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 am still thinking about it. At this point, I am leaning towards voting yes.
When it comes to amending the constitution, the constitution should be considered "innocent until proven guilty". I.e., if you are not solidly, 100% in favor of amending, you should reject (and possibly wait for another amendment that is more clear).
Remember, this is no ordinary law, it is a constitutional amendment, a permanent edict in the founding document of the state.
Anyone who is undecided, even if they are leaning towards Yes, should vote AGAINST to be on the safe side. Imagine if we went around amendming the constitution over every law?
Remember, same-sex marriage is already illegal in NC and will remain that way, regardless of the outcome on May 8. You need a stronger case than that to vote to amend. This amendment is a massive overstep on the part of the state government and represents government intrusion into people's private relationships--isn't that what Republicans claim they believe in eradicating? How does passing MORE laws to limit people's freedom equate to "conservatism" at all, let alone "smaller government"?
Legal scholars and business leaders are almost unanimous in their opinions AGAINST this emendment and the effect it will have on the people on NC as well as the state's reputation in the business community nationwide and internationally.
This kind of fraud is the best reason I can see for voting for the amendment. Many companies have free insurance for employees. Companies should not have to be paying for insurance for friends of the employee. This amendment will make that illegal and it should be.
(Some) companies CHOOSE to cover domestic partners of their employees. Nobody is forced by the government to do so; it's a free-market benefit where a company believes it can sweeten the pot to potential employees and perhaps give them an edge over other companies. NO company would be forced to offer domestic partner benefits in any case, and rejecting the amendment would simply leave things exactly as they are now. However, passage of the Amendment would force companies to STOP offering benefits that they wanted to offer. If that's not "Big Brother" government interfering in the private affairs of business, I don't know what is.
But this amendment would prevent marriage between same sex partners.
NO, it would not PREVENT marriage between same-sex partners. THAT IS ALREADY PREVENTED BY STATUTE. Numerous people who do not support same-sex marraige are still voting to reject the amendment becasue of its other ramifications. so many news channels are getting this wrong when they say "the Amenemdnet would ban same-sex marriage"--it is ALREADY banned! What it would do is block ANY "domestic legal union" (whatever that is--even legal scholars aren't usre) other than male + female marriage from being legal, ever in this state.
BTW warriorfan63: if you're worried about "two fathers" or "two mothers", I hoep you realize that this amendment will not stop those households consisting of such from raising children anyway (although raising children is not a necessary element of marriage in any way--otherwise infertile or post-menopausal people would not be allowed to marry). Two men or two women who have a child in the househols will continue to live as a family, but in some cases, where the children may be getting health insurance through the nonbiological parent's company, this benefit could be taken away, leaving the children and their parent uninsured.
The relationship will not be dissolved by the amendment, but the children would find themselves in more precarious situation if their health (or other) benefits depend on domestic partnership allotments. I hope you're aware of that. MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN IS ALREADY ILLEGAL IN NC.
When it comes to amending the constitution, the constitution should be considered "innocent until proven guilty". I.e., if you are not solidly, 100% in favor of amending, you should reject (and possibly wait for another amendment that is more clear).
Remember, this is no ordinary law, it is a constitutional amendment, a permanent edict in the founding document of the state.
Anyone who is undecided, even if they are leaning towards Yes, should vote AGAINST to be on the safe side. Imagine if we went around amendming the constitution over every law?
Remember, same-sex marriage is already illegal in NC and will remain that way, regardless of the outcome on May 8. You need a stronger case than that to vote to amend. This amendment is a massive overstep on the part of the state government and represents government intrusion into people's private relationships--isn't that what Republicans claim they believe in eradicating? How does passing MORE laws to limit people's freedom equate to "conservatism" at all, let alone "smaller government"?
Legal scholars and business leaders are almost unanimous in their opinions AGAINST this emendment and the effect it will have on the people on NC as well as the state's reputation in the business community nationwide and internationally.
Like I said before, I respect the right of anyone else to vote the way they want, I would expect others to respect my right to vote how I want.
Sorry, but I will be following through on my decision.
That's your choice; I was just replying to your own statement that you were still on the fence. If your mind is made up, why did you say that (rhetorical)?
That's your choice; I was just replying to your own statement that you were still on the fence. If your mind is made up, why did you say that (rhetorical)?
Some people make quick decisions. For me, I often give things considerable thought before making a final decision. If you look back at your comment, you are stating that people like me should vote against. I don't agree with that. I think everyone should be given the opportunity to spend as much time as they need to come to a final conclusion, regardless of the issue.
Some people make quick decisions. For me, I often give things considerable thought before making a final decision. If you look back at your comment, you are stating that people like me should vote against. I don't agree with that. I think everyone should be given the opportunity to spend as much time as they need to come to a final conclusion, regardless of the issue.
I was stating that when it comes to amending the Constitution on ANY issue, ot just this one, that I believe there should be a preponderance of evidence to make someone favor the amendment, and those who are "on the fence" should reject without evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the amendment would improve the life of the people, was well-constructed, lawsuit-proof, etc. You of course are free to have looser standards for changing your constitution. That's all--I just hold a lot higher bar for amending the constitution than for passing a "regular" law (which in this case already exists anyway, but it's true on any amendment issue). This also would be the first time in a century that the constitution was amended to take AWAY rights from a segment of the population, but you have stated your opinion, and I'm stating mine.
Wasn't too long ago this was a part of our constitution:
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/546289_10150733732602412_44860822411_9305645_17188 38538_n.jpg (broken link)
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.
What it would do is block ANY "domestic legal union" (whatever that is--even legal scholars aren't usre) other than male + female marriage from being legal, ever in this state. 
