Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I expect to see these state constitutional amendments challenged one after the other and eventually the US Supreme Court will rule them all unconstitutional.
I expect to see these state constitutional amendments challenged one after the other and eventually the US Supreme Court will rule them all unconstitutional.
It only takes one good ruling not for each state. California might have been the right case but the state not defending their constitution may have meant the delay of benefits for everyone. Oh well, at least California got what they wanted (except they didn't).
Good, the federal courts are going to eventually kill all of these hateful, unAmerican relics of primitive prejudice.
While I disagree with Amendment One on the basis of my moral code and ethics, I have to point out that this is a rather ignorant, short-sighted view of a great many of the people of NC that supported the amendment. Yes, there are always the loud shouters and hate mongers, but a whole darn lot of people I talked to that supported it were just normal every day people who don't necessarily hate homosexuals; They simply believe in their heart of hearts that marriage (to them) is a sacred, sacrosanct spiritual/religious institution that (again, to them) can only be between one man and one woman.
While we may disagree with that point of view, I find it in poor taste to level the term "hatred" in a generalizing way.
There's a number of challenges making their way through the federal circuit, not just in NC. The ACLU's pursuing multiple suits simultaneously in PA and VA as well.
While I disagree with Amendment One on the basis of my moral code and ethics, I have to point out that this is a rather ignorant, short-sighted view of a great many of the people of NC that supported the amendment. Yes, there are always the loud shouters and hate mongers, but a whole darn lot of people I talked to that supported it were just normal every day people who don't necessarily hate homosexuals; They simply believe in their heart of hearts that marriage (to them) is a sacred, sacrosanct spiritual/religious institution that (again, to them) can only be between one man and one woman.
Disingenuous reasons for voting for Amendment One, since
a) The issue is CIVIL marriage, not religious ceremonies; no church would be required to marry anyone they didn't want to (just like in states that already have same-sex marriage)
b) There was/is alreasdy a law in the state Code forbidding same-sex marriage, so the Amendment was redundant if that was truly the only issue people had with it. Lots of money to amend the state constitution to restrict rights is neither fiscally nor tradiationally "conservative".
c) The Amendment went far beyond defining marriage, and bars any "domestic legal partnership", which has NOTHING to do with marriage, let alone religious marriage. A majority of people in NC support domestic partnerships even if they believe in man + woman marriage. But the Amendment supporters craftily kept this facet of the Amendment quiet and a great many people voted for it, not realizing it went that far. I realize that is their own fault/ignorance, but again, someone can't claim they voted for it "because I think marriage is a religious ceremony". If so, they should create an Amendment against ALL civil "courthouse" marriages, no? Last time I checked, it was perfectly legal for Athiests to marry each other, as long as one is male and one female.
While I disagree with Amendment One on the basis of my moral code and ethics, I have to point out that this is a rather ignorant, short-sighted view of a great many of the people of NC that supported the amendment. Yes, there are always the loud shouters and hate mongers, but a whole darn lot of people I talked to that supported it were just normal every day people who don't necessarily hate homosexuals; They simply believe in their heart of hearts that marriage (to them) is a sacred, sacrosanct spiritual/religious institution that (again, to them) can only be between one man and one woman.
While we may disagree with that point of view, I find it in poor taste to level the term "hatred" in a generalizing way.
Well shame on them for thinking their personal, conservative RELIGIOUS values should determine secular law and deprive other citizens of rights and recognition. Shame on them for thinking that equal protection does not include same-sex families and couples. They may not be bigots overall, but their views on this particular issue certainly is bigoted.
There's a number of challenges making their way through the federal circuit, not just in NC. The ACLU's pursuing multiple suits simultaneously in PA and VA as well.
MI has had some action too and Il. I think my thread title sunk this one:
Disingenuous reasons for voting for Amendment One, since
b) There was/is alreasdy a law in the state Code forbidding same-sex marriage, so the Amendment was redundant if that was truly the only issue people had with it.
Choosing my words carefully because it seems that someone that can articulate as well as you would also know that the constitution trumps a statute. I assume you know that so I'm not sure why you said this.
The direct will of the people is also superior than a representative legislature. I assume the Bill of Rights was voted on by the people.
Well shame on them for thinking their personal, conservative RELIGIOUS values should determine secular law
Which goes right back to the big question. What is marriage? What was it 230 years ago? Do you think it didn't start off in the religious world?
I don't know the answer for this. I would love to see a big debate on it where both sides weren't too crazy.
But if the law was meant to recognize a religious right (and expanded to allow the non-religious to also participate) then how can it be bigoted for those that hold that belief? I don't buy the fact that you have to agree with SSM or dump everything that has roots in religion or you're a bigot.
I think one of the reasons we don't know what marriage means (or meant) was because no one thought of codifying the obvious. Obvious to them that is. It would baffle them to be asked to do that at the time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't "progress as a society" (vital records in this state used to be separated by race) but it sure would have helped if it was known. But as I think they assumed, some people still assume for the same reason. That doesn't make them evil.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
