people do have the 'right' to be treated equally, and that is not being done. People are being denied equal treatment/recognition from the government due to sexual orientation.

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2012 9:10:50 PM

Quote :

"However, people do have the 'right' to be treated equally, and that is not being done. People are being denied equal treatment/recognition from the government due to sexual orientation."

Really? A gay person can't go up and get a marriage license with a person of the opposite sex? And, for the 1000th time, gov't recognition is NOT a right.

5/9/2012 9:26:08 PM

I should learn my lesson. These are the SAME arguments people were giving for 'separate but equal'. "Those blacks are being treated equally, they can so associate with other people of their race just as whites can associate with people of their race." You're right about the recognition, no one is guaranteed that. However if the government recognizes the institution of marriage, they cannot discriminate.

5/9/2012 9:31:42 PM

Quote :

"And, for the 1000th time, gov't recognition is NOT a right."

another argument of semantics. what do you call it then? a privilege? and why does it matter what you call it? some people are given the "privilege" of government recognition, while other aren't. yeah, i know they could have the same privileges if they chose to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they're gay. if they're willing to go through the same procedure as straights, why shouldn't the government give them the same recognition and "privileges"?

5/9/2012 9:56:33 PM

Does anyone know why Amendment 1 was put on this ballot and not the one in November?

The paranoid part of me wonders if it wasn't designed to get the amendment passed. I mean, I the Republicans had a lot more reason to turn out. Not just because of the Presidential primaries either. I heard their ballot was several pages long there were so many people up for positions.

Does anyone know if that is true?

5/9/2012 10:54:19 PM

GO DO THE SURVEY ON TWW HOMEPAGE

5/9/2012 11:05:13 PM

For those that give a rip, my thoughts on this thing: http://darrenmurph.tumblr.com/post/22753991187/my-humble-thoughts-on-ncs-amendment-1

5/9/2012 11:08:01 PM

http://thewolfweb.com/poll.aspx

less words

more vote

5/9/2012 11:21:27 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit. men can get married, women can get married. no one is prevented from marrying anyone. Gov't benefits are not rights, you must qualify for them. Everyone is able to qualify for the benefits of marriage."

The equal protection clause does not apply only to what you insist on calling rights. It is equal protection under the law, as in you cannot deny one person a right, benefit, or protection based on their status as a protected class (race, gender, religious affiliation, country of origin, age, etc.). In this particular case you have codified into law something which does exactly that. A man and a woman may enter into a particular contract because they are a man and a woman. A man may not enter into the same contract with another man because they are both men. In what way is that not clearly and recognizably a violation of equal protection? The specific wording of this amendment makes it an even easier target for such an argument because it clearly sets up gender requirements for obtaining a government issued license.

Imagine this were not about marriage and instead about obtaining a medical license or taxi cab medallion. The hammer would be dropped immediately if you tried to write a law stating that only a man can obtain a medical license in the state of NC. What would your argument be then, that women can still be doctors, just not licensed ones?

The inequality in the law is written based on the gender of the two consenting parties involved. You cannot do that. Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down based on the exact same kind of logic because they specifically created an inequality based on race. Your argument is basically a fall back on separate but equal, "they can still get married, just not to the person they want" is substantively the same as saying, "they can still go to school, just not the same school."

5/10/2012 12:22:57 AM

Quote :

"Yes. if they wanted those benefits, they could have a sham marriage. You don't have a right to get those benefits with whoever the fuck you want."

If I understand you correctly, it's not okay to marry someone of the same gender, with which he or she may legitimately want to share the rest of his or her life; however, it is okay to marry some random stranger of the opposite sex, in order to obtain some preferential benefits?

So, an individual doesn't have a right to those benefits, unless whoever the fuck he or she wants happens to be of the opposite sex?

It sounds to me as if you want to oppose the current system; however, you appear to be nothing more than a shill for it. What gives?

5/10/2012 5:20:14 AM

Quote :

"If you are a conservative and voting for the amendment, think of all the basic conservative tenants this goes against (big government, government waste, bad for business, etc). If this passes it will be mired in courts for many years costing an already broke state many more millions of dollars. Also, listen to other respected conservatives on the issue. "

Speaking of business - WRAL's documentary on the referendum[/link] touched on the business concerns involved (http://www.wral.com/news/video/11014802/#/vid11014802). In The WRAL mini-doc they mentioned a letter opposing the ammendment on business groups signed by 75 NC CEOs. They couldn't find any CEOs who supported the ammendment - or were willing to say they supported it. So, they got the 2 main groups supporting the amendment to help them try to find some who did. They still could not find a single CEO who supported it - or was at least willing to say they supported it on the record.

The CEO of Duke Energy was firmly against it as was the head of Bank of America's largest division saying it would have a "disastrous effect on our ability to attract talent and retain talent."(http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/bank_notes/2012/03/bank-of-america-executive-cathy.html) This probably does have quite a bit to do with the perceived environment in the state for employees; larger companies are expressive a fear that it will be harder to convince employees to relocate to NC or to sign on to be hired when the job is listed in NC if there is a perception that its run by regressive religious zealots even if that particular employee is not gay.

If those CEOs are correct then we'll probably be hearing about fewer fortune 500s moving their HQs here or even opening satellite facilities. If the tax and local talent pool is equal in some other state with a better reputation or perception among prospective employees, then that state will have become a more attractive option when NC would have previously been in the running.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 6:59 AM. Reason : gf]

5/10/2012 6:57:26 AM

^^ he is merely stating what the law reads and how it is interpreted today. From what I've read, he is not stating his opinion or personal beliefs. He is not sharing if he feels the law is morally right or if it makes sense to apply to our society. He has remained neutral and has not taken a side.

Don't shoot the messenger.

5/10/2012 9:12:07 AM

nah, he's being a contrarian and making a poor argument about semantics, for reasons that aren't clear, except that he enjoys arguing.

5/10/2012 9:18:20 AM

Quote :

"The equal protection clause does not apply only to what you insist on calling rights. It is equal protection under the law, as in you cannot deny one person a right, benefit, or protection based on their status as a protected class (race, gender, religious affiliation, country of origin, age, etc.). In this particular case you have codified into law something which does exactly that. A man and a woman may enter into a particular contract because they are a man and a woman. A man may not enter into the same contract with another man because they are both men. In what way is that not clearly and recognizably a violation of equal protection? The specific wording of this amendment makes it an even easier target for such an argument because it clearly sets up gender requirements for obtaining a government issued license. "

Well said.

5/10/2012 9:28:41 AM

Ron Paul on the amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqKPOfOcRLQ

5/10/2012 11:22:31 AM

Quote :

"Ron Paul on the amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqKPOfOcRLQ"

This basically summarizes the entire issue.

Conservatives what the state in our lives. They want the state to have authority in personal lives and contracts. The position (that of Amendment I) is not defensible. The problem is that progressives are all too willing to let the conservatives fight the battle on that field, because they're not willing to back off their own government. They accept that government should have a role in dictating whose dependent gets heath coverage under what plan, and that government should mandate the criteria for visitation rights. Basically, conservatives get away with this oppression because the other side isn't willing to give up their own oppression.

It drives me nuts to see people fight over gay marriage. This should never ever be about gay marriage. Gays have always been able to get married. You never could do shit about it and you shouldn't be able to now. You have the ability to not recognize the union, but any marriage conducted and recognized a church is at least a marriage in some sense of the word. Conservatives aren't done just one thing, they're doing two things:
- Demanding state recognition and privileges for straight marriage
- Demanding that other unions don't have those rights

Of course this should go the way of every other civil rights movement. It's flatly dumb.

5/10/2012 11:50:13 AM

^^ That's somewhat of a stronger phrasing of how he stated it a year ago; that is it is more emphatic that this sort of interference is wrong at all levels where he had previously qualified that by saying roughly "but at least it's not as bad if it's the state":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0NqJFMAlg

His current statement isn't really a change of the basic idea though - don't get me wrong. The difference I'm pointing out is that he's stopped qualifying the statement by saying that it's less unacceptable at the state level. This makes it a clearer answer that is more consistent on the rejection of government involvement/approval of personal associations at all levels of government.

It's a subtle change in phrasing for sure, but it's a significant one and it makes his answer to the question sound stronger and sound less like he's trying to soften the potential blow-back it would get from a primary debate audience. I agree with him on what he has said here, but I beleive we still disagree on whether or not states and employers should be allowed to discriminate and choose to provide special consideration to "contracts" between heterosexual couples while rejecting those between people of the same sex. After this statement I do suspect he might have come to feel that the states should not do that, but that private employers should as they are private rather than public entities given how some strict libertarians view the 1964 civil rights act with regards to what it requires of employers and places of business.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM. Reason : g]

5/10/2012 11:59:56 AM

My opinion is that the state should
a) recognize unions regardless of sex
or
b) not recognize them at all

By union, I mean, domestic legal union.

Saw a lot of pro-amendment comments saying that a domestic legal union is marriage, a religious institution. Since this violates separation of church and state, then the states should not recognize any domestic legal unions. I personally believe that domestic legal union does not equal the religious institution of marriage, rather its just the acknowledgement of a legal contract between two individuals by the state (concise version).

As one comment said, "Protect the sanctity of marriage domestic legal unions."

5/10/2012 12:26:56 PM

did you not get the memo that there is no such thing as separation of church and state?

5/10/2012 12:29:56 PM

Quote :

"a) recognize unions regardless of sex or b) not recognize them at all"

5/10/2012 12:41:46 PM

^ Well even setting aside the question of recognizing the legal documents of other states, there is also the question of citizenship. I don't disagree though, I'm just saying that it defaults to (A) a bit more rigidly than a binary choice would indicate on its own.

^^No, Madison and Jefferson were supposed to forward all memos to me. I guess they didn't get it either - or were too busy fiddling with something trivial to pass on the message.


[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM. Reason : sdf]

5/10/2012 12:42:10 PM

yeah, i don't know squat about cross-state recognition of marriage.

5/10/2012 12:55:50 PM

So NC had a law banning bestiality, which was overturned by the state court due to being unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law

5/10/2012 2:00:59 PM

And yet is still enforced. WTF

5/10/2012 2:05:41 PM

Quote :

"So NC had a law banning bestiality, which was overturned by the state court due to being unconstitutional. "

Yeah wikipedia is wrong on that one, as is the website it cites - a page provided by the Michigan State University of Law:

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuszoophilia.htm


Ultimately that page refers STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Paul WHITELEY and points to that as overturning the law which made bestiality illegal.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7048186429664373078&q=State+v.+Whiteley&hl=en&as_sdt=2,34&as_vis=1

That's so far from what the ruling was in that case that I suspect the extent to which the author read it at all was that they saw the statute and that the defendent won and decided they were done. They found specifically that it was unconstitutional to apply the crimes against nature law to an act (cunnilingus) which the was not succesfully argued to be non-consentual. With regard to the statute itself,the court actually stated that:

Quote :

"Defendant contends section 14-177 is unconstitutional on its face as it prohibits specific sexual conduct, and thus attempts to regulate personal relations protected by the Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest. We disagree."

The law is not, on its face, unconstitutional. They go on to explain that it does have constitutional applications; they affirm that it would be constitutionally used against such as acts either involving minors OR solicitation OR coercion OR are non-consentual in nature OR more generally if there is a prevailing state interest that does not infringe on constitutionally protected rights. As they put it:

Quote :

"the application of section 14-177, while permissible to prohibit particular sexual acts in which a legitimate state interest in regulation exists, is unconstitutional when used to criminalize acts within private relations protected by the Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest."

Unless there's a separate NC ruling which dubs bestiality to be private relations protected by the 14th amendment liberty interest, then it seems that bestiality is still illegal which is why it is still being enforced and why that is not somehow an overreach by law enforcement. Private sexual acts between consenting adults (the courts have not extended this classification to pigs or other non-human animals despite PETA's best efforts) are out of bounds for the statute; some other things are not inherently out of bounds.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM. Reason : Moral of the story - if your lawyer went to Michigan State University of Law, ask for a new lawyer]

5/10/2012 2:30:22 PM

5/10/2012 3:11:50 PM

Then fix it on Wikipedia, if you think your explanation holds water.

5/10/2012 3:12:22 PM

Quote :

"another argument of semantics."

It's not semantics when you simply don't understand the meaning of a word.

Quote :

"and why does it matter what you call it?"

Because someone is saying that rights are being violated? Why do definitions of words ever matter?

Quote :

"The equal protection clause does not apply only to what you insist on calling rights. It is equal protection under the law, as in you cannot deny one person a right, benefit, or protection based on their status as a protected class (race, gender, religious affiliation, country of origin, age, etc.). In this particular case you have codified into law something which does exactly that. A man and a woman may enter into a particular contract because they are a man and a woman. A man may not enter into the same contract with another man because they are both men. In what way is that not clearly and recognizably a violation of equal protection? The specific wording of this amendment makes it an even easier target for such an argument because it clearly sets up gender requirements for obtaining a government issued license."

But gender discrimination has NOT been codified, because both men and women are able to get the benefit. You are saying that people should be able to get the benefit however they want in order for it not to violate the equal protection clause, but said clause says no such thing. It simply says the benefit must be available to all, and it very clearly is.

Quote :

"Imagine this were not about marriage and instead about obtaining a medical license or taxi cab medallion. The hammer would be dropped immediately if you tried to write a law stating that only a man can obtain a medical license in the state of NC. What would your argument be then, that women can still be doctors, just not licensed ones? "

Imagine that you came up with an example that didn't apply to this case. That's precisely what you did. The law doesn't say that women can't get a marriage license or that men can't get a marriage license.

Quote :

"The inequality in the law is written based on the gender of the two consenting parties involved."

Not at all. The gender of the consenting parties is irrelevant as far as equal protection goes, as long as all genders are able to get the benefit.

Quote :

"Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down based on the exact same kind of logic because they specifically created an inequality based on race."

Yes, but with one extra caveat: blacks were prevented from marrying whites. They were put in jail. The logic was that a black man marrying a white woman wasn't just not recognized, he was jailed for it. Meanwhile, a white man wasn't punished for marrying a white woman. The same action wasn't treated the same with regards to punishment, and thus civil rights were violated. In this case, no one is being prevented from marrying. A man can still "marry" another man; the gov't just won't recognize or endorse it. You don't have a right to social acceptance of your marriage.

Quote :

"Your argument is basically a fall back on separate but equal, "they can still get married, just not to the person they want" is substantively the same as saying, "they can still go to school, just not the same school.""

Not even close. Anti-miscegnation laws specifically said you couldn't get married. This law just says the gov't won't recognize it, and that is a massive difference.

Quote :

"If I understand you correctly, it's not okay to marry someone of the same gender, with which he or she may legitimately want to share the rest of his or her life; however, it is okay to marry some random stranger of the opposite sex, in order to obtain some preferential benefits?"

Is it OK? In terms of the law, sure, if you are willing to follow through with the requirements set forth in the law.

Quote :

"It sounds to me as if you want to oppose the current system; however, you appear to be nothing more than a shill for it. What gives?"

I can understand how you might think that. I don't like the current system. I'm basically against it, in that I don't think any marriages should be recognized by the gov't, as marriage has an inherent religious association to it, and gov't getting involved in that in any way makes me squeamish. So no, I'm not a shill for it. But I can easily explain how the current system isn't unConstitutional, which is what I have been doing.

Quote :

"Speaking of business - WRAL's documentary on the referendum[/link] touched on the business concerns involved (http://www.wral.com/news/video/11014802/#/vid11014802). In The WRAL mini-doc they mentioned a letter opposing the ammendment on business groups signed by 75 NC CEOs. They couldn't find any CEOs who supported the ammendment - or were willing to say they supported it. So, they got the 2 main groups supporting the amendment to help them try to find some who did. They still could not find a single CEO who supported it - or was at least willing to say they supported it on the record. The CEO of Duke Energy was firmly against it as was the head of Bank of America's largest division saying it would have a "disastrous effect on our ability to attract talent and retain talent."(http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/bank_notes/2012/03/bank-of-america-executive-cathy.html) This probably does have quite a bit to do with the perceived environment in the state for employees; larger companies are expressive a fear that it will be harder to convince employees to relocate to NC or to sign on to be hired when the job is listed in NC if there is a perception that its run by regressive religious zealots even if that particular employee is not gay."

Actually, it's easier than that. They don't want the backlash of voicing their opinions. Liberals, the supposed people of "tolerance," are happy to tolerate any opinion, as long as they agree with it. They could easily find CEOs who supported the amendment. They just weren't gonna find any CEOs dumb enough to say it out loud and on record.

5/10/2012 9:25:27 PM

Quote :

"No matter how you interpret the President’s decision to articulate his support for same-sex marriage, in the same manner, in fact, as former Vice President Dick Cheney did while he was in office, one thing’s for sure. It’s been a money winner for the Obama campaign, which apparently raised $1 million in the 90 minutes after his support for same-sex marriage became public. Just an hour ago, in fact, I got another text from the Obama campaign: “If you’re proud of our president, get his back by pitching in today,” along with a handy link to donate!"

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/10/thank-the-influence-of-money-in-politics

5/10/2012 9:50:33 PM

"It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades." - Ron Paul

5/10/2012 9:52:03 PM