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.
If you don't like alcohol, don't drink
If you don't like drugs, don't use them
If you don't like smoking, don't smoke
If you don't like guns, don't have a gun
If you don't like religion, don't go to church
If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married
I know this discussion isn't about gay marriage, but that's what the simpletons will boil it down to. The amendment is a bad move for any number of reasons, I hope my state breaks stride with our other southern neighbors on this issue. It may well provide a solid economic benefit to us in terms of luring successful, progressive businesses to our state. In this economy we need every advantage we can get and to ME, feeding my family ranks infinitely higher than bothering to define someone else's family.
If I am going to change MY state constitution (YOUR constitution, OUR constitution) I would like to know exactly what I am changing. When you go to vote, here is what will be on the ballot:
Quote:
REFERENDUM
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.
- For
- Against
That does not tell me exactly how the Constitution will be changed. It was not hard to find out, but I still think it is annoying, and wrong that the ballot does not explain exactly what you are voting for/against.
Turns out, the NC Constitution has 14 Articles. Article 14 (or Article XIV) is titled "Miscellaneous" and already has 5 sections. This amendment would add a 6th section to Article XIV, which will read as follows:
Quote:
Sec. 6. Marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.
So that is what you are actually voting on to either be added or not be added to the NC Constitution. If it is approved, the courts will have to decide exactly what it does and/or does not permit. I just don't trust these politicians to interpret everything for me.
Here is another tidbit: The Constitutional Amendment Referendum will only appear on the Ballot for Voters 18 years old or older. (WHAAAAT????? I thought you had to be 18 to vote? !?!? Turns out if you are 17 but will be 18 before the general election, you may vote in the primary, because those elections are precursors to the general election. But you cannot vote for this referendum because it is final, and it also annoys the heck out of me that it was included in this primary election.
NC Constitution already includes:
Quote:
Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
I am truly and utterly amazed that, neither within this discussion thread nor in the debate at large have I heard anyone talk about love. To me, this is what this constitutional amendment is really all about and why it, along with other such discriminatory laws already in place, is so evil: gay people are fundamentally denied an ability to love.
I am a gay man and have been in a loving, committed relationship with my partner (the greatest legal term I can still currently use) of 12 years; yet, I was born into a fundamentalist Christian family so I am well-versed in rhetoric from both sides of the issue. The pro-amendment advocates wail and lament the destruction of "traditional" marriage (the definition for which, the most they can muster is a simple-minded, elementary equation: 1 man + 1 woman... is that really all marriage means to you??? How sad.). Yet I find myself equally disappointed in the voices that speak out against the amendment. They focus on how it is merely redundant and can hurt un-married straight couples and children. Granted, I have heard some enumerate all the rights that gay couples are denied access to that the 1 man + 1 woman magical combination instantly unlocks the moment that bare minimum is met (there are over a 1,000). Don't get me wrong, all of these are valid arguments and should be made.
But one word I have not heard either side really utter very much of is: love. Now, I realize this word has its own complexities but I continue to feel fairly certain that love is the foundation of contemporary marriage. Yes, I said "contemporary." People who use the term "traditional marriage" show a complete lack of any historical and anthropological grasp. Marriage has meant so many things over various times and cultures... one need only look to the cannonical Old Testament to find the "traditional" definition being advanced currently (i.e. 1 man + 1 woman) conspicuously absent. So, in today's times, is it right to say that most of us use love as a primary reason to marry? I'm just asking because I don't really hear anyone talking about it, so maybe I am way off base.
I love my husband. He is an amazing man and astounds me constantly. I don't need any law or code, any religion or dogma to "allow" me that ability. I have it. It is within me and no one, no majority of any state, can take that away from me. What they can deprive me of, however, is the dignity, the very humanity of any recognition of that love. Ironically, I can pick a female off the streets and drive straight to the courthouse and get married. Voila, a bona fide marriage. Yet, my love for a man that has stood the test of time is rejected and I have to ask myself why. At the very core of all anti-gay marriage rhetoric is, "you cannot love the way I do." Gays will destroy marriage? Why? Either you think that we cannot love (and thus think us less capable of a basic human emotion than yourself) and do not deserve marriage or you think that love doesn't factor in to marriage. Marriage is something else entirely, a second grade math equation. If that is the case, then to hear Jesus speak of the church as His wife and to sense the love there... well, that's just a false comparison that doesn't speak to the modern Christian at all.
I fail to understand how you can so easily suck all the love out of marriage - deflating it to a flat cardboard cutout image that only impersonates the complexity of human relationships. Reducing marriage to something that can be plastered to the back of your mini-van is a feat that leaves me astounded. And, I am equally perplexed why those supposedly fighting for my right to marry (and it is is a right per Loving v. Virginia, 1967) have to rely on arguments that highlight how the amendment will hurt business recruitment and unmarried heterosexual couples. But, I suppose the argument that "I love, therefore I should be allowed to marry" just wouldn't move a majority in North Carolina to vote down this archaic statute.
I fail to understand how you can so easily suck all the love out of marriage -
Get hitched to your high school sweetheart/babymama and/or daddy at 16 which is what "traditional" marriage in NC has been up until very recently; after about 10 years of that you'll see how easily all the love in a marriage got sucked out.
The people supporting this aren't exactly the picture of healthy relationships themselves.
BTW: congrats on your partnership with your husband. 12 years ain't no walk in the park.
The exact same thing can be said of the gay lobby. They want to impose their own definition of marriage on everyone else whether they like it or not. They want to force you to accept them whether you like it or not. They have decided they can destroy a 2,000 year old societal (not religious) definition of marriage on a whim.
The USA is NOT 2,000 years old. I dont know where your getting that number from. Did you know Alexander the Great had a homosexual lover and at that time in history it was socially acceptable? There were many native american tribes in north america that recognized 3 distinct genders. The third gender was called "two-spirit". They existed within your 2,000 years. It is culturally acceptable for the native people of samoa to experiment with both sexes to figure out what they like when they hit puberty. That is going on TODAY and well within your 2,000 years. So you can not say there has been a 2,000 year old "societal definition". Thats just absurd! It all depends on what "society" you are referring to. BTW the Greeks are considered european and of a "western Culture" so you cant say anything about them not being relevant to our culture.
Gays and Lesbians are not forcing anything on you. You have the choice to accept them or not. They are not pushing for an amendment that says "If you do not believe in gays and lesbians you are going to jail" or that you are "fined". That would be against our freedom of speech. People have the right to determine their own version of marriage. Laws should not dictate who they can and cannot marry.
I have one question for you. Are you FOR big government or AGAINST?
Early voting is underway. Let's all get out to vote this amendment down!!
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.
