http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/

"Marriage between one man one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

4/26/2012 4:02:51 PM

no.

4/26/2012 4:08:15 PM

Excellent

4/26/2012 4:12:42 PM

http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/threat/

Quote :

"Those who do not agree with this new definition of marriage as a genderless institution existing for the benefit of adults will be treated under the law just like racists and bigots, and will be punished for their beliefs. This is already occurring:"

As they fucking well should be.

[Edited on April 26, 2012 at 4:25 PM. Reason : link]

4/26/2012 4:24:50 PM

you, MORR1799, are an asshole

4/26/2012 4:30:15 PM

^^

Quote :

"Those people – a strong majority of North Carolinians – who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs."

Good, because they ARE bigots.

[Edited on April 26, 2012 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ]

4/26/2012 4:30:32 PM

This amendment has so many arguments against it that it's quite appalling that people are still for it.

And any argument about gay marriage endangering/devaluing/etc. straight marriage is a crock of shit. Straight people have "disgraced" the sanctity of marriage for a long time now, quit being hypocrites.

4/26/2012 5:41:44 PM

hahaha this link

http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/threat/



LOOK AT THIS BLACK COUPLE WE ARE SO TOLERANT WE LOVE DIVERSITY but we still hate the gays.

4/26/2012 5:42:44 PM

Note that it isn't an interracial couple.

4/26/2012 5:50:47 PM

you know this amendment isn't worth the ink it's written in when some of the most respected conservatives in this state have spoken out against it.

4/26/2012 6:26:10 PM

And when a week after it passed the General Assembly the state house speaker expresses, in public, his second thoughts on the measure and just recently says that it will just be overturned within a generation, THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU JUST WASTE OUR MONEY ON THIS SHIT?

4/26/2012 6:32:36 PM

this bill is just a distraction from the real issues...

4/26/2012 6:36:34 PM

The gay marriage being taught in school curriculums is disturbing as is the non-discrimination policies for churches, etc (Seems like an interference of church and state anyway). But of course killing this amendment doesn't have that effect. Since when were marriage issues being taught in schools?

4/26/2012 6:45:20 PM

^^^
Because Speaker Tillis has his head incredibly far up his own ass. He wouldn't mind putting this state on a path back to the 19th Century.

4/26/2012 6:48:29 PM

Why in the world would people who believe marriage should be only between man and woman want to vote to allow the state to define marriage as only between man and man, woman and woman, or man and horse?

4/26/2012 7:43:23 PM

For whatever reason, I chuckled when I saw that this thread had been created.

4/26/2012 8:32:58 PM

I was hoping that it would draw out more of the bigots. I am disappoint.

4/26/2012 8:49:08 PM

Quote :

"Good, because they ARE bigots."

saying that marriage is what it has always been, an institution between a man and a woman, doesn't make a person a bigot. it makes them someone who understands a basic definition. if, however, that person says homos ought to be killed for being homos, well, that makes them a bigot. Simply accepting the basic definition of a word as it has been known and understood for thousands of years isn't exactly the most offensive thing a person can do.

that's not to say this amendment isn't fucking stupid.

4/26/2012 9:51:19 PM

the word 'bigot' has been tossed around a lot lately.

if you have nothing against gay people in general, but don't think they should be allowed for purely religious reasons, are you a bigot?

what about if you are personally against the concept of gay marriage, but still think others should be allowed to do it because it's their decision, are you a bigot, then?

i lean strongly libertarian, but i have never explicitly stated my position on this issue on tww. i do think it's possible to be against the notion of gay marriage and not be a bigot.

as a side note, calling people names is probably the least effective thing you can do to change someone's mind on such a sensitive subject.

4/26/2012 9:57:34 PM

Quote :

"calling people names is probably the least effective thing you can do to change someone's mind on such a sensitive subject."

Especially a bigot's.

[Edited on April 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM. Reason : jk]

4/26/2012 10:04:34 PM

This amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage is already illegal in this state.

4/26/2012 10:26:50 PM

Why do people care so much about other people's personal business that they have to make laws about it? Does gay marriage hurt people?

4/27/2012 12:50:38 AM

^Totally. It's like this:

1) Gay couple gets engaged to be married.

2) Gay couple announces engagement in local paper.

3) Child of conservative christian parents sees gay engagement announcement in paper.

4) Child turns gay.

4/27/2012 1:15:58 AM

5) Man marries toaster

4/27/2012 2:08:52 AM

Quote :

"if you have nothing against gay people in general, but don't think they should be allowed for purely religious reasons, are you a bigot? what about if you are personally against the concept of gay marriage, but still think others should be allowed to do it because it's their decision, are you a bigot, then? i lean strongly libertarian, but i have never explicitly stated my position on this issue on tww. i do think it's possible to be against the notion of gay marriage and not be a bigot. as a side note, calling people names is probably the least effective thing you can do to change someone's mind on such a sensitive subject."

Considering that you are denying a certain subset of people benefits that you are allowing another subset simply because your religion doesn't agree with their sexual orientation (and their sexual orientation is in no way harming or restricting your rights) I think you could be considered a bigot. I am really curious if anyone who is NOT religious thinks that this amendment is at all a good idea.

4/27/2012 7:19:30 AM

1) people do not have a right to gov't benefits of any kind. They must qualify for them
2) it's not bigoted to restate the qualifications for a given benefit as being limited to the actual definition of the word being used to state the qualification, namely marriage, especially when others have been attempting to redefine the the word to suit their own purposes.

that's not to say that there aren't people out there saying "f those homos, Jesus hates homos." I'm sure those people exist, and they could certainly be considered bigots. and, that's not to say that we can't grant the benefits we currently give to marriage to gays as well. We should just do that through laws, not through changing the definition of the words in a current law. Two men will literally never be able to be married, simply because the definition of the word precludes it. It precludes it so much that we have to actually add a qualifier to the word to even begin to suggest a similar situation.

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM. Reason : ]

4/27/2012 8:46:01 AM

Except you are using one version of the definition. There are versions of the definition in some dictionaries, like dictionary.com, that don't actually mention gender:

Quote :

"the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment. "

At one point the definition of a "lunch counter" might have included the phrase "whites only" in someone's definition because that's the way it always was. That doesn't mean people who defended that definition weren't bigots

4/27/2012 9:02:39 AM

LOL @ aaronburro trying to spin this like it's noble etymologists trying to protect the word 'marriage.'

Word definition is ENTIRELY BASED ON USAGE not some Platonic universal defintion.

4/27/2012 9:04:18 AM

Quote :

"Except you are using one version of the definition. There are versions of the definition in some dictionaries, like dictionary.com, that don't actually mention gender"

As I said, some people have tried to redefine a word in order to change a law. I don't think that's right. Someone else coming and restating the definition, as it was known, and frankly still is known, Webster's be damned, is not bigoted. It's simply reiterating the original intent of the law. That's not bigoted.

Quote :

"At one point the definition of a "lunch counter" might have included the phrase "whites only" in someone's definition because that's the way it always was."

Except there is literally nothing intrinsic or extrinsic in the phrase "lunch counter" that even begins to include the parties who might congregate over it. Meanwhile, marriage has an intrinsic part of it that specifically requires attention to the parties engaged in it. You lose.

Quote :

"Word definition is ENTIRELY BASED ON USAGE not some Platonic universal defintion. "

Perfectly fine. Don't change the definition of a word simply to make a backdoor change to the law. Change the freaking law explicitly to remove all doubt.

4/27/2012 9:14:30 AM

They're not redefining the word "to change the law." They're using the word in the way that makes the most sense to them (and most non-bigoted rational people).

The law is wrong no matter whether you call it 'marriage' or 'flim-flam' or 'hoodlingdoodle.' If any state rights are granted by virtue of marriage, not allowing 2 consenting adults to have those rights is discrimination.

Honestly, this defense is flaccid.

4/27/2012 9:26:31 AM

Quote :

"As I said, some people have tried to redefine a word in order to change a law."

Perhaps in other states. But that would not be possible here in North Carolina where gay marriage is expressly illegal by statute.

4/27/2012 10:03:14 AM

He's speaking generally. He's trying to generate controversy (OMG teh gays are trying to subvert our language in order to further their agenda) to ignore the real issue (Bronze Age zealots are still informing our public policy).



[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2012 10:05:08 AM

I can understand that some people don't agree with the "gay lifestyle".

I can understand that some people don't think that gays should "marry".

I can even understand that some people think that gay-marriage should be illegal (it is).

But I cannot understand how people can support amending the constitution for this, especially with all the other ramifications that this amendment could lead to. It's hypocritical, and quite mind-boggling.

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 10:21 AM. Reason : oh, and it's total waste of resources that should be used elsewhere. economy?]

4/27/2012 10:19:10 AM

They see the writing on the wall and just want it to be more difficult for normal people to remove their sectarian bullshit from our laws.

4/27/2012 10:20:31 AM

to the OP, negatron ghostrider.

You should vote against it, there's a law already on the books banning gay marriage, so there are a lot of government resources and money being wasted on this. Our legislators need to be more focused on things like jobs and the economy than things such as this, which is destructive to the public.

4/27/2012 10:49:57 AM

^^ I don't think so. If that is what they wanted then they could have worded it that way. But they did not. I believe the purpose of the Amendment is to repeal the law allowing heterosexual couples to form domestic partnerships.

They mean it when they call it defense of marriage. They know what a marriage is and one man and one women being able to dissolve their marriage without a full court-battled divorce is repulsive to them. But they could never get that law repealed...however, they certainly can pass an overly-broad amendment to stop the gey!

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ,.,]

4/27/2012 11:19:41 AM

i'm pretty sure the biggest reason is just to stir-up the evangelicals and get them out to vote.

4/27/2012 11:21:03 AM

OMG TEH GAISE ARE MURRYING. DAT MEANS MUH MARRIAGE IS A SHAM.

4/27/2012 11:32:08 AM

Quote :

"saying that marriage is what it has always been, an institution between a man and a woman, doesn't make a person a bigot. "

Quote :

"if, however, that person says homos ought to be killed for being homos, well, that makes them a bigot."

Quote :

"the word 'bigot' has been tossed around a lot lately."

also.....

Quote :

"people do not have a right to gov't benefits of any kind. They must qualify for them"

To me, it sounds like people who are making the conscious decision to not get married and be in a "formal partnership" or whatever, think they are entitled to the benefits of being married. The government established said privelidges and benefits to those who get married, so why would it make sense to grant them to unmarried peoples?

4/27/2012 12:02:29 PM

^^^
With this amendment being up for vote in May, and not in November, I'm not sure for what other issue the evangelicals would need to influence at the polls.

^^^^
Intriguing concept. Given that this amendment was sponsored by family councils - most likely, people who don't think that couples should live together before marriage - I could see how they would be opposed to heterosexual domestic partnerships, as well as homosexual domestic partnerships.

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 12:27 PM. Reason : ]

4/27/2012 12:20:35 PM

Quote :

"saying that marriage is what it has always been, an institution between a man and a woman, doesn't make a person a bigot. ""

right, and stating something that has always been true, like "blacks can't drink from my water fountain", or "they should give up their bus seat for me", or "women shouldn't vote" doesn't make a person bigot either.

4/27/2012 12:28:40 PM

troll thread is trolled

4/27/2012 12:38:00 PM

Help me out, is refusing the OP's demands and offering reasons why you will not obey his commands considered "trolling"?

4/27/2012 12:42:13 PM

If I'm not mistaken, we're all being trolled by replying to the O troll P.

But, whatever. This thread has taken off in a direction of its own.

4/27/2012 1:02:30 PM

Whether the OP agrees with the position he's laid out is irrelevant. There are plenty of people who think as his post does.

4/27/2012 2:04:23 PM

Quote :

"They're not redefining the word "to change the law." "

actually, yes, they are..

Quote :

"If any state rights are granted by virtue of marriage, not allowing 2 consenting adults to have those rights is discrimination."

Not really. Fact is, both men and women can get married. There's no discrimination there. THe gov't used a certain word to define the qualifications for the benefits, and it just so happens that that word means an action involving one man and one woman. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but I am saying that's how it is. Don't like it? CHANGE THE LAW.

Quote :

"right, and stating something that has always been true, ..."

saying something is a fact and pointing to an actual definition are two distinctly different things.

4/27/2012 3:11:28 PM

I find it very, very hard to believe that you're against this solely because of the word.

Definitions change. This one will, also. Sorry.

4/27/2012 3:30:50 PM

Quote :

"If I'm not mistaken, we're all being trolled by replying to the O troll P."

I thought MORR1799 was serious when he said that he's voting for this because he feels like it's his duty as a christian

^he's against the amendment, he's just arguing semantics

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

4/27/2012 3:34:07 PM

I don't think "Resident Contrarian" will fit as Burro's status however applicable...

4/27/2012 3:37:00 PM

Quote :

"As I said, some people have tried to redefine a word in order to change a law. I don't think that's right. Someone else coming and restating the definition, as it was known, and frankly still is known, Webster's be damned, is not bigoted."

LOL at 'Webster be damned'. You might as well have said "I know that most of the civilized world accepts same-sex unions defined as marriage but it's just not, ok!"

4/27/2012 3:37:21 PM