Shame on you, NC

[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).