NC Amendment 1 Passes (Constitutionally Prevents Gay Marriage)

This thread is proof that grown adults can behave responsibly and thoughtfully without the need for constant moderation.

And we are all better for it. Good job founding fathers of this site.

 

Damn education.

 

And they did so based on actually knowing and observing the guy, something I thought you in particular would appreciate. It was also the rather obvious point of Card mentioning their deaths and makes your counter example of the modern Islamic terrorist a rather bad one, which was the only reason I even chimed in.

 

When someone provides a single rational reason that government should be in the business of defining or sanctioning marriage, I'll pay attention to this issue. Until then, I'll just consider it another glowing example of the abandonment of the founding principles of the nation and move on.

 

Too literal?!? Surely, this is a joke, Float. Why not just say, "too convincing" or "too conclusive"


The next time I want to know what the Gnostic Gospels say, I'll look before I flush. Or, I'll read the Democratic Platform, the been following the gnostic blueprint for years, albeit far more successfully.

 

[uck fay]ing unmitigated truth.

I'd called "If mom says no, ask Dad. Rinse. Repeat."

If that doesn't work, ignore both and call it moral disobedience.

If that fails, call everyone a racist / sexist / bigot and hold a rally.

 

Pharisee: Are you God?
Jesus: "I AM" (drops mic, struts off) *

Perhaps it's too plainly stated. Two words and all - in response to a direct question, and which was given in front of likely hundreds of witnesses.

*Text taken from TDSV (Tenacious D Southern Version)

And as to the baby-eater nonsense, I don't think you're anything less than a good and thoughtful person who truly tries to stand for what you believe and oppose that which you do not. I just think that you are wrong. I've never said otherwise, nor done anything to demonized you, certainly as a heathenistic baby-eating mongrel.

 

Most can see that the shoe fits from across the room.

No translation required.

 

Let's say I accept your premise (not sure if I do):

You're calling the text into question because people interpreted it differently, or added to it, centuries after the events originally occurred?

Isn't that exactly what the SCOTUS does with the Constitution?

Should their "additions" or "interpretations" be similiarly dismissed, too?

 

Immigration isn't a state issue because the maintenance and policing of the national borders are the sole province of the federal government.

 

The Constitution is intended to be modified with time and states as much in the original text. Don't think the Bible is as adaptable.

 

And what evidences do American-hating and murderous atheists bring to light, exactly?

And is it lesser for agnostics? Or more.

You can't frame every position held by someone strictly based on their belief / non-belief in any particular deity, IP.

I know you want to, desperately at times, but sometimes people make decisions and form opinions completely independently of their religious beliefs.

 

Anyone want to wonder a guess as to whether this chart would have been produced had the amendment failed?

Essentially, would the Left be as quick to say that it's passage was due to a largely uneducated populace?

Sour grapes, in shiny graphic form. Nothing more.

 

Do state authorities not have any authority to do anything about federal laws blatantly being violates in their dominions?

 

It makes liberals squeal and dance. There's one.

Personally, I can't think of a single reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. But I also have strong beliefs in the democratic process, and not simply when it suits my particular preferences or worldview.

 

To a great extent, absolutely not. It's designed to be that way.

 

Fair enough. But what happens when:

1. The federal government refuses to execute their own laws, and at the direct and often irreparable harm of the states?
2. When the issue is not illegal immigrants crossing from one national border to another, but interstate, from one state to another? Who should police that?

 

Should the majority decide who gets to vote? Procreate? Has First Amendment protections? Can own property? You can have the ballot box. I'd prefer the Constitution function properly.

 

Lets put the facts out on the table. Someone in NC put this amendment on a ballot. The citizens of NC had went to the voting booth and and voted. Then approved the amendment. I can also see where the government made them vote. And to think, all along I thought this was the way we were supposed to do things!

 

1. Tough. If the federal government signs a treaty of dubious constitutionality, Iowa doesn't get to try and override it by negotiating their own.
2. The federal government is charged with policing who is and isn't in the county legally. State borders are irrelevant to the discussion.