Amendment One Passed in North Carolina

[Rapture]

Amendment One - (I know I'm a few days late, but I'm surprised this hasn't been posted)

(CNN) -- A day after North Carolina became the latest state to approve a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, opponents of the referendum are beginning Wednesday to explore their next options.


North Carolina voted Tuesday to outlaw same-sex marriage, which was already prohibited in the state. Supporters pushed for the constitutional amendment, arguing that it is needed to ward off future legal challenges.
Voters approved the amendment by a 61%-39% margin with all counties reporting, according to unofficial returns from the State Board of Elections.


"It is a very sad day in North Carolina," said Tori Taylor, 23, a Charlotte resident who voted against the amendment. "There were a lot of college students, young professionals who came out to vote. We have gay friends. A lot of us are integrated to that culture. Do you think your friends should have the same rights? It's black and white. Of course, they should."


The North Carolina amendment alters the constitution to say that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized" in the state.

This is a sad affair as equality continues to diminish in the united States. North Carolina is the 30th state to ban gay marriage. Over 60% of the voting population voted for it to be illegal. However, I have read that due to how this legislation was written, it may be easier for a higher court to target and remove the States power to do this. I guess we'll have to see.

[TRF]

I just don't see why anyone cares if a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman. You can still do your daily routine whether or not gay people can marry. It just seems like such intrusion into other people's lives.

And I don't buy the whole "it ruins the sanctity of marriage" because:

1. In the Bible, the only excuse for divorce is if one's partner commits adultery. Verbal and physical abuse, neglect, etc., are not grounds for divorce.

2. A non-religious union between a man in a woman in a courthouse is technically not a marriage by its basic and religious definition but is still recognized on a federal level.

3. The idea that a religious ceremony would even be recognized by the federal government is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. The real issue is whether or not homosexuals should be allowed the same benefits of a union as heterosexuals. The fact that the word "marriage" comes into play is just wrong in my book.


Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.

[Funeralfog]

why is this crap still news? don't live there. every state still has the right to govern themselves....to a point. if you want to break away some douchebag will invade you

[ex nihilo7]

I don't think its the same legal rights resulting from a recognized union that homosexuals are really looking for. Homosexuals want "gay" marriage to become legal so they will be viewed as "normal" in the same sense straight couples are viewed as "normal". This wanting to be seen as "normal" is the equality homosexuals are looking for. I'm not sure, but does this law take away some legal rights from non-married heterosexual couples who have lived together for a number of years as well?

The reason the state gets involved with marriage is because children come out of marriage, and the state has to protect the interests of children.

[Rapture]

why is this crap still news? don't live there. every state still has the right to govern themselves....to a point. if you want to break away some douchebag will invade you

Don't live there? Why is it news? You have to be joking.

I'm not sure, but does this law take away some legal rights from non-married heterosexual couples who have lived together for a number of years as well?

No. Why would it?

The reason the state gets involved with marriage is because children come out of marriage, and the state has to protect the interests of children.

... What? What do children have to do with anything? How is this protecting the interests of children anyways?

[ex nihilo7]

Don't live there? Why is it news? You have to be joking.



No. Why would it?



... What? What do children have to do with anything? How is this protecting the interests of children anyways?

For the first part, I read something online about it taking away the rights of others, but it mostly a comment someone made. I didn't research it so that's why I asked.

For the children, it is mostly to do with child custody, child care, division of property and things like that. It might not be the whole reason, but I think it is one of the primary reasons the state even cares about regulating marriage.

[Rapture]

For the children, it is mostly to do with child custody, child care, division of property and things like that. It might not be the whole reason, but I think it is one of the primary reasons the state even cares about regulating marriage.

Oh, yes, of course. I thought you meant that specifically for gay marriage.

[ex nihilo7]

Oh, yes, of course. I thought you meant that specifically for gay marriage.

Oh no sorry, I thought had separated my thoughts well enough in my initial post. I only mentioned that part in an attempt to explain why the state even regulates marriage.

[Xelios]

That's pretty gay.

[XMW]

Well North Carolina is one of the most racist and fucked up states in the US so this really isn't much of a surprise.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Good for North Carolina.

[TRF]

Good for North Carolina.

Why do you care if gays can marry or not?


Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Why do you care if gays can marry or not?


Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.

Because its wrong. Thats why. Its goes against both my religion, and the foundations of marriage.

If you think its right, then thats your fucking opinion. I don't, and never will feel that way.

[*goo]

Why is it wrong? Why is religion so obsessed with what people do in their personal time?

And what foundations of marriage? Just in case you don't know this, religion did not 'invent' marriage nor does it have the monopoly on it.

Surely there's a better reason to be against this than 'religion'...

*Edit*

Just to be clear, since I don't want to descend this into a debate on religion which I realise I probably already have taken part in. If someone's religion says marriage is a union between a man and woman, it's fine for them to live by those rules. They've no right to cast that expectation onto the rest of society.

[F34R]

I guess I don't really care one way or the other.

[LC77]

No doubt this will be spun by Democrats as war on the gays.

[Cyklops]

Because its wrong. Thats why. Its goes against both my religion, and the foundations of marriage.

If you think its right, then thats your fucking opinion. I don't, and never will feel that way.

You know, I don't get how people like you say it's against this and against that. At the end of the day, it's just two people, two human beings who are in love with each other, regardless of their gender. Is it such a wrong thing to love someone so unequivocally? Is it so wrong that a state has to remove basic legal rights of a couple?

And please don't bring this whole 'sanctity of marriage' bullshit into picture. Has a gay or lesbian couple ever interfered in any straight person's marriage or lifestyle? I think not. Then why is so predominantly hunted down and shamed by straight people?

[-Kwesnoth-]

Just to be clear, since I don't want to descend this into a debate on religion which I realise I probably already have taken part in. If someone's religion says marriage is a union between a man and woman, it's fine for them to live by those rules. They've no right to cast that expectation onto the rest of society.

Who says that they do? Its the people who believe in the religion that were those 60% that voted to get the amendment made.

And why would I need a better reason then religion, my whole life is based around my beliefs that I stand by. Its my opinion, and I don't need a better reason for it.

[Fijiandoce]

to an extent i support these types of laws.

"Marriage" is essentially a man offering a woman protection (in whatever form) for rights (i cant think of a better word) to reproduce. im being EXTREAMLY SIMPLISTIC!!! i dont want to right a history essay here. read that crap up yourself!

i support a singular argument that religion and ideology have nothing to do with banning marriage. its the way its always been. man and women joining to create the next generation. that is where i end.

i'm all for fairness. and equality. however i feel both parties go about it in the wrong way!

addendum:
why would anyone wanna get married anyways

[keefy]

What if a couple is gay and are married and then moved there do they get arrested for being married?

America is going backwards.

The benefit for marriage is you do not need a will everything goes to your spouse.

[squirrelbo1]

Because its wrong. Thats why. Its goes against both my religion, and the foundations of marriage.

If you think its right, then thats your fucking opinion. I don't, and never will feel that way.

Foundations of marriage. What like on the pre Christian Greek and Roman empire ? Christianity didn't invent marriage and should have no say over its application.

On the basis of sanctity of marriage. Newt Gingrich has had 4 wives. That's against teachings in the bible but he still used the bible as a means of justification. What about Britney spears 55 minute marriage ? Or Kim kardashians one that lasted about a month. Those people do more harm to the concept of marriage than two gay people who have loved each other for decades will ever do.

No doubt this will be spun by Democrats as war on the gays.

Well Obamas support of gay marriage has been spin as a war on traditional marriage. Both sides will spin

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Cyklops]

America's mistake nowadays is that most right-wing, anti-gay, theists believe that both the Church and the government is one entity, rather than two. The Church and state are two completely different parties, that I feel, shouldn't have any say in the working manners of each other.

One thing that still surprises me is that NC is a state that legally allows the populace to marry their cousins, which is by all means incest as well as posing the high risk of producing mentally challenged and/or deformed children, but doesn't allow gay/lesbian marriage where the parents could adopt, or have a surrogate child.

[keefy]

What if 2 cousins were gay is that allowed?

[Cyklops]

What if 2 cousins were gay is that allowed?

Whoa man! Double rainbow all the way!

[Yuuichi]

Because its wrong. Thats why. Its goes against both my religion, and the foundations of marriage.

If you think its right, then thats your fucking opinion. I don't, and never will feel that way.

I respect your religion but no where in the Bible does it talk about marriage or being gay. Now they may have changed it as the Bible has been changed way way to many times. But the one I read which has been in my family for generations never mentioned anything about those two. Churches condeem it yes and they have a def for marriage.