North Carolina APPROVES ban on same-sex marriage

[LSN80]

If it's good enough for CM Punk to tell someone to go "kill themself" over, it's good enough for here. I'm sure we've discussed this topic before, but I'm hoping this works out that we look at it in a different light.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

By a 61%-39% margain, the state of North Carolins voted yesterday to ban safe-sex marriage in the state. What's interesting to me is that same-sex marriage was already outlawed in the state, so all this did was alter the constitution slightly within the state. The amendment was needed, supporters argued, to shut down legal challenges within the future should they arise. But further so, some munincipalities within North Carolina previously allowed benefits for same sex couples living together in civil union, such as health insurance for partners and tax breaks. Due to the passing of this amendment, both those tax breaks and health insurance could be lost. The Amendment reads:

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized".

Well, the way this is written, same-sex couples aren't the only ones who could be adversely affected here. What of couples who have lived together and have children? If the only "domestic" legal union that is recognized is marriage between man and woman, what does that mean for domestic violence cases? Before you dismiss that as a silly thought, the laws are much stricter and defined regarding domestic violence then they are in other circumstances. Further, this could affect child custody cases as well, one would assume, as unless the couple with children is married, they can't be defined as a true "family." So, not only are homosexuals theoretically affected here, but unwed couples could be as well. Kathryn Bradley, law professor at Duke University, said the following regarding the vote:

The language of the amendment is so vague, it could strip other unmarried couples of some rights as well. It could affect unmarried couples who live together and bring them unintended consequences on issues such as child custody and the prosecution of domestic violence. also strengthens the state's position against same-sex civil unions, often considered a precursor to the marriage issue. Some municipalities in North Carolina provide benefits to same-sex couples, and those rights could be lost with passage of the amendment.

When I read comments about amendments such as these, even the most conservative tend to state that they're not opposed to same-sex marriage, as they believe the state shouldn't define what a legal union is. Even the comments from those who believe it a sin often times aren't opposed to the recognition of same-sex marriage, as I've heard it said time and again that if "people want to live in sin, that's their choice and their business." When I've seen it discussed here, on this board, I've only encountered 2 to 3 people staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage, and those people were generally radical and homophobic in their views.

So I'm baffled by the ruling here. Where are you, 61%? We've only 9 states of 20 now, 45%, who have voted in favor of same-sex marriage, while it's yet to reach a vote in 30 other states. So are you telling me, wrestling fans, that all of you are more enlightened and informed then most. I mean, you watch programming that appeals to the lowest common denominator, yet you're realistic and intelligent enough to understand that the passing of this amendment is discriminatory? Surely, some of us out there are in favor of this amendment being passed. Surely there are some among us opposed to same sex marriage. Surely, there are some among us that believe marriage should only be defined as between a man and a woman, correct?

It's you I want to hear from, more then anyone. I'm a Christian, yet I believe that nowhere in the Bible does it label homosexuality a sin. But some of us must, correct? For what other reason, other then moral/religious, do people vote against same/sex marriage? Let's hear from Vote For Marriage NC Chairwoman Tami Fitzgerald, shall we?

"We are not anti-gay; we are pro-marriage. And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

I'm glad she said that, and emphasized that it was the whole point for their reason behind voting against it. Here's the definition of marriage, according to the Merrian Webster dictionary:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Now, I realize that Fitzgerald was referring to marriage as she defines it in a religious manner, and she appeals to a higher power then a dictionary for her definition of it. But I despise it when people want to have it both ways: To me, she's pro marriage in a manner that suits her, more the letter of it then the spirit of the definition. And even her letter of it, as shown above, falls incomplete.

Where are you, 61%?

I really liked the comments of Tori Taylor and Anna Krishnan, both who voted against the amendment.

Said Taylor:

"It is a very sad day in North Carolina. 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 verbiage here is interesting to me, about being integrated to the culture. Isn't it a sad state of affairs when we seperate "traditional" marriage from gay and lesbian, so much that they become different cultures? As 61% of North Carolina showed, it is very much a division of cultures, so to speak. I do understand that North Carolina is in the middle of the Bible belt, so don't mistake my frustration for disbelief. I recognize and understand the discrimination that occurs in these situations.

Said Krishan:

It writes discrimination into our state constitution and gives the majority the chance to vote against the minority.

Neither of these women are famous, or experts in anything. They're simply people who voiced their opinions following a disappointing turnout. Those opposed to the amendment are planning a new course of action, including campaigning across the state. Equality North Carolina held a press conference today to discuss the amendment, and what can be done next. Said Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, Campaign for Southern Equality director:

"We can't change the results of this vote, but we can determine what comes next, When kids across the state wake up, I want them to know that this story isn't over."

Even President Obama spoke up regarding the amendment, and was harsh in doing so. He called the voting "disapointing" and "discrimanitory"against gays and lesbians. This is especially notable because Obama's long-held stance was of one supporting "traditional" marriage. But since I've been mentioning them this entire thread, let's give the last word to the 61%, shall we? Here's Family Research Council Preaident Tony Perkins:

Despite the relentless lawsuits and attempts to marginalize supporters of traditional marriage, a clear majority of the American people have not given up on standing in support of marriage. But instead, the evidence suggests they want to see it strengthened and preserved for future generations."

If anything, these "relentless" lawsuits suggest people are standing in support of marriage, and doggedly so. It's a shame that the majority, the 61%, is against the true nature of marriage.

Thoughts on this?

 

[GI Cake]

This is truly just one of the dumbest things I have ever seen from the state of North Carolina. I wish I can give you a good, well educated post on how people can vote against same-sex marriage, but I can't. Saying they wish to "protect" the sanctity of marriage is just plain bullshit. How does preventing a gay man or woman from marrying one another protect the institution of marriage? I've seen plenty of heterosexual marriages fall to pieces and divorce shortly after.

I simply can't accept the idea that people can vote against one of the most basic human rights one can have in a so called "Free Country."

 

[Larry]

I don't give a shit one way or the other. Be you straight or gay I don't give a fuck if you want to get married, but there are a lot of people that do apparently. This issue was put to a fair vote in the state, and the gay community lost again. If that's what the people of the state want to uphold, that same sex marriage not be allowed, that's their right to uphold it and they did just that. I realize a lot of the secular-progressive crowd finds it to be a travesty that people actually exercised their constitutional rights, and did put this up to a fair vote that saw the same sex marriage supporters lose, but that's just too bad now isn't it? You can't bitch, you can't complain, you had a shot, you lost, and that's that.

The people of North Carolina came out in an overwhelming majority and said "No, that's not what we want here" and so be it. If you support states rights at all you should have no problem with this as this state exercised their rights fairly and freely. If you don't like the outcome, try again, it's your right to do that as well, but don't go pissing and moaning because you didn't get your way. I am a strong supporter of the repeal of marijuana prohibition which has seen little to no progress, but I don't go around bitching and complaining about what a travesty it is even though I highly disagree with it. You can't change a group or a societies values or force them to change them to accommodate your lifestyle if they disagree with it. You can try to promote the change, you can even get it put to a vote, but if that's not what the people want and they vote as such, don't get pissed because democracy didn't swing in your favor. Call it whatever you want, discriminatory, homophobic, or anything else you can to slander those who disagree with you, it only makes you look desperate, and worse than the people you are trying to chastise for not agreeing with your lifestyle that they view as immoral and unacceptable.

 

[Death Before Disco]

I agree with Ba-Bomb; this was an exercise in democracy. If the vote had gone the other way, it still would have been an exercise in democracy. This is a state issue, so leave it to the people of North Carolina. Personally, I'm opposed to same-sex marriage, but if the people of North Carolina had voted against the amendment, I wouldn't be foaming at the mouth, posting obscenities and calling for heads to roll. This is the nature of democracy and a civil society.

 

[SalvIsWin]

The people of North Carolina came out in an overwhelming majority and said "No, that's not what we want here" and so be it. If you support states rights at all you should have no problem with this as this state exercised their rights fairly and freely. If you don't like the outcome, try again, it's your right to do that as well, but don't go pissing and moaning because you didn't get your way. I am a strong supporter of the repeal of marijuana prohibition which has seen little to no progress, but I don't go around bitching and complaining about what a travesty it is even though I highly disagree with it. You can't change a group or a societies values or force them to change them to accommodate your lifestyle if they disagree with it. You can try to promote the change, you can even get it put to a vote, but if that's not what the people want and they vote as such, don't get pissed because democracy didn't swing in your favor. Call it whatever you want, discriminatory, homophobic, or anything else you can to slander those who disagree with you, it only makes you look desperate, and worse than the people you are trying to chastise for not agreeing with your lifestyle that they view as immoral and unacceptable.

People have good reason to bitch about this, it's clearly discrimination and it's disgusting. The (apparent) fact that most of the North Carolinians who voted on this issue were bigots does not make their decision any less outrageous. By your standards, if most of a state agrees on something, no one should complain because they are the minority - that is a ridiculous position, the majority should not dictate the rules for everybody regardless of morality and ethics.

North Carolina passed the ban on same-sex marriage, they are wrong for doing so. People will resist because it's outrageous, the same way people resisted when blacks had less rights than whites.

I agree with Ba-Bomb; this was an exercise in democracy. If the vote had gone the other way, it still would have been an exercise in democracy. This is a state issue, so leave it to the people of North Carolina. Personally, I'm opposed to same-sex marriage, but if the people of North Carolina had voted against the amendment, I wouldn't be foaming at the mouth, posting obscenities and calling for heads to roll. This is the nature of democracy and a civil society.

And you wouldn't have any reason to foam at the mouth because same-sex marriage doesn't affect you in any way. Banning same-sex marriage affects gay people very much so. Your comparison between outraged people and yourself is a complete fallacy.

 

[H33LTurn]

Just when I thought I could not be more embarrassed of our species. To claim that just because the majority in North Carolina decided to ban same sex marriage that its ok is like claiming that slavery was ok in the 1800's because the white majority approved of it. The majority is not always right or sensitive to the rights of other human beings. If my slavery analogy wasnt enough for you I suggest looking into Nazi Germany so you can further understand how insensitive the majority can be to the rights of others. This is not a theocracy, and it never will be, "thank God". This is about a legal necessity, not a religious tradition. Allowing same sex couples to marry gaurantees them certain rights like hospital visitations. It shouldnt be sate regulated either. Lets say you and your partner married in Iowa but you have a car accident in Texas while visiting family. What gaurantees that the state of Texas will recognize your marriage and allow your partner to be there by your side at the hospital? No ones asking for the church to recognize gay marriages or for the Bible to be altered. What many rational human beings are asking for is for religious people to keep their personal beliefs out of a political issue. Like a friend of mine put it: "Claiming someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being mad at someone for eating a donut because you are on a diet". Hell even Jesus believed in separation of church and state (to ceasar what is to ceasar crap). Let God deal with the "unrighteous".

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's not at all surprising. North Carolina has been a stronghold for right wing conservatives for decades, so of course they're going to put a ban on gay marriage.

I'm not as up to date as I should be but, if I'm not mistaken, the California Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that Proposition 8, which was on the ballot during California elections to ban gay marriage. Also, if I'm not mistaken, proponents of Prop 8 intend to go before the Supreme Court with this, which will still take a while. If the Supreme Court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional, then it puts the kaibosh on North Carolina's ban and, effectively, legalizes gay marriage nationally. After all, states can't pass laws that are deemed to violate the US Constitution.

One way or another, this fight will come to an end probably sometime in the next few years. I'm sure there'll be some that pop up every few years to try and get the Supreme Court to overturn it's ruling, if they find in favor of opponents of Prop 8, just as you have some that sometimes try to get Roe v. Wade overturned. In my opinion, however, I think North Carolina is fighting a losing battle. According to a spot I saw on CNN sometime late last week, 50% of Americans are in support of gay marriage. I'm not sure what the percentages were that weren't in favor of it or of those who weren't sure. However, if I'm not mistaken, if the poll is accurate, it marks the first time the majority of Americans support gay marriage.

 

[Larry]

People have good reason to bitch about this, it's clearly discrimination and it's disgusting. The (apparent) fact that most of the North Carolinians who voted on this issue were bigots does not make their decision any less outrageous.

Actually no they don't have good reason to bitch. It's always discrimination when someone doesn't get their way isn't it? I find it pretty ludicrous of you to suggest that "most of the Noth Carolinan's who voted were bigots". Aren't you just as big of a bigot to these people who voted, that you slander for making a choice in their state that you disagree with?

By your standards, if most of a state agrees on something, no one should complain because they are the minority - that is a ridiculous position, the majority should not dictate the rules for everybody regardless of morality and ethics.

And obviously by your standards the minority should be dictating to the majority which is completely backwards. And yes, by my standards in a democratic process, the majority wins, it's common sense. This isn't some conspiracy that's just been thought up to discriminate against the gays. The democratic process has always been the way these type of issues have been addressed, you just happen to have a problem with it because it didn't go the way you think it should have. It is a moral and ethical issue, and in said case, the collected views of the populous is always what decides the outcome, that's what a vote is.

If you don't like the fair democratic process, obviously there's something wrong with you, and you are the one trying to force something on people that they find unacceptable. The people of North Carolina exercised their rights to put something of this magnitude to a vote, and they spoke loud and clear, they don't agree with gay marriage and don't want to compromise that belief. They didn't FORCE anyone to deal with it, they allowed the democratic process to decide and the majority was against it. That doesn't make it discriminatory just because a certain group of people don't like it, and feel that they are somehow deprived as a result.

North Carolina passed the ban on same-sex marriage, they are wrong for doing so. People will resist because it's outrageous, the same way people resisted when blacks had less rights than whites.

So then anytime a group of people bitch and complain about something we should just cave to their demands right? Fuck the system and due process right? Why put it to a fair and honest vote and give everyone a chance to have a say, when you can force-fuck your ideals into legislation regardless of the sentiments of the majority who will be effected by it? Don't even try to compare this to the civil rights movement either, this is nothing like that, and homosexuals are not facing anything like the blacks did then, that was REAL discrimination, real hate, and they were really fucking tortured for something completely out of their control, the color of their skin.

That is not the case with homosexuals, they've put themselves in the position they are in by choosing that lifestyle, and that's no one elses fault but their own. It's just like anything else, you make a choice, and there are consequences and realities of that choice. You can try to say that people don't choose to be gay, but fact of the matter is regardless of the scientific's of it, they DO chose to come out, waive their rainbow flags, and engage in a type of conduct and lifestyle highly frowned upon by society, and that most definitely is a choice. No matter how much folks like yourself try to marginalize those opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage, or how you try to demonize or radicalize those who disagree, the fact of the matter is that the majority of the NATION doesn't agree with it, and homosexuality across the board is still considered unacceptable in society. You can say what you want about that, but that's a fact, and one that doesn't look to be changing any time soon. There's a reason this hasn't been done on a national level ya know, it wouldn't pass and people already know that.

And you wouldn't have any reason to foam at the mouth because same-sex marriage doesn't affect you in any way. Banning same-sex marriage affects gay people very much so. Your comparison between outraged people and yourself is a complete fallacy.

Did you even what the guy said or did you just jump to trying to go for the throat like an idiot? That answer is obvious, don't bother answering. He was saying, if the vote had went the other way, he would be on here acting like you foaming at the mouth in outrage because the vote didn't go the way of his views.

Just when I thought I could not be more embarrassed of our species. To claim that just because the majority in North Carolina decided to ban same sex marriage that its ok is like claiming that slavery was ok in the 1800's because the white majority approved of it. The majority is not always right or sensitive to the rights of other human beings. If my slavery analogy wasnt enough for you I suggest looking into Nazi Germany so you can further understand how insensitive the majority can be to the rights of others.

You are higher than bat pussy if you think this is even comparable to Nazi Germany or Slavery, that is outright hyperbole and filibuster at possibly it's worst. Homosexuals aren't being put in concentration camps, they aren't being made slaves, they aren't being drug from their homes and shot for being gay, they aren't being forced into slave labor, and they aren't actually being denied any rights at all. Their choices in life put them in certain situations that don't work in their favor, that's no one else fault but their own. It's certainly no injustice either that in a fair democratic process, people were allowed to vote on whether or not to allow, thus accepting and condoning, gay marriage. If that goes against the values of a society and they stand against it, not you or anyone else can tell them otherwise. Again, it's not like they voted to hang the gays, or put them back in the closet, or anything actually against them. This state simply chose to uphold a common value that the majority shares. You want to call it insensitive, but yet you're willing to be every bit as insensitive or more to a greater number of people by trying to force a change in the communities they live in that they don't want. You're saying "fuck them, it's not their choice". Well, actually it is, it was, and they made that choice loud and clear.

What don't you get about the voting process? That's how it works. States put issues to votes and one side wins and one side loses. Too fucking bad. You may not agree with the majority in this case, and thus you think what you think of the situation, but what you think isn't necessarily so either so you can gladly come down off your fucking pedestal.

This is not a theocracy, and it never will be, "thank God". This is about a legal necessity, not a religious tradition.

It's not an issue of religion so don't try to drag that into it, to try and illegitimize the outcome and demonize the people who made the decision that you disagree with. It's not a legal necessity either, and isn't based on religious tradition as much as it's based on a tradition that's stood outside of all religion for thousands of years. Suddenly now it's inadequate because it doesn't cater to a sect of society that wants the rules changed in their favor? Not buying it.

Allowing same sex couples to marry gaurantees them certain rights like hospital visitations. It shouldnt be sate regulated either. Lets say you and your partner married in Iowa but you have a car accident in Texas while visiting family. What gaurantees that the state of Texas will recognize your marriage and allow your partner to be there by your side at the hospital?

So you mean to actually suggest that we must legislate that gay couples can visit each other in hospitals? You've got to be fucking kidding? That is how you suggest we use the legislative powers of out system? To legislate that gay couples can visit each other in hospitals? Get-Fucking-Real. Isn't that all just speculation anyways? Who is to say that you'd automatically be denied being at your partners side?

I live in Iowa BTW, one of the only places to make it outright legal, and honestly I haven't seen society collapse or anything. I don't have a problem with gay marriage personally, but when a group so strongly does, a majority of a state in fact, you can't just undermine that many people's wishes. Like here in Iowa, there was a great deal of support for gay marriage, they put it to a vote, and the majority said "Let's allow it", should the majority have been ignored there too? Or is it only when it doesn't serve your agenda? There were plenty of people opposed to it who had to just accept the outcome they disagreed with and they did, quietly and respectfully. There wasn't all this crap from folks like you getting in a big uproar because the system didn't work in their favor.

No ones asking for the church to recognize gay marriages or for the Bible to be altered. What many rational human beings are asking for is for religious people to keep their personal beliefs out of a political issue.

What option would the church have if the state recognizes gay-marriages as being the same as traditional marriage? See, then you run into the problem where if a church doesn't recognize them and doesn't want to marry them, they can face legal consequences for upholding THEIR beliefs. No one gives as shit about that though, fuck the church right? What right should they have to uphold their religious beliefs and values? They shouldn't be so insensitive as many of you put it, but yet it's completely acceptable to be as absolutely disrespectful and insensitive to the church and it's people, and you folks don't bat an eye at that, even engaging in it yourselves.

Who is to say it's strictly "Religious people putting their beliefs in a political issue"? People are opposed so they have to be religious? Of course, it's always religions fault. People can't just disagree without being a far-right radical Christian. Really though, where do peoples political views stem from? Their personal beliefs, some of which can be shaped by their religion. So basically what you are saying is that religious people shouldn't have political views now, because they will reflect their religious beliefs. Who is discriminatory, insensitive, and forcing shit on people now? You want to just hush the people you disagree with and not allow them a voice whatsoever, that is what makes you and folks like you a bunch of fuckheads and hypocrites more than anything else. You don't want to be dictated to but you sure as fuck want to do a lot of dictating to others. Fuck You, plain and simple.

Like a friend of mine put it: "Claiming someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being mad at someone for eating a donut because you are on a diet". Hell even Jesus believed in separation of church and state (to ceasar what is to ceasar crap). Let God deal with the "unrighteous".

No, claiming someone's marriage is against your religion is simply stating that it's against your religion. It has nothing to do with the kind of example or inference you made. That's far different than simply being mad at someone for eating a donut when you're on a diet. Generally the person eating the donut isn't trying to spit the donut in your face and attack your diet. This isn't an issue of "Separation of Church and State" not by a long shot. If the church directly were the ones in power making the decision from on high without any kind of vote being allowed, THAT would be an issue of separation of church and state, big difference.

You're just pissed that people of faith stood up for it, and didn't simply lay down and let a group of people change the laws of the state they live in. Tell me, who is trying to deny gays visits in hospitals? Who is trying to deny them their relationships? Who is telling them they can't be together because it goes against their beliefs? No one. What they are saying is that with all that they DO tolerate, they aren't going to allow the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years to be re-defined and anything but a marriage between a man and a woman, and that's their right to do so. For people so concerned about rights, you're sure willing to dismiss those of the people you disagree with.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Ba-Bomb, I find your views entirely ridiculous. There, just so we know where we stand.

Firstly, to disagree with a decision made via the democratic process is not to disagree with the democratic process. That's ludicrous. For example, if I were to call you a ******** and you didn't like it, does that mean you don't like freedom of speech?

What's more, "tyranny of the majority" is a concept which was first coined in the eighteenth century. It's not something we've just invented now - it's a well known flaw in the democratic process. No, no political system is perfect. Yes, democracy is likely the best system we have going. That doesn't mean that it's flawless and it doesn't mean flaws - like tyranny of the majority - don't exist. This is why public protest, pressure groups etc. etc. exist to augment the democratic process.

This is discrimination. Is it discrimination to the same degree that black people experienced in the sixties? No - gay people aren't sprayed with fire hoses, they aren't allocated special seats in diners, and the leaders of gay right movements don't get murdered. However, just because discrimination is not as overt or horrendous as that, it does not mean it's not "real" discrimination. Gay people desire equal rights. The right to marriage - which everybody else enjoys - is being denied to them. Therefore, they are being discriminated against.

I'll give you a less sinister example. I invite you and your friends over to my house. You want hamburgers. I give all your friends hamburgers. You ask where yours is. I tell you that you don't get a hamburger because I don't like your hat. You're being discriminated against. I believe denial of equal rights to homosexuals is far more serious than this, I just wanted to make it plain why it qualifies as discrimination either way.

You're doing a very poor job of hiding your contempt for gay people. The idea that being homosexual is a choice has long been discredited. However, even if we incorrectly assume it is, the idea that being homosexual isn't an individual freedom that should be protected is ridiculous. Being homosexual does not harm anyone. Homosexual marriage does not harm anyone. Therefore, they fall under individual freedoms which should be protected.

 

[shattered dreams]

While it is easy to talk about 61%, the truth is something like 13.5 % of NC's population voted for the amendment and that was enough to pass it. Even out of that 13.5% there have been polls suggesting 1/4 to 1/2 of even those people didn't know civil unions were part of what this amendment was effecting. The real issue is the apathy towards voting in general. The reason you can't find many of these people is that they are not an overwhelming majority at all. They are a vocal minority. The silent majority seems content to do nothing. I don't look forward to what the short-term future brings when it comes to elections in the US. The population distribution and voting habits associated with such demographics suggests rampant conservatism at a time when I think such backwards thinking could be rather disastrous to the future of the country. The only thing continuing to worry about what everyone does in their bedroom is going to do is eventually force us all to learn Chinese.

 

[SalvIsWin]

And obviously by your standards the minority should be dictating to the majority which is completely backwards. And yes, by my standards in a democratic process, the majority wins, it's common sense. This isn't some conspiracy that's just been thought up to discriminate against the gays. The democratic process has always been the way these type of issues have been addressed, you just happen to have a problem with it because it didn't go the way you think it should have. It is a moral and ethical issue, and in said case, the collected views of the populous is always what decides the outcome, that's what a vote is.

If you don't like the fair democratic process, obviously there's something wrong with you, and you are the one trying to force something on people that they find unacceptable. The people of North Carolina exercised their rights to put something of this magnitude to a vote, and they spoke loud and clear, they don't agree with gay marriage and don't want to compromise that belief. They didn't FORCE anyone to deal with it, they allowed the democratic process to decide and the majority was against it. That doesn't make it discriminatory just because a certain group of people don't like it, and feel that they are somehow deprived as a result.

Ba-Bomb, you said that because they are the majority, they are right. I'm saying, just because they are the majority doesn't necessarily mean they are right. Do you understand the difference? You're saying that the majority is right because they're the majority, I'm saying that an argument should be right based on it's merits, not based on how many people agree with it. If 99% of North Carolinians thought that blacks shouldn't allowed in their state, that would be ridiculous, and it would be an example of the majority being wrong/.

Your suggestion that I am saying that the minority gets to dictate terms to the majority is stupid because I didn't say that. I said just because the majority wants something doesn't mean they should get it.

That is not the case with homosexuals, they've put themselves in the position they are in by choosing that lifestyle, and that's no one elses fault but their own. It's just like anything else, you make a choice, and there are consequences and realities of that choice. You can try to say that people don't choose to be gay, but fact of the matter is regardless of the scientific's of it, they DO chose to come out, waive their rainbow flags, and engage in a type of conduct and lifestyle highly frowned upon by society, and that most definitely is a choice. No matter how much folks like yourself try to marginalize those opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage, or how you try to demonize or radicalize those who disagree, the fact of the matter is that the majority of the NATION doesn't agree with it, and homosexuality across the board is still considered unacceptable in society. You can say what you want about that, but that's a fact, and one that doesn't look to be changing any time soon. There's a reason this hasn't been done on a national level ya know, it wouldn't pass and people already know that.

I'm not concerned with what the majority of North Carolinians want, like I said, just because they want something doesn't mean they should get it. You can't possibly agree with the idea that if the majority says something is OK, then we must bow down to that authority.

As for saying you can't undermine the majorities wishes, so let's say that the majority of a state wants to outlaw black people from living in their state? Do you get upset at that? Do you think that should be fine because it's a opinion that most of them share?

People are trying to stake a claim on marriage which is ridiculous. Marriage has existed far before the Bible and Jesus. Religious folks don't have a monopoly on wanting to get married. I'm getting married next year, and it's not being done in a Church or with a priest - it's devoid of any religion affiliation, and it's still a marriage. It's not yours to decide who should have or shouldn't have it. The fact that most married people are men and women is irrelevant. It's a tradition, so what, so was not allowing women to vote, so was having separate water fountains, traditionalism doesn't equate to being right.

Be upset with people being gay if you want, complain about it, rant about it, bitch and moan about - I don't care. What I do care about is bigots like yourself and all those idiots in North Carolina who think they have the right to tell gay people that they're not worthy of marriage. You have no business making your own list of pre-requisites for marriage and then imposing them on others, they're not hurting anybody, it doesn't affect you in any way so you should stay out of it.

___________

To be clear, I don't care if religious institutions don't want to marry them, feel free not to. If it's going to be a problem, pass an amendment that makes it OK for the Church to discriminate against gays when performing marriages, that's absolutely fine, they already do it anyway. If you go to a Catholic church to be married they won't do it unless you're Catholic, so I don't see what's the difference if they refuse because you're gay. There you go, the Church can retain it's bigoted views and the gays can get married - what's the problem now?

Marriage is traditionally a man and a woman - so what? Blacks traditionally didn't have the rights white people did, women couldn't vote - you could argue that was a tradition that was done away with so clearly it being a tradition isn't really relevant.

 

[Silly Willy Nilly Vanilly in the Milly]

Is it just me, or is Ba-Bomb the only one here who has posted something that has any bit of sense?
I, a resident of NC, will now state the facts:
1.) Homosexual marriage has been a very debatable concept in this state for quite some time.
2.) Homosexual marriage, prior to this amendment, was illegal in the state of NC.
3.) The majority of the vote went to those who voted FOR the amendment, basically which was to give closure to "one man, one woman."
You can bring religion and hypocrisy and all the other crap in you want, it doesn't change the facts. We voted, as a democracy, and the majority went to anti-gay marriage. Case closed.
PS: For the record, had I been able to vote, I would have voted FOR the amendment.
But to each his own beliefs. Not happy about the amendment? Move out of state.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Is it just me, or is Ba-Bomb the only one here who has posted something that has any bit of sense?
I, a resident of NC, will now state the facts:
1.) Homosexual marriage has been a very debatable concept in this state for quite some time.
2.) Homosexual marriage, prior to this amendment, was illegal in the state of NC.
3.) The majority of the vote went to those who voted FOR the amendment, basically which was to give closure to "one man, one woman."
You can bring religion and hypocrisy and all the other crap in you want, it doesn't change the facts. We voted, as a democracy, and the majority went to anti-gay marriage. Case closed.
PS: For the record, had I been able to vote, I would have voted FOR the amendment.
But to each his own beliefs. Not happy about the amendment? Move out of state.

A state votes that Christian's are not welcome within it's borders, are you okay with it? The majority of the state thinks it's a good idea and votes for the amendment.

 

[Silly Willy Nilly Vanilly in the Milly]

A state votes that Christian's are not welcome within it's borders, are you okay with it? The majority of the state thinks it's a good idea and votes for the amendment.

Again, to each his own beliefs. Not pleased? GTFO.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Again, to each his own beliefs. Not pleased? GTFO.

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, therefore everyone has the right to discriminate against and exile those who have different beliefs? What sort of bizarre, paradoxical argument is that?

Furthermore, what sort of fucked up society do you want to live in where discourse and debate is discouraged in favour of fleeing the state? "Senator, we have people outside who have problems with the legislation." "Did you tell them, 'My way or the highway'?"

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I'm so sick of people like BA-Bomb and Tyndall sucking at the teat of big government and the so-called rights they have been granted because they've chosen to be straight and are too lazy to go out and be gay. Why should they get special treatment when gays have to work harder to justify and legitimize their love for another person? It's lazy people like them that are ruining this country. They should be deported to the Middle East where their attitudes are universal.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Again, to each his own beliefs. Not pleased? GTFO.

The most idiotic thing I've ever seen on this forum, and you're dead serious, good job.

I believe X, so therefore I should be able to enforce that belief, no matter what it is, genocide, exile, discrimination, racism, just as long as I have mob majority - what a dumb fucking statement.

 

[Slyfox696]

If that's what the people of the state want to uphold, that same sex marriage not be allowed, that's their right to uphold it and they did just that.

This is the only part of this whole thing I struggle with. While I find their actions in adding a constitutional amendment promoting discrimination disgusting, at the end of the day, our country was founded under the idea of part democracy, and the democratic vote decided this is what they want.

I think their judgment is terrible, but the process itself was completely American. However, I don't think they'll have the right to refuse to acknowledge marriages which occur in other states. IANAL, but once you start talking about interstate commerce, state governments lose out to federal.

The people of North Carolina came out in an overwhelming majority and said "No, that's not what we want here"

No they didn't. The overwhelming majority of the people who came out said they don't want gay marriage there. You are being careless with your words, and in this case, it's quite important. If what shattered dreams says is true, less than 15% of North Carolina came out to vote for the passing of this amendment.

And obviously by your standards the minority should be dictating to the majority which is completely backwards.

I don't believe that's what he said. I believe what he said is that the majority should not be able to rule the minority when the majority opinion is wrong.

Argumentum ad populum is never a valid argument for assessing the accuracy of a position. When the majority want to deny equality for others based simply upon factors outside of their control, then the majority should not always get what they want.

That's his argument, or so I believe.

Don't even try to compare this to the civil rights movement either, this is nothing like that, and homosexuals are not facing anything like the blacks did then, that was REAL discrimination, real hate, and they were really fucking tortured for something completely out of their control, the color of their skin.

We've gone around on this before, it's a shame you didn't learn anything.

This is like the civil rights movement. Gays have been killed for the sexuality. They are actively being denied the same benefits people like you and me receive, for no reason other than because of what they were born with. Gays DO face real hate, and have for centuries. Gays have no more control over being homosexual than you do of being heterosexual.

It's exactly like the civil rights issues.

That is not the case with homosexuals, they've put themselves in the position they are in by choosing that lifestyle

Tell me, when did you make the concious decision to be a heterosexual? How old were you when you stood up and proclaimed to the world that you've chosen to be straight?

Nobody CHOOSES their sexuality. Some people REALIZE their sexuality, some people DISCOVER their sexuality, but nobody chooses it.

You can try to say that people don't choose to be gay, but fact of the matter is regardless of the scientific's of it, they DO chose to come out, waive their rainbow flags, and engage in a type of conduct and lifestyle highly frowned upon by society, and that most definitely is a choice.

So those are the options a homosexual must live with? Either shut up and live a life that is a complete lie, or be faced with rampant inequality and hatred?

What's the matter with people like you? How can you justify this hatred inside your soul?

the fact of the matter is that the majority of the NATION doesn't agree with it

Not sure where you get your numbers, but recent polls show that 50% or more people in America not only have no problem with homosexuality but also support gay marriage.

Overall, 51% approve of Obama's new position on same-sex marriage, compared with 45% who disapprove.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...ODAYGallup-poll-Obama-gay-marriage/54905424/1

A Gallup Poll released Tuesday indicated 50% of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with 48% saying such marriages should not be legal.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-09/...age-civil-unions-word-marriage?_s=PM:POLITICS

You can say what you want about that, but that's a fact

What if I say it's not a fact, and post polls to prove it?

It's not an issue of religion

That's just completely false, it very much is an issue of religion. Did you not read the quote LSN had in his first post?

"We are not anti-gay; we are pro-marriage. And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

That very much is an issue of religion.

So you mean to actually suggest that we must legislate that gay couples can visit each other in hospitals? You've got to be fucking kidding? That is how you suggest we use the legislative powers of out system?

Considering we're using that same legislative system to legislate that they CAN'T visit each other in hospitals, then I don't really see the problem here.

What option would the church have if the state recognizes gay-marriages as being the same as traditional marriage? See, then you run into the problem where if a church doesn't recognize them and doesn't want to marry them, they can face legal consequences for upholding THEIR beliefs.

That's why I say no religious marriage should be granted government benefits. Only civil unions.

You're just pissed that people of faith stood up for it, and didn't simply lay down and let a group of people change the laws of the state they live in. Tell me, who is trying to deny gays visits in hospitals? Who is trying to deny them their relationships? Who is telling them they can't be together because it goes against their beliefs?

Well, the state of North Carolina for one. Homosexuals cannot have a relationship of marriage there, nor be granted the benefits married couples received, regardless of whether they were married in another state or not. You are aware of the thread you are in, correct?

For people so concerned about rights, you're sure willing to dismiss those of the people you disagree with.

What rights are being infringed upon for straight people? How does denying homosexuals the right to receive the same government benefits heterosexuals do safeguard heterosexual rights?

Honest question, I'm legitimately curious.

If the Supreme Court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional, then it puts the kaibosh on North Carolina's ban and, effectively, legalizes gay marriage nationally. After all, states can't pass laws that are deemed to violate the US Constitution.

I'm not certain of the legality of that.

Is it just me, or is Ba-Bomb the only one here who has posted something that has any bit of sense?

It's just you.

I, a resident of NC, will now state the facts:
1.) Homosexual marriage has been a very debatable concept in this state for quite some time.
2.) Homosexual marriage, prior to this amendment, was illegal in the state of NC.
3.) The majority of the vote went to those who voted FOR the amendment, basically which was to give closure to "one man, one woman."
You can bring religion and hypocrisy and all the other crap in you want, it doesn't change the facts. We voted, as a democracy, and the majority went to anti-gay marriage. Case closed.
PS: For the record, had I been able to vote, I would have voted FOR the amendment.
But to each his own beliefs. Not happy about the amendment? Move out of state.

Every thing you said is true. However, not every thing you said is right.

 

[Xemmy]

People shouldn't be able to deny other people rights, democratic vote or not. If a state voted to take away YOUR right to marry, you wouldn't be saying, "Well, if that's the majority's ruling then so be it." When decisions like this occur in our country, this country that's suppose to be the posterboy for Freedom all over the world, I become ashamed of my country and the people that live in it. At some point, we're going to have to drag the idiot, redneck half of this country into the 21st Century.

While I do see religion as the primary reason homosexuality is still looked down upon by many, I don't think religion is what's causing it today. I just think that's what's established it. Culture has a big influence. I've met a couple of people claiming to be atheists like myself that are homophobic. Not necessarily against gay marriage, but they just don't want gay people near them. Of course, when I say people, I mean Gay Men. Lesbians are cool. It's this Southern, Men are Manly mentality. A lot of these people don't even go to church. It's just this bubble that "******s" are gross and evil.

Education may be the biggest player in this. I saw this picture the other day- and I'm not sure if it's a hundred percent accurate. But if it is, then it might be safe to argue that people being uneducated might be the biggest problem. Not every country follows the rule, but it still looks like ignorance plays a huge role.

 

[BK Styles]

Okay, this is my issue with it. Does it harm anyone if gay people get married? I mean, really? I mean, as much as I disagree with people being against gay marriage, I recognize the right for everyone to have their opinion. You disagree with gay marriage, that is your choice and I respect that. And Ba-Bomb, as much as I disagree with a lot that he's said in this thread and others, is absolutely right when he says that by a democratic process, technically there is nothing wrong with this result; it was put to polls and this was the fair outcome.

But why? Why are gay couples being restricted from marrying in NC? Because people don't like it? That's the biggest load of horseshit I've ever heard. Why should something like that be even considered as a subject of a vote. Its an individuals choice as to what they are and what they do, and as Sly rightly said, people are mostly born one way or the other. Maybe some switch from being straight to gay (i certainly have a couple of friends who have, as well as others who have always known they like guys), but the fact is that it is an individuals right to be with whoever they want to be with. Why should they be told that they cannot marry the person they love? Because people don't like that its a same-gender relationship? Where is the fucking harm in it???

One thing that caught my eye:

That is not the case with homosexuals, they've put themselves in the position they are in by choosing that lifestyle, and that's no one elses fault but their own. It's just like anything else, you make a choice, and there are consequences and realities of that choice. You can try to say that people don't choose to be gay, but fact of the matter is regardless of the scientific's of it, they DO chose to come out, waive their rainbow flags, and engage in a type of conduct and lifestyle highly frowned upon by society, and that most definitely is a choice. No matter how much folks like yourself try to marginalize those opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage, or how you try to demonize or radicalize those who disagree, the fact of the matter is that the majority of the NATION doesn't agree with it, and homosexuality across the board is still considered unacceptable in society.

Are you actually serious? So if someone is gay, they should hide it from society, right? Because that's what you just implied in the bolded parts. I've never heard something so utterly ridiculous in my life. I have a number of friends who are gay or bi, and unless they told you, you wouldn't know. No rainbow-waiving, no conduct that's frowned upon, just the fact that they lay next to someone of the same sex at night, and maybe hold hands/kiss in public. BIG. FUCKING. DEAL. Hell, I've been asked if I'm gay more times than they have, just because I'm more outgoing and flamboyant in nature, and I'm the one whose straight.

You talk about consequences for choices, fine. If it's applied here, let's apply it to other things. You wanna smoke (which is bad for you AND people around you) then no healthcare if it causes damage to you. You wanna drink excessively, same thing. if YOU choose to smoke or drink, there are the consequences. If that were to happen, people would argue that its their choice to do those things, and that to ostracize them would be unfair.

It is completely unfair to ban same sex marriage on the basis that people don't agree with it, despite it doing nothing than annoy them because they don't think it should be allowed. Whether its a minority or not, they should have that right. Simple as. The voting aspect; its democracy and there is nothing technically wrong with it. Morally, it's ridiculous.

 

[H33LTurn]

You are higher than bat pussy if you think this is even comparable to Nazi Germany or Slavery, that is outright hyperbole and filibuster at possibly it's worst. Homosexuals aren't being put in concentration camps, they aren't being made slaves, they aren't being drug from their homes and shot for being gay, they aren't being forced into slave labor, and they aren't actually being denied any rights at all. Their choices in life put them in certain situations that don't work in their favor, that's no one else fault but their own. It's certainly no injustice either that in a fair democratic process, people were allowed to vote on whether or not to allow, thus accepting and condoning, gay marriage. If that goes against the values of a society and they stand against it, not you or anyone else can tell them otherwise. Again, it's not like they voted to hang the gays, or put them back in the closet, or anything actually against them. This state simply chose to uphold a common value that the majority shares. You want to call it insensitive, but yet you're willing to be every bit as insensitive or more to a greater number of people by trying to force a change in the communities they live in that they don't want. You're saying "fuck them, it's not their choice". Well, actually it is, it was, and they made that choice loud and clear.

The slavery/Nazi Germany analogy was strictly showing how a majority can be insensitive to the minority and that we shouldnt always uphold a value because a large number of people support it. It was never to imply that gay people have gone through as much pain as slaves. And yes, I'm am outright saying fuck them, because they refuse to adapt to a change in America's society that doesnt harm a soul because the right wing invisible man in the sky says its wrong.

What don't you get about the voting process? That's how it works. States put issues to votes and one side wins and one side loses. Too fucking bad. You may not agree with the majority in this case, and thus you think what you think of the situation, but what you think isn't necessarily so either so you can gladly come down off your fucking pedestal.

Yeah too fucking bad, right? Thats just the way it is. Thats a horrible way to look at the law. Society changes, sometimes America isnt the the beacon of righteousness and freedom that it promotes itself to be. Why do you think we are one of the few countries in the world that operates like this? Because sometimes the people dont know whats good for them. They have a bias opinion, are fed a bias point of view by their parents, their media, etc. It all comes down to politicians playing politics with the liberties of a prominent group of Americans. I'm not on any higher of a pedestal than anyone who opposes a law that has ZERO effect on their daily lives because a holy book says so or because of some bigoted hatred.

It's not an issue of religion so don't try to drag that into it, to try and illegitimize the outcome and demonize the people who made the decision that you disagree with. It's not a legal necessity either, and isn't based on religious tradition as much as it's based on a tradition that's stood outside of all religion for thousands of years. Suddenly now it's inadequate because it doesn't cater to a sect of society that wants the rules changed in their favor? Not buying it.

Its not an issue of religion? With all due respect sir what the fuck are you smoking? Theres a LARGE number of people, including the Republican party's nominee for president and apparently Barack Obama until he realized on Wednesday that he needs the gay vote for 2012, who disagree/d with same sex marriage for the sole purpose that it is against their religion. I'm not trying to illegitimize anything (by the way thats not a real word), its just that the only other reason being pushed for the opposition of same sex marriage other than religion is just outright bigotry. To put it simply, religion and just an outright hate of gays are the only two excuses that have been presented by people who are against same sex marriage. I refuse to address bigotry because I dont deal with stupid people (I've made an exception for you though), and that leaves religion...oh and your point of view. What is that again?

So you mean to actually suggest that we must legislate that gay couples can visit each other in hospitals? You've got to be fucking kidding? That is how you suggest we use the legislative powers of out system? To legislate that gay couples can visit each other in hospitals? Get-Fucking-Real. Isn't that all just speculation anyways? Who is to say that you'd automatically be denied being at your partners side?

Marriage secures certain privileges that others often regard as exclusive to two people who are married, not dating or a couple.

I live in Iowa BTW, one of the only places to make it outright legal, and honestly I haven't seen society collapse or anything. I don't have a problem with gay marriage personally, but when a group so strongly does, a majority of a state in fact, you can't just undermine that many people's wishes. Like here in Iowa, there was a great deal of support for gay marriage, they put it to a vote, and the majority said "Let's allow it", should the majority have been ignored there too? Or is it only when it doesn't serve your agenda? There were plenty of people opposed to it who had to just accept the outcome they disagreed with and they did, quietly and respectfully. There wasn't all this crap from folks like you getting in a big uproar because the system didn't work in their favor.

"I dont have a problem with gay marriage personally". Then do us all a favor and stop getting involved. You dont understand how important this is to so many people and your only argument in support of the decision in NC is that a lot of people supported it. Look kid, human rights isnt something you cave into peer pressure for. And as far as me causing an uprorar, look at the url buddy, we're on a section of this website that specializes in voicing one's opinion. If you cant handle the heat...you know the rest.

What option would the church have if the state recognizes gay-marriages as being the same as traditional marriage? See, then you run into the problem where if a church doesn't recognize them and doesn't want to marry them, they can face legal consequences for upholding THEIR beliefs. No one gives as shit about that though, fuck the church right? What right should they have to uphold their religious beliefs and values? They shouldn't be so insensitive as many of you put it, but yet it's completely acceptable to be as absolutely disrespectful and insensitive to the church and it's people, and you folks don't bat an eye at that, even engaging in it yourselves.

I doubt any gay person wants to get married in a church that worships a book that calls them an "abomination". When a traditional couple gets married they first get married by a judge, and then by a priest, but the marriage under the judge is the one that the legal system cares about. I think a compromise can be reached here where the church can uphold its bigotry and gays can still gain the right to marry.

Who is to say it's strictly "Religious people putting their beliefs in a political issue"? People are opposed so they have to be religious? Of course, it's always religions fault. People can't just disagree without being a far-right radical Christian. Really though, where do peoples political views stem from? Their personal beliefs, some of which can be shaped by their religion. So basically what you are saying is that religious people shouldn't have political views now, because they will reflect their religious beliefs. Who is discriminatory, insensitive, and forcing shit on people now? You want to just hush the people you disagree with and not allow them a voice whatsoever, that is what makes you and folks like you a bunch of fuckheads and hypocrites more than anything else. You don't want to be dictated to but you sure as fuck want to do a lot of dictating to others. Fuck You, plain and simple.

Yes, fuck me because I think that politics is about being sensitive to what the people want and deserve, not about the nonesensical ramblings of a conservative man in the sky. I'm not saying that religious people cant have a political opinion. I'm saying they have to be realistic. Its one thing to say "I don like gays, I wont engage in gay activities, but I will fight for my people because my loyalty as a political figure is to the people" and another is "I dont like gays cuz the lord says so and if I'm not gay I'm going to push my personal beliefs on people".

No, claiming someone's marriage is against your religion is simply stating that it's against your religion. It has nothing to do with the kind of example or inference you made. That's far different than simply being mad at someone for eating a donut when you're on a diet. Generally the person eating the donut isn't trying to spit the donut in your face and attack your diet. This isn't an issue of "Separation of Church and State" not by a long shot. If the church directly were the ones in power making the decision from on high without any kind of vote being allowed, THAT would be an issue of separation of church and state, big difference.

The analogy was to show that just because you choose not to engage in an activity it doesnt give you the right to have a negative attitude against those who do. Marriage isnt a religious institution, its a legal one.

What they are saying is that with all that they DO tolerate, they aren't going to allow the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years to be re-defined and anything but a marriage between a man and a woman, and that's their right to do so. For people so concerned about rights, you're sure willing to dismiss those of the people you disagree with.

Actually thats not their right. The declaration of independence clearly states that all men and women are created equal. I dont understand this fear of change. Guess what, the gay community is larger than it has ever been before and its not going away any time soon. They are demanding their rights and it would be wise of the people in this country to remove their fetish for the words that follow "marriage" in the dictionary and understand that society is once again changing. You need to stop with your personal voting fetish and understand where these people get their stance on gay marriage. Its not out of the goodness of their heart, its out of the bigotry that exists in a book written by sand people hundreds of years ago that they continue to worship as they await the return of a guy whos gunna drop out of the sky and judge the world based on the favor he did for them when he miraculously came back from the dead after a cardiac arrest after a spear pierced through his damn ribcage. Now do you begin to understand why this fairy tale should not influence the legal standings of an institution in the year 2012?

 

[Danger Burger]

Good arguements all round!! I'll throw in my two cents, but i'm not really taking a side, so feel free to gloss over this!

Truth be told, democracy depends on the rule of the majority, so technically there is your result... But the low turn out means one of two things... One, there is no-one to blame for this result than the population themselves, if you do not vote, chances are you will not have your say, but if P-diddy gets that, i'm sure you guys do to.

Another point though is that the act of voting is also an act of consent towards any political decision made, in a sense, voting legitimises the rule of the majority. Participation is key. If the turn out is as low as 13% as im reading here, it can hardly be concidered a legitimate decision, though it will be. B-bomb raised some good points that are hard to disagree with, but made some others that are less so, but theyv all been dealt with quite in depth.

True for some to say that the majority rule is unjust when the decision is wrong, and others bringing in the slavery basis for the proof of that, but wasnt it also (indirectly) a majority decision that lead to its downfall? The beauty of democracy is that one side will always have to listen to the opositions voice. Glad to hear people arguing about it, thats a good step in the right direction. Go out and convince some others while you are at it!

Personally dont agree with the decision made here, but do agree to an extent with the effectiveness of democracy (At the very least its the closest we'll get to a fair representation of societies desires) and that justice will always eventually prevail. So next time, go vote, dont complain, otherwise go change someones mind. Worst case scenario, civil disobedience never hurt anybody (who wasnt willing to be hurt)... Go tick the wrong box on your tax returns!

 

[shattered dreams]

Again, to each his own beliefs. Not pleased? GTFO.

In what possible way is outlawing something for everyone, to each his own? To each his own is I don't want to marry a guy but I don't care if you do.

I assume that you agree that since abortion is legal everyone should just shut up about it or get the fuck out of the US? Anyone dislike Obama? Get the fuck out since he was elected by a majority.

 

[Tastycles]

This is why micro democracy doesn't work, in a nutshell. The reason democracy works is because you elect the people you believe are best qualified to make tough decisions. When you give the public the choice on the individual issues, you get a lot of unqualified people making huge decisions without the necessary understanding for the repercussions. If you put a bill to the public tomorrow that cut all tax by 50%, it would almost certainly pass, but it would be a fucking disaster.

As for the actual matter at hand, this is completely fucking deplorable. In 50 years' time, we'll be looking at this and wondering how we could be so fucking thick as we do with Black people's rights now.