NC Amendment 1 Passes (Constitutionally Prevents Gay Marriage)

Fact: Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than Bush over similar time frames.

Fact: The population of illegal immigrants living in the US has actually declined during his term (recession is obviously a major driver,but still a relevant fact given the hysteria).

Fact: Rates of illegal immigration have greatly declined (again, recession but the hysterical crowd doesn't seem to notice).


I don't know if you are hoping that people are just rounded up in the street and shot or something, but clearly we have at least temporarily turned a corner on the issue. Just isn't at a convenient time for Republicans to acknowledge it.

 

What does that matter, even if it's true? Say Arizona decides the federal government isn't being fiscally responsible and tells it's citizens they aren't required to pay income taxes anymore. Do you think there might be a few problems?

 

Who mentioned Obama?

And I've actually seen those deportation numbers brought into question a few times. Not sure it's 100% fact.

 

Would you want your constitutional rights up for majority vote?

 

No, I'm saying that the graph is only indicative of the liberal left's unfailing willingness to call the intellect / morality of any person holding an oppositional opinion into question.

The second part is this: then, at the height of ironic hypocrisy, they denounce and decry others for doing the exact same thing, but in the opposite (or different) direction.

So, had the amendment been defeated, no one from the liberal lava lounge would have sought to attribute it to the "ignorant voting populace of NC"....you know, just like they've done here, in defeat.

The issue was put to the people, and they voted on it. More voted for it than not, and it passed. It's no more complicated than that, really. Which makes the gnashing of our civil libertarians teeth even more ironic, really. Comical even.

If you (or anyone else) don't like it, there's a perfectly and readily available means to remedy it. Just get it back on the ballot, and get it passed (or, repealed / amended). Good luck with that, by the way.

The reality is that this is a staggering defeat for the homosexual agenda, essentially, going beyond the mere banishment of civil unions, but making it impossible that they even be recognized at all - and Constitutionally.

And here's what should be most concerning to libs (I am only assuming) - is the avalanche of states who will undoubtedly follow suit. Good luck with that, too.

I'll just say this: I anticipate their being a lot more infographics to come out in the next few years.

Take it as you will.

 

Interesting you bring up the tax angle. Should Arizona send the federal government the bill when they figure out how much extra its costing its citizens?

I find it odd that people are not chapped about the federal government refusing to enforce the law. But would rather gripe about those that are trying to pull their slack. Rather humerous.

 

I could understand that if Arizona was taking some drastic measures. If they're essentially just alerting the federal government of violations, I can't see how they're doing anything wrong.

 

Come at me, bro.

But beforehand, remind me again as to what we're arguing? Is it:

1. That Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God? Or
2. That Jesus never claimed to be a deity?
3. That the biblical text clearly indicates either of the above, but is unbelievable because of later revisions / screwed translations, etc?

Being a simpleton in pretty much all matters, I love nothing more than being educated. But I'd like to know the lesson I am to learn, beforehand, of not too much trouble.

 

I agree with this 100%.

 

What are we talking about again? The Bible's justification for keeping gays out of Arizona?

 

I wish the gay marriage issue would just get to the Supreme Court so we could finally get past all of this.

It's not going to go away until it's legal everywhere. And it's really just a matter of time before that's the case.

 

All we need is a Fulmer vs. Kiffin debate and I think we will have it all covered.

 

Unless the Supreme Court sides with the states that have banned it and/or defined marriage as between a man and woman.

 

1. But...the Constitution spells out the freedom of the ballot box as being a fundamental right. How can they be separated, given that? Why should they be? Instead of opposing the act of voting, wouldn't it just be easier to say, "I wish more people agreed with me than not, because clearly, such isn't the case in this instance"?

2. Are you advocating that we only count votes which show your position to be held in the majority, or that we avoid the risk altogether, and repeal the right to vote?

Bear in mind, I have no idea if you typed this with a straight face or not, but find it nearly impossible to believe that you could have.

 

True, but I see this court ruling in favor of gay marriage.

 

This may come to pass, and if so, how sad it will be to see that level of bigotry at this point in time. What you mentioned about the reach of amendment 1 is what is most concerning to me - it not only reaffirms the gay marriage ban, but also reaches civil unions and domestic partnerships. They are effectively assigning homosexuals as second class citizens. This sickens me, but people tend to fear/hate what they do not understand. We will likely have to wait on the next generation to see equality. I know many will disagree, but my opinion.

 

That's the beauty of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. I'm glad we have the right to vote. I'm also glad the Supreme Court had the sense to rule against segregation so that we didn't wait for every state to figure it out on their own.

 

I think you are probably right at the end of the day, but at the same time, I have often wondered if they might vote different ways on different wording of the law.

I'm nowhere near enough of a legal expert to comment on this, it's really my just typing out random thoughts.

 

Very, very, very unlikely. Marriage is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny if infringed upon requiring a compelling government interest to do so. Being a homophobic isn't exactly a compelling government interest.

 

I'll have to double-check, but I thought that Amendment 1 was placed on the ballot by an affirmative vote of the NC Legislature (read: representative government cure-all you're pining for and advocating).

Or we're they somehow circumvented in this process? If so, I not only concede the point, but will go so far as to say that someone needs to look into that shit. Pronto.

Is that what happened, here? I'll take your word for it.