NC Amendment 1 Passes (Constitutionally Prevents Gay Marriage)

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, May 8, 2012.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    By a vote of 60/40, NC residents have approved a measure to amend their state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. NC now joins 29 other states with similiar laws / amendments specifically prohibiting the recognizing of gay marriage.

    From the article (and which I was unaware of the last part, attempts to overturn):
    "Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York and the District of Columbia allow gay and lesbian unions. Maryland, New Jersey and Washington state passed laws this year approving same-sex marriage, but Governor Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey's law and opponents of Maryland's and Washington's laws are threatening ballot initiatives to overturn them."

    Curiously, and as the article points out, is that in the weeks leading up to the vote, the opposition focused all of their attention on the many ways that this amendment would screw with unmarried heterosexual couple....as if that was the true issue at debate. Welp, I guess that little piece of strategory didn't work.

    Opponents of the amendment have said that this is nothing more than, "a skirmish in a larger battle, and which we will win", while advocates of the measure say, "The whole point is you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

    Both President Obama and former President Clinton urged voters to reject the amendment...whereas advocates responded with a full-page ads in major newspapers, and by none other than Billy Graham (the closest thing that Protestants will ever have to a Pope), urging its passage.

    I'm surprised this hasn't garnered some debate here. Anyone want to cast the first stone?

    Does TN have something similiar to this? If not, can it be far behind?
     
  2. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    Business is packing up and coming back to Tennessee imo iyam jmo
     
  3. volfanjo

    volfanjo Chieftain

    Have you followed TN's state legislature this term? Not exactly standing on high ground at the moment.
     
  4. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    It was joke. Business was a poster that had a huge hand in getting those of us who started this board together.

    But Tennessee isn't too far behind NC on this.
     
  5. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    So, what effect, exactly, does this bill have on civil unions between heterosexual couples?

    Regardless, I've always contended that it makes no sense for states to be able to perform marriages - leave that for the church. However, I think that the state should be able to issue civil unions (as well as recognize church marriages through the same license of union) for all who wish to unite, under the benefits and penalties afforded or enforced therein.
     
  6. volfanjo

    volfanjo Chieftain

    Ah. Funny.
     
  7. volfanjo

    volfanjo Chieftain

    People opposed to the amendment have claimed this could end benefits for any non-married person with dependents, including single, divorced, blended and gay families. Gay marriage was already outlawed in NC but the amendment carries with it some additional weight that cast doubt on insurance coverage, retirement, etc. From almost everyone's vantage point the opposition will litigate the daylights out of this.
     
  8. NashVol11

    NashVol11 Well-Known Member

    It's not really about gay marriage, as same-sex marriage was already illegal in North Carolina (though it wasn't part of the State Constitution.)

    Here's how it's worded: "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."

    In other words, homosexuals already couldn't get married, but now they can't have any kind of civil union or domestic partnership either. It's all invalid. That's the part that really bothers me, but I get the impression that most of the voters really didn't understand what they were voting on at all.
     
  9. NashVol11

    NashVol11 Well-Known Member

    New Poll: Majority of North Carolina Voters More Idiotic Than Previously Thought

     
  10. Indy

    Indy Chieftain

    There are more important things in the world to worry about than same sex marriage or "civil union." I don't know why we waste our time on this. I don't necessarily back same sex marriage or anything, I just think there are more important things we could be spending time on.
     
  11. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    agree with indy. why in the world would you give a shit?
     
  12. tvolsfan

    tvolsfan Chieftain

    I have to think this will all end with the Supreme Court strking down the bans in the near future. Probably the sooner the better so everyone can move on.
     
  13. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I recall a certain hubris in the immediate aftermath of the passage of President Obama's Healtcare Reform Law, too.

    Predicting the outcome of a SCOTUS case should only be done with the greatest caution.

    Simply, careful what you wish for.
     
  14. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Another way to look at it...

    60% of NC voters didn't give a shit what it meant beyond the knowledge that it would - both effectively and with certainty - prohibit either the legal or societal(?) recogniton of gay marriage / civil unions / rest stop orgy support groups.

    Not saying that's right / wrong / best / worse....but of all the possible reasons for the vote, it's the most likely reason it passed.

    But admittedly, I could be wrong, JMHO, IMHO.
     
  15. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Quick solution (I'm just spit-ballin' here) to the question of recognition / benefits which this also denies to unwed heterosexual couples and their dependents:

    Sinners should stop shacking up and having bastards.

    Doesn't that solve it?

    I'm like a Casio calculator watch, baby - Problem Solver.
     
  16. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    That's just it. They ought to make laws forbidding divorce, common-law marriages, and menstruating within city limits if we're gonna do this by the Good Book.
     
  17. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    i'm sick paying for my buddies at work who put their GF of 3 months on our health insurance. legalize gay marriage and companies no longer have to offer benefits for non married couples.
     
  18. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    This seems like the usual culture war battle that social conservatives typically lose while throwing out a furious last assault. The difference in attitudes towards gays has changed remarkably in the last 20 years to something that would've shocked me back in 1990. This issue is a clear generational divide as most under 30-35 don't give two shits about the "dangers" of gay people, that's a bogeyman for the older generations, kind of how interracial relationships used to be. Once the younger generations get into positions of power, gay marriage will be a non-issue.

    The only place that I could see this gaining traction in the future is in the strict Bible Belt areas of the country. Unfortunately, there it's really a matter of people using the Bible to justify a social construct and not making a social construct based off the Bible. Culture drives this more than religion.
     
  19. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    completely agree with you. in 20 years every state will have gay marriage (most will even sooner). people railing against it need to realize they are fighting against a losing battle.
     
  20. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    Oh, guess it's my turn to rail against religion.

    I don't think this is a social construct being propped up by the Bible, I do believe it is from the Bible and indicative as to why following ancient and primitive belief systems can be detrimental to modern society. We have a large voting bloc in this country that has begun to blatantly call for, legislate for, and even re-interpret history for a theocracy. Dominionism. If you aren't for it, you're un-American.
     

Share This Page