Shame on you, NC

[bluefox4000]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

I do think divorce should be illegal--or come with major penalties. I have often tweeted conservative pundits AND gay marriage activists alike that they should organize a "Restoration of Marriage" (repealing no-fault divorce, for example). It seems, to me, that neither party is interested the health of the institution.

That's harsh. I'm happily married, but if the time should come when i'm not. I want an out. Why force unhappy people to be together or penalize them?

Mick

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by bluefox4000

That's harsh. I'm happily married, but if the time should come when i'm not. I want an out. Why force unhappy people to be together or penalize them?

Mick

I guess, from my perspective, there are more important things than "happiness." Or, maybe, I have a different definition of "happiness."

Should marriage vows change to: "Until death do us part, or until one of becomes unhappy."

I'm ALWAYS unhappy. I don't divorce life. Though I do neglect it.

[mezzoforte]

I guess I just don't think marriage is the government's business. I don't think think the government should be able to keep two people of the same gender from having the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, and I don't think it should be able to force any two people to stay together.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by mezzoforte

I guess I just don't think marriage is the government's business. I don't think think the government should be able to keep two people of the same gender from having the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, and I don't think it should be able to force any two people to stay together.

Here we agree. I think marriage should be solely a religious matter and that the secular government should neither recognize nor sanction nor reward nor penalize its existence.

And, obviously, churches can be formed that perform gay marriages. And those churches will be condemned by Roman Catholic Church.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

No offense, but North Carolina is toast. Today it is arguably the beacon of economic prosperity in the south- full of pre-eminent educational institutions, high tech (biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, chemicals) and finance (e.g., Bank of America). Plus the natural beauty and isolation of the Cape is an undeniable tourism draw. I suspect that there will be quite the exodus starting in the near future. High tech, academia and finance require highly educated individuals (who are by and large liberal, go figure!), and actively preventing/oppressing the happiness and prosperity of GLBT via the state constitution is not exactly going to have people packing up the U-Hauls and moving into state. In other words: brain drain. As people head for the exits and recruiting new talent becomes more and more difficult, major companies will need to relocate out of state just to remain competitive. It's not only a matter of social justice, it's about the bottom line as well. It will eventually resemble its economically ravaged neighbors in Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina.

North Carolina, you deserve to lay in the bed you've just made.

Sounds like you know the state exceedingly well! I lived in Charlotte for a decade... it's the largest city between Atlanta & DC- one of the real economic engines of that entire region. When I left NC 2 years ago LGBT folks were fleeing like rats on a sinking ship. North Carolina is an undeniably beautiful state... the Outer Banks & Appalachian Mountains are both especially stunning. But for LGBT folks the quality of life the state offers is seriously lacking, as yesterday's ammendment shows. Things like this marriage ammendment will really shoot the larger NC cities in the foot in the long run. Charlotte is already handicapped by the recession: it lost Wachovia to Wells Fargo & Bank of America is quickly becoming the poster child for what Americans hate about mega banks & the banking industry in general. Charlotte is still bleeding heavily because of the recession & the fact it's a 1 trick pony: it put all it's eggs in the banking basket, and there's no telling when that industry will fully recover, and what kind of a presence it will retain in NC. So by also chastening the LGBT population, NC is doing itself no favors to the types of people it really wants to attract: creative, educated, high income professionals. Those are the type people who diversify economies & diversification is key to expansion & successfully weathering future storms.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I personally think that GLBT equality will be the defining issue of Obama's second term. He is obviously playing his cards close to his chest regarding his "evolving" stance on gay marriage, but it is painfully obvious where he really stands. The day after inauguration he is going to finally come out of the marriage equality closet and the wheels will be set in motion on fronts. It truly is the most glaring social injustice that becomes radioactive to anyone who tries to touch it. In his second term he doesn't have to cow-tow to anyone.

I think you're spot-on here. I still believe Obama will get a second term simply because Americans do not like to oust incombent presidents. However, I think it's going to be a much closer fight than it was in '08. Obama is going to have to battle hard to get even 3/4 of the people who voted for him in '08 to do so again. He's lost so much of the confidence of even his own party.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Here we agree. I think marriage should be solely a religious matter and that the secular government should neither recognize nor sanction nor reward nor penalize its existence.

And, obviously, churches can be formed that perform gay marriages. And those churches will be condemned by Roman Catholic Church.

I don't think anyone but Catholics care who the Roman church condemns.

The fact is, marriage is a civil institution regulated by government, and it is my opinion that the church - whatever the faith or denomination - should stay out of civil matters.

I am not a Christian - why on Earth should the opinion of Christians have influence in my life or my decisions?

There is simply no good reason.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I don't think anyone but Catholics care who the Roman church condemns.<--Thus: my very point!

The fact is, marriage is a civil institution regulated by government, and it is my opinion that the church - whatever the faith or denomination - should stay out of civil matters.<--As such, our democratic republic can define what constitutes marriage; it shouldn't be a surprise that many of the voters/constituants/representatives would define it according to their religious doctrine.

I am not a Christian - why on Earth should the opinion of Christians have influence in my life or my decisions?<--That is why you, as a non-Christian, get one vote; just like each individual Christian gets one vote. That's why it's a democracy. Would you prefer a secular dictatorship?

There is simply no good reason.<--Well, for the Christian, he/she has the salvation of your eternal soul in mind.

See above for my responses.

[HejiraNYC]

It looks like Obama just came out of the closet today (and lost the November election )

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

Special thanks to Joe Biden for his inability to keep his piehole shut, thereby forcing Obama's hand on this. We really don't need a rallying cry for the teabaggers and other ignorants this November.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

it shouldn't be a surprise that many of the voters/constituants/representatives would define it according to their religious doctrine.

To me, it IS a surprise that voters would base a vote upon religious doctrine. Color me naive, but I just don't get it. Faith is personal and has no place in law, politics or government. As a non-religious person, this is so basic to me that I find faith-based votes an alien concept - a relic of medieval times. A vote determines public policy. Personal does not equal public. The two should not be intermingled.

Ultimately, these State bills banning marriage for gays will be overturned. Look no further than our own Constitution:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United states; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurusdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14th amendment of the Unites States Constitution

[markolas]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

It looks like Obama just came out of the closet today (and lost the November election )

Oh, please.

We've already got a freeper theocrat posting on this thread. Don't you go all crazy, too.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by jannieC

I am ashamed of my state over

ashamed of Oklahoma and it's b.s. law of a same nature - It was funny to see that the town I reside in that only 3 people were against a law that would make it hard for gays/lesbians to be married - Debbie was one of the three and I was another - too many relig-a-tards in this town who are 'so afraid' of allowing anyone the right to marry someone they fall in love with - afraid that they may contract some damned disease...When the disease they spread is hate!

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

To me, it IS a surprise that voters would base a vote upon religious doctrine. Color me naive, but I just don't get it. Faith is personal and has no place in law, politics or government. As a non-religious person, this is so basic to me that I find faith-based votes an alien concept - a relic of medieval times. A vote determines public policy. Personal does not equal public. The two should not be intermingled.

Ultimately, these State bills banning marriage for gays will be overturned. Look no further than our own Constitution:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United states; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurusdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14th amendment of the Unites States Constitution

But on what basis do you vote, if not upon what you think is right and wrong? And, for religious people, they obtain that compass from religious teachings and their faith. From where do you get a sense of right and wrong? Or does that not come into play? Of course, I mean, I could say that a person has the right to vote by playing "eeny-meeny-miney-mo" at the ballots. They have that right. Or don't they? Do you think they should reinstitute tests and criteria for being able to vote? I'm not even saying that's not valid: I'm just utterly confused. It just sounds to me that Person A is upset that Person B didn't vote according to Person A's belief system.

And your point is well-taken--but the issue is not whether same sex marriage should be legal: it's whether same-sex marriage is "marriage."

That being said: I personally don't think that marriage should be a privilege or immunity by way of the State. BUT SINCE IT IS, I think the issue is what is "marriage": i.e., not to be flippant: a gay man can marry a gay or straight woman, legally. So, accordingly, it could be argued that a person's Constitutional rights are not being infringed by these state laws (whereas when it was illegal for Blacks to marry whites or Blacks to marry at all, it was an infringment because it defined Blacks as NOT HUMAN--not because marriage was defined as an institution between a man and woman of the same race).

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

But on what basis do you vote, if not upon what you think is right and wrong? And, for religious people, they obtain that compass from religious teachings. From where do you get a sense of right and wrong? Or does that not come into play?

And your point is well-taken--but the issue is not whether same sex marriage should be legal: it's whether same-sex marriage is "marriage."

You are erroneously conflating "religious values" with "moral values." Are you saying that people who are not religious and have not been subject to "religious teachings" are somehow incapable of forming a sense of right and wrong? We are a nation/society of laws guided by a constitution that stresses the importance of personal freedom, personal responsibility, freedom of/from religion and equality (well... only if you include all of the amendments that have been made over the past couple hundred years). As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.

Civil marriage is strictly a legal construct that confers certain legal privileges and responsibilities between two people and their families- nothing more and nothing less. Nothing religious about it. I'm not sure why this should differ depending on whether the marriage is between same sex or mixed gender couples. How is same sex marriage not "marriage?"

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

You are erroneously conflating "religious values" with "moral values." Are you saying that people who are not religious and have not been subject to "religious teachings" are somehow incapable of forming a sense of right and wrong? We are a nation/society of laws guided by a constitution that stresses the importance of personal freedom, personal responsibility, freedom of/from religion and equality (well... only if you include all of the amendments that have been made over the past couple hundred years). As an American, it is your duty to uphold the spirit of the U.S. Constitution when you enter the voting booth- that is your moral compass.

Civil marriage is strictly a legal construct that confers certain legal privileges and responsibilities between two people and their families- nothing more and nothing less. Nothing religious about it. I'm not sure why this should differ depending on whether the marriage is between same sex or mixed gender couples. How is same sex marriage not "marriage?"

I did not say that. I asked a question, not a rhetorical question. Some people get it from religion. Some people get it from philosophy. Some people get it from Fleetwood Mac. I don't care where they get it from. Your vote can be placed for whatever reason you want; it doesn't even have to be based on right and wrong--and even if it is, we don't have to come to the same conclusions. Don't put words in my mouth. All I did was ask questions.

I agree with your definition of Civil Marriage. I'm against Civil Marriage. But I only have one vote. And I'm at peace that others feel differently about Civil Marriage than I do--and enough feel differently that it is an existing instituion. That being said: what defines a Civil Marriage is decided by the democratic process, and some people within that process will vote according to values that define Marriage as being between a man and a woman. Obviously there are differing viewpoints even on that point. The question about whether or not the definition of Marriage can be decided by the democratic process may someday be brought to the courts--and I will comply with the courts' decisions. But I won't begrudge ANYONE from voting their conscious--whether for or against.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

I agree with your definition of Civil Marriage. I'm against Civil Marriage. But I only have one vote. And I'm at peace that others feel differently about Civil Marriage than I do--and enough feel differently that it is an existing instituion. That being said: what defines a Civil Marriage is decided by the democratic process, and some people within that process will vote according to values that define Marriage as being between a man and a woman. Obviously there are differing viewpoints even on that point. The question about whether or not the definition of Marriage can be decided by the democratic process may someday be brought to the courts--and I will comply with the courts' decisions. But I won't begrudge ANYONE from voting their conscious--whether for or against.

...and what makes you assume that all civil rights should be subject to a popular vote? Fundamental civil rights such as interracial marriage, abortion, ADA, racial equality, women voting, and, um... the abolition of slavery were not subject to popular vote, and it could be argued that none of these would have become law if subject to a popular vote. In the case of marriage equality for gays and lesbians, why should their rights be subject to the tyranny of the largely unwashed masses? The private sexual and legal matters of people in a committed loving relationship is nobody else's freaking business, and there is no legitimate reason for NOT extending all of the legal protections and privileges of marriage to couples of the same gender. All of the arguments against marriage equality are based on red herrings, lies, gross exaggerations and fear mongering- not a single shred of factual evidence. I DO begrudge anyone voting on matters relating to civil rights for a minority because it always ends up oppressing the minority. Always.