North Carolina voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, dealing a setback to a gay rights movement that has enjoyed significant momentum in recent years.
With less than a third of the returns tallied, the measure had enough support to pass, according to the Associated Press. It strengthens a same-sex marriage ban already on the books in North Carolina, which until Tuesday had been the only state in the Southeast that had not taken the step of incorporating the ban into its constitution.
Opponents of same-sex marriage said the measure was necessary to prevent courts or future legislatures from invalidating the law. The effort provoked an outcry from gay rights groups, which said it represented a significant step backward because it would bar even civil unions and could have unintended consequences for heterosexual couples.
The debate drew scrutiny from around the country, with the Obama campaign and former President Bill Clinton voicing their opposition to the measure and figures such as the Rev. Billy Graham and former presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich speaking out in favor of it.
The vote came as President Barack Obama is under pressure to clarify his position on same-sex marriage, a hot-button issue that has proved to be a galvanizing force for conservatives and liberals alike.
Obama has said he is still making up his mind on the issue, even as two top officials in his administration spoke out in favor of same-sex marriage this week.
It also came amid a sea change of public opinion on same-sex unions. Polls show a slight majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, a dramatic shift from just eight years ago. Six states and the District of Columbia allow gay couples to wed, and gay rights groups have accumulated a string of legal victories.
The gains have provoked a backlash from opponents, who argue that heterosexual marriage is a building block of society because of its role in procreation. They believe they have ceded too much ground and view the North Carolina constitutional amendment as a significant win because it is so broad.
On Tuesday, socially conservative groups pointed to the vote as evidence that the American public remains opposed to same-sex marriage, despite the polls.
“This overwhelming support for marriage is clearly the reason why President Obama and liberal congressional candidates across the country have not expressed open support for same-sex marriage,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a statement. “They know that redefining marriage remains a losing position in mainstream American politics.”
Gay rights groups late Tuesday lamented their loss but called it a temporary setback.
“The passage of Amendment One is a heartbreaking loss for families in North Carolina, but will not stop us in the march toward full equality,” Joe Solomonese, president of the pro-gay-rights Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement.
Though turnout was moderate Tuesday, a record 500,000 people cast early ballots, which elections officials attributed to passion over the same-sex marriage ban. Polls showed solid support for the measure among likely voters, including African Americans, a key Democratic constituency that has remained skeptical about gay marriage.
Supporters of same-sex marriage argued that the amendment could have a ripple effect, complicating domestic violence cases and limiting the rights of unmarried heterosexual couples. They cited analyses by legal scholars who pointed to Ohio, where a similar measure temporarily wreaked havoc in the courts. But other legal experts, whose work was highlighted by gay-marriage opponents, have said there was little evidence to support that claim.
Conservatives in North Carolina had long sought to put a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot. Year after year they were thwarted by Democrats in the state legislature. But in 2010, Republicans swept both houses for the first time since 1870, giving conservatives the opportunity to move forward on the issue.
Despite the gains by supporters of same-sex marriage, they have never won a referendum. Gay rights groups hope to break that streak in November. Same-sex marriage bans will be on the ballot in Maryland, Minnesota and Washington state, while Maine will be the first state where voters have the chance to cast their ballots to legalize same-sex marriage.
It seems that procreation is flourishing, marriage or not. Some married couples never want children. So what if a gay couple might want to adopt one of our unwanted kids.
Gay adoption should not be permitted, but our misguided liberal court system in Maine – the same one that decided an all- male high school team should be forced to accept a female on the team – forced the state’s hand by decreeing it had to permit gay couples to adopt. A bad decision no less, and one Maine voters were denied an opportunity to make.
Yes, it’s unfortunate many couples choose to cohabit without making a permanent commitment to each other. Instead of watering down the meaning of marriage, which is what proponents of SSM propose, we should be doing all we can to encourage couples to reserve sex and their bodies for their future spouses. Those who do are less apt to break up, and their children profit by their dedication to each other. No, SSM is not a solution for abandoned children. Maine people understood this when they turned down a law passed in the legislature and sign by Governor Baldacci. In the coming November we can only hope Mainers will not be taken by the spurious call for “equality” by gay lobby.
So you’re going to adopt and foster all the children of Maine without homes?
It sounds like you are assuming there are orphanages in Maine. I’m not aware of any. Wards of the state are not homeless in Maine. They are already in foster homes.
—-
What difference would it make if she could marry her partner?
Good luck getting the 2 parent dedicated to each other familyof yore.It’s still there to a degree and always will be. Preventing SSM (adoptive or not) does nothing to promote or detract straight marriage and is disliked (IMHO) only for the ICK factor. As the old sayings go: “It’s no skin off me. They ain’t hurtin’ nobody. Live and let live, etc” Besides, a large # of foster homes are single person anyway, and the kids are just bounced around more than in ANY stable home. Plus, all I said was that procreation is in no danger ’cause two dudes want the full protection and benefits of marriage.
The future of this nation’s children is certainly “skin off my back”. I’m sure there are many people who share this concern along with me. The real issue is not about mere relationships of any sort. Any couple or group of persons is free to form a relationship as they desire without the need of state endorsement. The state should not get entangled in these. Suffice it to say, there are enough problems created through the breakup of marriages without the need for more of a different sort being proposed.
Gay couples are already raising children and doing perfectly fine at it, as studies show. It is amendments like this that hurt children because it strips the family of legal rights and protections. For example, did you know that a gay partner/children can be denied visitation rights in hospitals in many places? It happens. Most couples include their spouses and children on their health insurance plans, how do you think that works for gay couples? We know that insurance is expensive as it is, can you imagine having to get seperate plans for each individual in the household? That’s what this kind of amendment does. It’s not right to hinder people simply because you disagree with how they live.
Bisexuals with children who have chosen to couple with same-sex mates are responsible for the predicament they have created for their children. Society should not have to pay for their indiscretion and neither should society enable them at the expense of their children. The lesson here is this: choose your mate carefully for the sake of your children.
Mind your own business. How about that?
I will reiterate my original post: The future of procreation is not in danger. Committed parents are. Not hard to understand what with America’s population growing from 200m to over 300m in fewer than 50 years.
Get out of the house and see the world as it is, not as how you would have it. The right wing views oin this are about as helpful as their attitude on sex. Kids shouldn’t do it, and it should not be done outside of marriage and we don’t want to hear about anything else.
That might be ok for some, but it helps the problem not at all. I guess since many people don’t believe in homosexuality, we don’t have to worry about their rights? Good luck with that. History will overtake that position and leave you with the Amish.
I repeat, the state’s interest in the welfare of future generations of children should not be replaced by a desire to make all relationships equal. Homosexual love unions will never be the same as heterosexual love relationships that have the potential to procreate and are part of a natural complementary process. Changing public policy to accommodate the desires of a relatively few people at the expense of future generations is very short-sighted and is bound to lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. It is vital that we always put children’s interest before our own.
Also, it really doesn’t matter if you think I am narrow minded or have views concerning sexuality different than yours. Neither my attitudes nor yours and what historians’ assessments might be down the road are relevant to the issue of SSM.
Finally, gays should be thankful for being able to lead lives as they wish. Never has a society been as tolerant of homosexuality than this one given the steep cost of the Aids epidemic and the very high rate of STD’s among homosexual males, both of which have heavily burdened the health care industry and created a dangerous situation for the general public due to over reliance on antibiotics.
So, it is up to the state to decide what is best for children. Hmmm. I would not have guessed that this was your position. I thought you were for getting the state to butt out of these decisions. And that means that if 2 men marry and have kids, you would be for taking the kids away. Oh, wait, 2 men can’t make a baby, so what in tarnation does the state have to say about the 2 men having the rights of survivorship that come with marriage? You will get into a tangled twisted logic if you think that kids are the reason for marriage. How about straights who choose to not have kids? The state doesn’t prevent them from marriage, nor does the state prevent drug addicts, felons and murderers from getting married, as long as they are straight. So get this right, the reason for preventing gay marriage has nothing to do with a child’s welfare, it is only about sexual orientation. You are grasping at straws there.
So gays should be thankful that nice bigots and people like you allow them to live and stuff? Why how very nice of you. I think your Bible says not to worry about the splinter in my eye when you have a log in yours. Doesn’t your Bible also tell you to let God do the judging about who is worthy and who ain’t?
Finally,you disgust me when you lay the blame for AIDS and STDs on the gay community. Most STDs occur in the straight community. Again, most STDs occur in the straight community. AIDS is spread primarily with the exchange of bodily fluids, and it has disproportionally affected the gay community. I guess you call this god’s revenge. How about chlamydia and similar bacterial dieseses of straights? More revenge from your awful God? How about Thalidomide babies? More punishment from an angry God?
Do you have the same moral high handedness about some cancers? Many are caused by environmental factors and can be laid at the door of multinationals. The epidemic of diabetes is also ravaging the healthcare system, who can you blame for that? Blame, blame, blame, and the finger always points to somebody else.
How about you don’t worry about the gay community. How about the state not enforce bigoted laws that are only aimed at a segment of the population with different sexual orientation. How about you wonder why you can be so happy with the NC mandates and so distressed with the Obama ones. How ’bout that?
You’ve just lost me with your name-calling. I will not be responding to your comments concerning the related BDN article.
No, you won’t reply because you have no facts. Including making up the fact that I am name calling. You have your blind faith in the Republican Party and the Catholic Church, and you will never wander far from what they tell you to believe. So, you make up stuff, like the fact that I called you names.
Bigots are one group, people like you are another. If you include yourself in the former, that is your problem. Any other name you want to call yourself? I remember some saying about shoes that fit, maybe you can help me out.
This type of comment has been addressed dozens of times in BDN comments sections and countless times on similar forums. The bottom line is that you’re citing an ‘expense’ for future generations that you are completely unable to identify or link to same sex marriage in a consistent way.
Yes, I have before. I’ve listed several points in prior posts. For instance, one point has to do with the fact children deserve to have the biological parents nature has provided, and where this is not possible, a family situation as close as possible to one resembling biological parents committed to each other in a marital love relationship. Any other family arrangements through, say, adoption that doesn’t respect traditional ways is a disservice to them. There are many others valid points, not to mention that state endorsement of gay unions could lead to unintended ill-consequences we can’t surmise.
Ok great- So minus the vague language you’re saying that it’s bad for children to be raised with two dads or two moms instead of one of each. Show the evidence that they’re enduring any sort of ‘expense’. They aren’t.
If you’re interested in searching for that ‘expense’ or those frightening unintended consequences, you could look at the existing gay couples with kids in the US or in other countries, and see whether their children are suffering. You’ll find that they aren’t.
Like I said, you aren’t linking actual problems to gay marriage. You’re presupposing that one exists.
are you an adoptive parent? because if you are not, you a hypocrite. there are thousands of children in Maine right now, born to heterosexual parents, who are hungry, cold, born addicted, abused and neglected.
Sorry, but i doubt gay marriage will resolve those problems you just mentioned.
“The passage of Amendment One is a heartbreaking loss for families in North Carolina, but will not stop us in the march toward full equality, Joe Solomonese, president of the pro-gay-rights Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement.”
I assume Mr. Solomonese is referring only to gay or lesbian families as it would appear that heterosexual families in NC are quite happy with Amendment One.
This movement has never been about full equality. Except for the right to marry, Gays and Lesbians have the same protections under that laws as anyone else. This entire movement to legalize same-sex marriage is solely to justify a life-style and nothing more. If the law of the land says its legal them it must be right. In November we can only hope that the voters in Maine figure that out like is appears the voters in North Carloina did.
They are happy about it because they are either misinformed or ignorant.
Oh…so if they don’t agree with your way of thinking they are ignorant?
Immediately name calling? What if the people of NC said that they don’t agree with homosexual marriage because those that want it are ignorant? How would that go over?
Misinformed? I know that the airwaves in NC have been flooded with pros and cons on this issue, and people have made informed decisions. What makes you think that the people knew nothing about what they were voting for?
Misinformed and ignorant not only about the meaning of equality in the Constitution, but of Constitutional process in general, since voters and States do not have the right to take away that which is Constitutionally granted to the people or the Federal govt.
Voter referendums are just part of the process that will now allow people who are discriminated against to sue the State of NC, creating another path to a favorable SCOTUS decision.
This has nothing to do with discrimination other than a trumped up violation on the same sex side.Purchased lawyers and judges are the only method able to further this attack on marriage. Voting has proved this.
Just like those interracial couples had to go through the courts to attack marriage!
the only thing that attacks marriage is divorce.
In your call for “equality” you either miss or intentionally ignore the original reason for state endorsement of heterosexual couple relationships. The real reason for that endorsement – referred to as “marriage” – is to ensure that the best possible environment will be provided for children who are likely to emerge from these relationships. In other words, the endorsement is primarily aimed at future generations. It’s not merely about rewarding a relationship for its own sake. Certainly if this was the case, then I would agree with your argument for treating every human relationship equally. The fact is that SS and heterosexual unions are not equal or the same per se.
Marriage has nothing to do with ensuring the “best possible environment” for children. Loving parent(s) and community are the means to provide the “best possible environment” for children. Period.
Are you kidding? Why are drug addicts allowed to get married then? Why can two people with criminal records or histories of domestic violence get married?
You’re assuming that there’s something special about same sex relationships that has enough of a negative effect to trump issues like those, and I’d be incredibly surprised if you could find good evidence for *any* negative effects at all.
Still beating that same drum? Time to learn a new tune.
you are right, i don’t care about the “original reason for state endorsement of heterosexual couple relationships”.
I care about our Constitution, about civil liberties, about our great nation founded on those principals.
And so do I, that is, I care about the Constitution and what the founding fathers believed about it. I suspect you hit the nail on the head when you clearly enunciated our differences. To you, state endorsement of relationships is more important than the real potential offspring (real human beings), the reason for all the benefits that come with marriage. You obviously support and encourage unnatural relationships. I don’t because I believe nature clearly intended opposite sex partners to be complementary physically, mentally, and emotionally for the sake of procreating and raising children. You believe SS orientation is genetic, yet there in not one iota of evidence that it is after the gay community has all but abandoned its decades-long quest for the genetic link. On the other hand I base my beliefs concerning homosexual orientation on numerous anecdotal studies supporting the notion that SS orientation is acquired after birth.
“To you, state endorsement of relationships is more important than the real potential offspring (real human beings).”
*****
As an American citizen, I say, I care about those offspring, even if they are gay, black or in any other minority. And I also say “how can you claim to care about people when you would deny your fellow citizens equal access to the law?”
As a mother and a grandmother I am insulted that you insinuate I don’t care about children.
State endorsement of heterosexual relationships for the sake of future generations does not deny SS couples equal access. They are free to enter into whatever relationship they desire, and the state is not obligated to endorse their relationships any more than it is obligated to support middle income families through welfare benefits for the sake of “equality”.
But pardon me if you feel offended. My comment was not intended to offend you or to imply in any way that you don’t care about children. On the contrary, I have no doubt you do care about children. But you don’t seem to fully grasp the need and importance of the state to promote the traditional family structure. If anything, the traditional family is in deep trouble. Introducing unnatural and less advantageous alternatives can only make the family institution less stable, thus contributing more to its breakdown and the resulting breakdown of society.
1. marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gay people is like telling black people that sitting on the back of the bus is okay cuz there are white people on the bus, too.
2. “importance of the state to promote the traditional family structure”. I don’t believe it is the State’s place to promote personal relatonships. I believe in less govt, not more. You seem to want to legislate morality, the antithesis of the conservative values.3. I respect your opinion and feelings, but they are religious in nature and are between you and your church. Our constitutional government, with our SCOTUS, is designed to slowly, but surely, protect minority rights against the type of tyranny you are offering.4. If you think gays are breaking down society, you haven’t been to South Beach. Gays tend to come in to blighted communities, clean them up and elevate values. I assume they will do the same for marriage.
Have I used religion as a basis for my argument against SSM? The only time I used religious premises in my argument is when someone wants to argue using them.
As to your point number 1, no one is ordering SS couples to disband their relationships or to behave in a certain way not applicable to the rest of the population. That was the case in the South when blacks were segregated. No, SS couples are not being singled out. The state is merely endorsing heterosexual relationships over SS unions for practical reasons, a common practice in existence for decades and centuries. It is not endorsing personal relationships per se but rather one type of relationship over other types such as SS unions or unions of more than two partners or the union of an animal and a human being. This policy should be maintained in the best interests of children because it follows the natural law.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
There is no Constitutional basis for “endorsing relationships” and ‘natural law’.
An animal can not enter into a contract, and that is a disgusting and degrading comparison.
What harms children is stress; stress that occurs without the nurturing presence of a caring parent. There is no science supporting your claim about children and same sex marriage.
The listing of the relationship between an animal and a human being was not intended as a comparison or a put down. It was mentioned because there is actually a movement underfoot to promote approval of this type of relationship. As you know, bestiality is outlawed in most if not every state of the Union. Sorry, but I should not have even mentioned it in my prior comment.
“You obviously support and encourage unnatural relationships.”
*****
I think you think too much about relationships that aren’t your business. What I support and encourage is equality in America and equal access to all our people under our laws.
People are free to form whatever relationships they want. The state does not dictate or prohibit those relationships. On the other hand the state is free to endorse whatever types of relationships it deems beneficial to society. It is no more obligated to endorse SS unions than it is obligated to give middle income families the same welfare benefits it gives to poor families for the sake of “equality”. So, you are quite right: relationships people form are none of my personal business. That situation however does not hold when it comes to decisions the state makes concerning which type of relationships it’s going to endorse. That decision affects everyone including myself, not to mention future generations of children.
it is not the State’s place to endorse one relationship over the other….
Yes, it’s the state’s business to endorse one TPYE of relationship over another. This doesn’t mean it is favoring one person over another, or one couple over another. What we are talking about here are different types of relationships where the state may endorse one over another.
I think you don’t understand the Constitution. If a right is not specifically granted to the Government, it is understood to belong to the people. (Because you can not take away that which has not been given). Since the Constitution doesn’t say squat about ‘endorsing relationships’, it does not have that authority.
If what you are saying is true about the Constitution, then please tell me what right the state has taken away from SS partners when it has and continues to favor heterosexual unions for the sake of the next generation of children. Are you suggesting that the government should not have the right to endorse any type of union? Obviously, this can’t be the case since our founding fathers were not against state endorsed heterosexual unions known as “marriage”.
“Are you suggesting that the government should not have the right to endorse any type of union? ”
****
It doesn’t matter what I suggest, please find in the Constitution where it says ‘Government has the right to endorse a union”. If it doesn’t say that, the government does not have the authority.
Constitutionally speaking, there was no discrimination until a gay couple attempted to marry and were denied. That is why court cases are now in the Federal level, working their way up to SCOTUS.
I think I understand the basis of your confusion regarding the Constitution. The government does not ‘ENDORSE’ relationships or behaviors. What the Constitution does is guarantee equal access under the law; it is completely inappropriate for the government to endorse relationships.
I agree, it is inappropriate for the government to endorse relationships per se (people are free to associate with whom they please). My point though is that it is indeed proper and appropriate for the government to endorse a type of relationship (heterosexual union) to the exclusion of others.
where do you see this in the Constitution? What are you basing this opinion on?
Yeah, everybody’s equal, so long as they’re heterosexual.
I have more respect for people who don’t pretend that they aren’t bigots.
In others words you are calling me a bigot because you disagree with me. “Sticks and stones…”
to want to discriminate against a group of people based upon their lifestyle or gender is bigotry, ww.
to many of us reading your words, they are very, very ugly and cruel.
“yet there in not one iota of evidence that it is after the gay community has all but abandoned its decades-long quest for the genetic link.”
****
and you got your science degree from where? oh!! you are “basing that notion on numerous anecdotal studies….” . FYI, I believe those two words are mutually exclusive (anecdotal and study).
We haven’t discovered the gene for a lot of things. As a matter of fact, we know that single genes are usually not at issue, but in fact a series of genes, where one gene might act as a ‘trigger’ to another corresponding gene.
Let me clarify one thing: there are anecdotal studies based on studies of individual cases such as Sigmund Freud engaged in, and there are statistical studies based on the study of the parameters of a population, typically based on random samplings. The latter type is widely used to study simple behaviors of a population. More complex behaviors such has homosexuality are less amenable to statistical studies.
I need to point out that no – I repeat – no one gene or set of genes has has been associated with homosexual orientation.
Re: a ‘gay’ gene, I reject your idea that it is necessary to disprove a negative, which is what you are suggesting. Your last point is pointless.
Sorry, I like you. I just don’t buy a single iota of what you are saying, ww. have a nice evening.
I am not trying to disprove a negative. All I am saying is that many supporters of SSM are saying that their sexual orientation is due to their genetic makeup (i.e., “I can’t change my orientation anymore than you can change the color of your eyes”), without offering any evidence for that claim. I think we can both accept this to be true, can’t we?
Thanks for engaging in this conversation. And for your civility, for I realize the SSM issue is an emotional one for most people.
you say you aren’t asking to disprove a negative, and the next sentence is:
” without offering any evidence for that claim. I think we can both accept this to be true, can’t we?”
which is just another way of saying: disprove a negative. So, no, I don’t accept that to be true, far from it.
I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying. I did notice however when I read my last comment that I had failed to insert a comma after the parenthetical remark. The comment is now edited to show the comma.
Also, isn’t is true that many SSM supporters maintain that homosexual orientation is genetically based? Is it not also true that they have no evidence to support that contention? At least I have yet to see any. Many gay rights organizations now admit – albeit reluctantly – to the absence of any evidence. In other words, the claim that SS orientation is predetermined appears to be just a claim without any supporting evidence.
If as you say, gender is a choice, not a genetically based, then please tell me when you decided you were hetero sexual?
I never decided when I was heterosexual just as I never decided when I became an adolescent. The evolution of sexual preference is closely tied to emotional preferences. For example, boys are typically in love with their mother up until age 3 or 4 until they begin to realize consciously or subconsciously that they are more like their dads.
Another example: A very insecure woman falls in love with the first male who gives her attention only because she is craving for affection. Typically she falls for the wrong guy who turns out to be abusive after a relationship in or out of wedlock. Still, now even more insecure and feeling love-starved, she falls for the next male who gives her some attention. And again, she ends up heart broken and shattered. At some point she meets a female who proffers attention and gradually falls in love with her out of desperation . Even though she has never felt any sexual attraction to a female before, her emotional needs demand closer physical contact making the female in her life even more accessible. Sexual attraction and emotional craving for affection are always closely tied, especially with women.
Finally, I never stated gender is a choice. Obviously we are all conceived with the selection having been
made for us by nature.
On the other hand, sexual orientation (not homosexual activity,which is a choice except in rape situations) is usually not a choice, just like preferences for, say, food, which tends to evolve depending on circumstances in one’s life.
???
that’s ridiculous
Are you saying that because you feel your notions are being threatened? If so, I understand, that’s a normal reaction when confronted with ideas one has never heard of before. But think about our discussion again because it is not a light subject. To the contrary, the subject of sex is very complex.
lordy, no.
what I am saying is, regardless of the *reason* people are gay, some people are gay.
we don’t have means testing for marriage for addiction, mental capacity, etc. so why start with gay people?
If gov’t had a responsibility to endorse relationships to protect children and society, why doesn’t government start with sobriety? And people with emotional disorders? Or even criminal backgrounds?
But government doesn’t limit marriage for any of the above categories. The only remaining reason to limit marriage equality to gay people is your notion of what is right and wrong.
But, whawell, our Constitution does not work like that. It guarantees equality to all our citizens. Why is this confusing? Have you read the Constitution? Taken even a middle school class on American civics?
sorry, i edited the last comment a couple times for readability…
So, the state should compel unmarried straights to marry? You right wing people sure do have a lot of “must dos “when it comes to people you don’t agree with.
I doubt that John Hancock etc set a round worrying about whether Jefferson and Franklin could sleep together. Probably made them sick like it does the majority of the world
Snide or rude comments, like yours, make me feel sick. Sounds like you sit around spending waay too much time thinking about what someone else is doing in the privacy of their own bedroom.
Dang, I wanted to point out the fact that too many people on the right worry about what happens in adults’ bedrooms. Everytime they see a heterosexual couple, they must wonder about their sex lives too. Usually this is from a disfunctional sex life of their own. Also seems to happen a lot with gays who are closeted.
I completely agree. There is a study that was recently published in the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which pretty much backs the idea that the most homophobic are often insecure, or in denial of their own sexuality, and in serious need of self-reflection. Their hate blinds them.
yup thats it. I am the one who needs help? I think the guy who stares at another man and wants to sleep with him might fall in the catagory as , UNUSUAL
The world would end with this warped behavior.
That is the sad thing, you have somehow convinced yourself that another person’s sex life could cause the world to end. I mean really? Maybe you need help or just some self-reflection. Is there really a sane reason to hate someone that largely has no affect on your life? You might call me “UNUSUAL”, but I could give you several examples of prominent gay figures, throughout history. LGBT people are really not that unusual of an occurrence, despite what you might believe. Either way, I am proud of who I am, and that is not defined by my sexual orientation.
not when there is a 3 year old sleeping down the hall. get married, get lost, neevr allow to adopt. let tehm call themselves husband and husband. but dont let them decide to force a child to agree with their sick behavior
So, in your mind, all gays are child molesters? How little you know. That is an opinion based on fear, not facts. My gay brother helped raise my nephew when his alcoholic dad went to jail for having an accident for about the 5th time. No lisence, no insurance, no registration. Thankfully nobody was ever killed.
Nephew is now 34, has twin sons, veteran of Iraq. Credits familyand especially Uncle M. with helping him through the times he was bouncing between CT and ME. Unlike yourself, he can look past somebody’s sexual orientation to see the intrinsic worth of a human being.
Also, did you know that most sex crimes against children are commited by straights? What’s your solution to that problem?
I think they believe what they want to believe. And yes, I do think that people who don’t agree with me on this particular issue are ignorant.
Agreed!
You are obviously ignorant and misinformed on the true nature of marriage as are most people, even the ones who supported this amendment are. Homosexuality is an abomination, the truth is plain.
The plain truth is that your “side” is driven by disgust and disdain for gay people. We’ve seen time and time again that mere moral disapproval is not “legitimate basis” for a law and that’s why they will be struck down by the court system.
Hmm interesting that my comment was flagged, did I offend someone when I said homosexuality was an abomination; however people can state that eating lobster too is an abomination but their comments aren’t flagged.
Read the “loving” comments in the NC and CO websites and you will see the true side of the pro homosexual marriage crowd. Also read people’s facebook comments from your pro homosexual marriage “friends” wow I’ve never read such vulgarity.
Intolerance is an abomination.
You don’t like being singled out and punished? Hmmm, I wonder if that’s how gay couples in NC are feeling right now.
Eating lobster is an “abomination” too. Keep cherry-picking that ‘ol bible, friend. I’d prefer some other quotes: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” or “judge not lest you be judged.”
Lobster is an abomination and people wonder why they get cancer eating sea scavengers. what’s your point?
They do look kinda funny, but they are sooooo delicious, and since I buy directly from my lobstermen friends, I like supporting my local community. What’s your point?
Why no constitutional amendment banning it then?
lol!
I agree eating lobster is an abomination.
On that point, I will never agree. Too bad the butta is so full of calories.
try getting Maine voters to agree with you
John 3:17 usually shuts ’em up
It’s wanted for the rights of survivorship (SS and pension payments and inheritance of property, etc.), joint tax returns, making medical decisions, and much more that is not available to them. If you believe that it’s not about full equality, then the whole story doesn’t seem to be reaching the your mountain habitat.
Loss of personal liberty for one citizen is a loss of liberty for all citizens.
Marriage equality is a Constitutional issue that all Civil Libertarians and Constitutionalists should embrace.
The SCOTUS will decide this issue soon, that is what they do when the voters get it wrong.
YES!
“Loss of personal liberty for one citizen is a loss of liberty for all citizens.”
Are you willing to apply this principle to Obomacare? And how about the 2’nd amendment? Smoking? Fast food? Education?
SCOTUS has the Affordalbe Care Act in their hot little hands right now, so it’s really not ‘up to me’ as you imply.
Sadly, your discussion style is part of the problem. Rather than focus on democratic and constitutional process, you make it personal, about me. Why?
I didn’t imply anything was “up to you”. I asked if you would apply the same standards and principles to other questions.
Nice attempt to deflect the question rather than answer it. And an ad hominem attack to deflect as well!
My question was specifically about the constitution and on democratic and constitutional process. And specifically about how you would apply these same principles to these other issues. I guess answering the question honestly would be uncomfortable, to say the least. After all progressive ideology is more important than principles. The ends justify the means, right?
And how is it personal when asking you to justify selectively applying these sacred principles to different issues?
The SCOTUS may vote to end it. However SingleTrackGirl, the voters haven’t gotten it wrong.
obama HATES gay marriage as well, hmmm
“Obama backs gay marriage”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/
It is not to justify a lifestyle (which by the way doesn’t need justification), and they don’t enjoy the same protections that hetero couples enjoy. They can be denied visitation rights if a partner is ill. Their taxes are treated differently. They cannot adopt children. They can’t, in the eyes of the law, call their partner their spouse. Relationships between homosexual partners are no less stable, or loving, or committed then hetero relationships, yet they don’t have the same legal protections, or…and this is key…the same acceptance by society as a whole. There is a major difference.
And in the end, opposition to same-sex marriage is about one group of people forcing their views on another. Because really…how is anyone’s marriage effected, or devalued, or made any different, by another couple’s marriage. It’s not. If you’re creeped out by the idea of the two men next door kissing each other, or calling each other husband, well, grow up. It’s not going to hurt you or anyone else.
watch this an see if you still say they have rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM&feature=share
Don’t try to hide your ignorance or anything. “This entire movement to legalize same-sex marriage is solely to justify a life-style and nothing more.” Wow…couldn’t be more uninformed could you? Marriage equality is about giving all loving, committed, couples the right to marry. I could care less whether you accept my lifestyle or not. Quite frankly, my lifestyle should be none of your business, and I certainly don’t need justification from someone so intolerant. You should ask yourself, how would you feel if your right to marry were put to a popular vote? Have you ever had sex outside of wedlock? What is the success rate of ‘straight’ marriages? How does any other marriage affect yours?
Considering same-sex marriage was already banned in NC, this amendment was nothing more than a mean-spirited attack, meant to keep a certain minority down. Their own lawmakers are predicting it will be overturned within 20 years. Most likely by the SCOTUS or by younger generations. Fortunately, the good people of Maine are more forward thinking, and open to civil rights and personal freedoms. We will have our turn to end the discrimination in November. I hope everyone votes in favor of Marriage Equality.
So if 2 people are married and one dies, the other inherits everything tax free. But if 2 men/2women live together in an exclusive relationship, one dies, the other pays taxes on everything. This strikes you as just? This is the protection you are talking about?
In many states, if you are driving somebody else’s car without written permission, you can be arrested unless you are a spouse, child or parent. If you are gay, you can never be sure that you won’t be pulled over and charged unless you carry that all important letter.
I could continue, but in your mind these problems don’t exist. You somehow equate gays getting married with a devaluation of your own marriage certificate. Sad.
Same protections? How can that be when even civil unions are banned?
An overwhelming defeat for Gay Marriage. The vote was not even close!
According to Yahoo News: “North Carolinians voted to change the state constitution Tuesday to say that the only valid “domestic legal partnership” in the state is marriage between a man and a woman, according to the AP’s projection. The amendment passed 61 to 39 percent with most counties reporting, making North Carolina the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.”
Maine’s vote will likely be much closer. Gay activists are “hoping” that people have changed their minds since the 2009 defeat. Look what “hope” did for the country.
If a vote were held to end slavery in the 1860s it would have lost,
If a vote were held to end the segregated military in the 1940s it would have lost,
If a vote were held in the 1950s to end Jim Crow laws it would have lost,
If a vote were held in the 1960s to allow interracial marriage it would have lost,
Any time we allow a vote on civil rights we lose just a little bit of what makes America a special place to live.
I don’t know how you came up with those assumptions since you didn’t reference them but I will say that any American making the case against allowing the masses to vote is unsettling. Voting is the #1 civil right.
Um, the National Guard had to be called in to enforce the desegregation SJC ruling. I’m pretty sure it would have never passed a popular vote. Throughout our history, there has been select minority groups targeted by these kinds of discriminatory laws. Just because they’re unpopular, doesn’t mean they’re undeserving of the rights the rest of us take advantage of.
You’re missing the point of jd’s commentary (which is most likely accurate). The “majority” will often vote to curtail the rights of some particular minority. This is why we have a SCOTUS and laws protecting Civil Rights. Unfortunately, I can tell you from personal experience that these laws are necessary. We have too many ignorant bigots in our population.
No argument here about what your saying. I am just throwing it out there that respect for voting rights should supercede about anything unless under very unusual circumstances.
Like the rights of a minority?
Depends on how you define minority I would say. Maybe that is the debate.
You don’t think gays are a minority group? Both seem to think so as gays define themselves that way, and opposing forces specifically design legislation to target gays.
Don’t you think that that is part of the problem? Homosexuals want a behavior to be compared to a race issue.
There are similarities, certainly. Whether you believe gay people are born that way or not, the characteristic doesn’t seem to be easily changed. Further, if there are laws that are specifically singling out gays for different treatment, then yeah, it’s a lot alike. Gays are subjected to discrimination, bigotry and violence all because of the fact that they’re gay, just like black people were/are subjected to because of their race. There are definitely some similarities.
You say that “Gays are subjected to discrimination, bigotry and violence all because of the fact that they’re gay” Well, elderly people are subjected to discrimination, bigotry, and violence all because of the fact that they are old. Homosexuals are protected by the same laws as the elderly or anyone else. On the other hand, as far as discrimination goes; Could a 25 year old impersonate an elderly person and claim discrimination? NO. Could a 25 year old white person impersonate a black person and claim discrimination? No. Could a 25 year old impersonate a homosexual and claim discrimination? Yes. The comparison between homosexuals and race issues does not fly.
I know you don’t want to believe that homosexuals are discriminated against because if you do, then you’ll feel guilty for being a bigot towards them.
There is certainly no guilt here. There is more than enough existing discrimination laws already to protect everyone. If discrimination does occur, it certainly is no worse a crime if it’s committed against a homosexual or a white woman or anyone else.
The same goes for a “hate crime”. Why is it anymore or less a crime if someone assaults a homosexual, or an elderly woman coming out of the drug store with her prescription? One is a hate crime no matter the circumstance, the other is just an unfortunate assault.
There is a difference if you’re attacking a person because of a characteristic they don’t have much control over. Do you think spray painting your name on a church is the same thing as spray painting “pedophile priests” on a church?
Please revisit American Civics 101. We are not a democracy whereby voters determine law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; the Supreme Court is the interpreter of that document and was created in fact to protect the minority AGAINST the tyranny of majority rule. Further, any powers not specifically granted to the government reside with the people. So, with all due respect, you have misinterpreted the Constitution’s most basic principal. There is no such thing as majority rule in the United States.
I don’t believe I got this far into it but obviously a majority of NC’s voters have some say in their constituition. I don’t see it being overturned.
A lifestyle choice is not a right! That is why it is 0-34 when voted on by the people.
—
So let’s assume that your assertion, that homosexuality is a choice is correct. To be correct a person would have to have two orientations to choose from. So, if homosexuality is a choice and heterosexuality is the other choice when did you choose to be straight?
“Assumptions” cliff….hardly. What you call “assumptions” are based in U.S. History.
I’m just glad we live in a place where we can vote, instead of a place where all laws are dictated by just a few in power. :-)
In passing this, voters have also banned civil unions and stripped same-sex couples of domestic partnership benefits. Voters have eliminated health care, prescription drug coverage and other benefits for public employees and children receiving domestic partner benefits. They have threatened protections for all unmarried couples in North Carolina.
This is a very unfortunate outcome. I can’t imagine being the kind of person who would gloat and celebrate over this outcome.
Why don’t they just fight for civil unions and domestic partnerships? Why do they need the Biblical term so badly when it doesn’t fit the Biblical definition? If they read the Bible they would clearly see the error of their ways. Maybe next time they will take a more logical approach.
Are you even aware of the situation? They were voting on an amendment for their constitution that specifically bands civil unions/domestic partnerships. The gay rights groups in North Carolina didn’t take any approach as this referendum wasn’t their making. The amendment specifically bans what you think they should logically accept as an alternative. Gay couples can have absolutely nothing in NC now.
Because they want to justify their lifestyle choice, pure and simple.
As said people in this country do not want homosexual marriage, it is 0-34 when voted on by the people. It has lost in the most liberal state in the country in CA.
If we allow homosexual marriage, why not polygamy? Where do we draw the line?
Good for No Carolina voters they stood up to the PC liberals and ended the discussion. At least their tax payers wont have to waste more money voting on this!
ok there are a lot of things wrong with that statement: 1) it is not a choice, as evidenced by the fact that humans are not the only beings on the Earth to exhibit homosexual behavior. 2) The discussion isn’t over as the Supreme Court will eventually be forced to decide, and since as of right now marriage is a special right for only heterosexuals, the Supreme Court will have to come down on the side of equality. This is not a religious argument, it is a legal/civil one. So in the e vent the court rules in favor of gay marriage, this N. Carolina law/amendment will be struck down as unconstitutional.
We don’t want the biblical term, this is about civil marriage.
That’s no more biblical than the marriage wall of a modular home.
Marriage is not a biblical term. It is a Pagan term.
Simple, the Bible does not dictate anything in American Rights. The term marriage in civil law has zero to do with the Bible. I support gay marriage, but I also support a religious clerics right to not perform a same sex marriage based on his/her religious beliefs. I have no faith in religion of any sort to do what is right, I simply agree with Hulk when he said, “Puny god!”
Yes, biblical terms, because everybody knows the Bible was written in English.
Did you know that King Solomon had more than 100 wives? Many of them did. So much for the “always was” argument.
Seems that if you are a company in NC who gives domestic partner benefits, that will now be against the law. Can you imagine the hubbub if companies were forced to give domestic partner benefits? State mandates are ok as long as you are denying Liberals a choice. Don’t try that with the Right.
Also, if you are a member of a religious community that gives benefits to domestic partners, there is no exemption in NC like was granted by the Obama admin. for the health insurance thing. Wonder if we will hear from the religious right about how that hurts religion. Nah, only right wingers have religion. Everybody else’s religion is just wrong in their view.
Predict 200 comments by 11:00 on this one.
So Obama is still “evaluating” how he feels about homosexual marriage?
Would it be safe to assume that his feelings will swing which ever way he thinks that he can get the most votes, and has nothing to do with his feelings?
I think he is waiting until after the election because he doesn’t want to alienate the Independents that are also bigots. I’m pretty sure “evolving” is code for “supports same sex marriage but afraid of the political repercussions”
Well, everyone has their own theory about it.
I was thinking the opposite since he previously stated that he was against it.
Regardless, he will swing which ever way benefits him.
There sure is a lot of name calling (bigots) on here from people who are looking for other people’s compassion on the issue. Maybe it’s the attitude that turns people off?
Did you really expect more from the POTUS ? This is the same guy who, when in the Senate, voted “present” on all controversial issues. He is the most “political” of any politician in my lifetime.
You have him confused with Romney.
It’s pathetic that we are speeding ahead technologically yet still hostage to this primitive morality of a faction of Christians, the same faction that thinks women should be obedient and subordinate to males, and thinks anyone who isn’t with them is a servant of a particular supernatural being they call “Satan.”
This is the state where Jesse Helms, a major racist, was elected over and over to the Senate.
The struggle against pigheaded ignorance goes on and on.
What about the muslims and other religions….or are you just pigheadedly biased towards christians?
Spruce is just a bigot toward catholics and protestants who’s faith shuns the homesexual lifestyle choice.
And what kind of bigot would you call yourself? It is not a choice. Open your eyes and inform yourself.
Life style choice pure and simple. Should we allow polygamy, beastality, pedophiles, they are lifestyle choices too which are illegal!
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
And now the very predictable “Life style choice pure and simple. Should we allow polygamy, beastality (sp), pedophiles, they are lifestyle choices too which are illegal!”
OK try to follow along now Eggg…
Polygamy was once legal and is found in the Old Testament of the Bible. The Sioux often had more than one wife (normally limited to two). It is illegal and has a SCOTUS decision making it so.
Bestiality is illegal and will remain illegal as animals do not have conscious thought, do not possess the ability to grant informed consent and cannot sign a legal binding contract.
Pedophilia is a crime of power and control. It is not passion or love. Children while the possess conscious though cannot grant informed consent for sexual relations and cannot enter into a legal binding contract.
By the way, homosexuality is not illegal and hasn’t been illegal since the SCOTUS struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Kansas (2003)
Good lord, man. No one here is interested in discriminating against Christians. If gay people wanted to make it illegal for Christians to get married, the folks you’re criticizing would be 100% against that ban. The idea that you think the law should reflect the arbitrary prescriptions from an antiquated book that tons Americans don’t believe in is what’s leading rational people to disagree with you. When you make choices about how to conduct yourself in your own life, feel free to care about what your faith shuns, but have the decency to recognize that our legal system should be equally fair in its treatment of those who don’t believe in that nonsense.
I don’t know what specific experience you’re reacting to, but most of the people I know who agree that it’s completely insane to allow religious principles to determine the agenda of a government view cases in majority Muslim countries, Israel, and majority Christian countries as equally inappropriate and ignorant. One difference between the US and a lot of other countries where gay couples suffer government supported discrimination is that the US doesn’t have an official state religion, which makes this case a little more surprising. Does that help answer your question?
But, so many of the right SAYS that we are a Christian Nation so often… Why not give credit where it is due? What percentage of North Carolina voters that are anti-gay do you think also check “Christian” in the survey boxes?
More disturbing is the platform the Republicans offer to these people. What do you think would happen if the Dems allowed the Congress to be used as a platform by athiests or Muslims or Hindus? The eruptions on Fox and Limbaugh would be heard around the globe. But, allowing whackos with anti-gay bias is ok. Allowing people who say we are being punished by God for allowing Liberals to lead us is ok. Allowing partisanship disguised as religion is ok.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/jim-garlow
Republicans and Tea Party members started out by saying their org was only trying to right the economy. They have done zilch for the economy (for you right wingers out there, name a bill Congress has passed this year dealing with unemployment) but are shoving their extremist social agenda down our throats. Shame on the Tea Party types for moving from economic goals to social agenda rigging. What about the deficit? Or will this come after you have launched a new Inquisition?
Helms was more hypocritical than racist. Seems he engaged with “relations” with anAf-Am woman and secretly supported a daughter for many years. The Right specializes in hypocrisy more than racism I think, but I could be wrong. This from the Wash. Post:
“Unknown to almost everyone, the symbol of Southern racism had a black daughter. Six months after his death on June 26, 2003, a 78-year-old African American woman named Essie Mae Washington-Williams held a press conference in which she revealed, “My father’s name was James Strom Thurmond” — a fact that Thurmond’s family confirmed. Her mother — Carrie Butler, then a 16-year-old maid in his parents’ household — had been impregnated by the 22-year-old Thurmond at a time when “miscegenation” was illegal under South Carolina law.”
The rest of the link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801620.html
So much for American civil rights. Jerks! It isn’t anyones business who a person chooses to marry.
this is a learning experience for Maine voters. After the defeat of same sex this fall Maine should join the other 30 or so states and put in a constitutional amendment to end these attacks on our state.
Because taking away rights from gay couples isn’t an attack?
No rights taken away, do what you want, dont call it marriage, just an lifestyle choice which 61% dont agree with.
Yes, rights were taking away. Please stop lying on here.
Two questions…
1) Do you support “Civil Unions” for same sex couples?
2) How does SSM impact your everyday life?
OK who other rights should be taken away ?
I might be moving to North Carolina as soon as possible. Hopefully Maine will follow suit AGAIN and I won’t have to.
NO means NO!!! We already told these people here in Maine that we don’t want to legalize same sex marriage. Why do they keep asking us again and again to review our decision???
WE DON’T WANT IT HERE EITHER!
Please move, really. You would be so much more comfortable there. It would ease a lot of political tension if we all went back to the Confederate and Union States.
Then we could kick their butts again once and for all time.
Speak for yourself. I want to live in a state where EVERYONE has equal rights. How can anyone pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn’t?
You’d move? Really? Need help packing?
Fortunately, we have the opportunity to vote again on turning this heinous bill away here in Maine.
More and more people are getting upset with the liberal progressive way the state has been run over the past 30 years.
I for one, will be out in full force to rally the troops against this most ridiculous proposition.
There’s just no need of it, period.
NO MEANS NO!!
—
Why did 61% not agree with you, that is a crushing endorsement that Marriage is one man , one women!
Comons sense prevailed here, like it has in 34 over votes where homosexual marriage is 0-34!
—
I have religous beliefs, I dont force them on you yet the PC crowd rams this down our throats, gay marching parades, special quota bills where I work, diversity non-sense, liberal media trys to spin it 8 ways to Sunday, libtards in the schools try to corrupt my children that this life style is normal and if they disagree they are bigots etc
I really dont care who you sleep with, just dont ram this life style down my throat and waste taxpayer money trying to over turn what the people have already voted for.
Again 0-34 and it lost 61% to 39%. That tells you something.
Survey Says….. X! Oh so sorry you are wrong, that correct answer is “homosexuality is NOT a choice.” Better luck next time, but here have some Rice-a-roni as a parting gift. By the way, the homosexuals aren’t shoving it down your throat half as much as religion has been forcing their way of life down all our throats for 2000 + years. The difference being that while i can’t stand religion, I do not try to ban it so those who do believe despite all evidence to the contrary can go and have their Pagan based ceremonies every Sunday. The least religion can do is show the same courtesy. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one, but do not deny those who want to.
….
====
I agree completely with what Dane just said. They aren’t trying to force their lifestyle on anyone. They just want to have equal rights and be able to marry whoever they choose. And no one, NO ONE has the right to deny them that. And Dane, while I *am* kind of religious, I am also open-minded enough to realize that yes, religion *has* shoved those kinds of ideas down our throats for ages. Luckily, I’m one of the ones who thinks equality is more important than what my pastor may have told me about this when I was growing up. :)
Thanks Tonks :)
You’re taking legal rights and protections away from them. It’s very clear that you are the one trying to force your lifestyle on others.
How does SSM impact your everyday life?
Assuming that you are married how does SSM impact it?
I have a pick-up they can borrow, everyone needs a pick-up when they move.
I’ll help with the gas money.
good-bye! What kind of person would willingly choose to live in a place with legalized bigotry?
You don’t like it here move to the south they will welcome you with open arms
please move. we have enough ignorant red necks in the state. we won’t miss you. I hope my gay friends have the opportunity to marry the person they love like I have.
I think we can all live in this state while affording each other equal treatment under our laws.
You don’t have to agree with my life with my partner to recognize that treating everyone equally on the law books is a good, American value.
But just why do you keep saying NO? Relax, it’s no skin off your ***.
Methinks thou protests too mightily…
I’ll even rent the moving truck for ya. Good-bye and good riddance.
How SSM impact your life?
What do you expect from smoking, obese, redneck hillbillies. They don’t believe in cholesterol and is the heart attack and stroke capitol of the US. They still smoke in the supermarket and restaurants and probably in schools.
And you would
be the first to accuse North Carolinians of being bigoted and call them
“Haters”. Can you really not see the hypocrisy in your words? I do
not hate gay people, or anyone else for that matter. I do believe
that marriage is only valid between one man and one woman. This arrangement has
served our civilization well for quite literally thousands of years. Of course
there have always been gay people but our definition of a family has never been
changed simply to accommodate their wishes. If our society is compelled to
redefine marriage, then I must ask you what is magic about the number two? Why could
not three or four men and/or women constitute a “family”? Or for that matter, why should a consenting person’s
age matter.
Of course these
things do matter. And by attempting to redefine what constitutes a whole
family, we are leaping onto a very slippery slope.
But why do you think your personal choices are any more valid than anothers? Why can’t you let other families determine what’s right for them and leave it at that? Why must there be fights for special rights for ONLY straight couples? In my eyes, that’s wrong. It’s not fair to punish others in order to try and coerce them into being more like you. That’s not very American.
There is no way to define a family. The family of day’s past is long gone. What about single mothers and their children… do you consider them a family? Who are you to define anyone else’s family but your own? Why is everyone dwelling on the whole “one man, one woman” scenario? There are so many families made up differently than that. And you know what, just because a marriage is between a man and a woman doesn’t make it all that special. My husband left me to raise my children by myself, which I did very well, and they turned into fine young men. How did having a marriage help me or my children? Open your eyes to the world … it’s passing you by.
My eyes are indeed wide open. Upholding one’s principles in
the face of opposition does not constitute having “the world pass you
by”. I am sorry that your husband (like so many today) did not have the
courage or fortitude to stand by you and raise your children. It is well
documented that children raised with their mother and father tend to experience
fewer relationship problems and other social ills. Does this make them lesser
persons? Of course it does not. People are resilient and adaptable. It speaks well of
you that your sons were able to overcome not having a father present. It does
not change the fact that it is less than optimal for either parent to be absent
and we should not be embracing any system that would make this less than
optimal situation the norm.
So you insult them, your the bigot!
North Carolina sounds like a nice place to live. I’ll bet a lot of people start to move there.
If they agree with this amendment, I sure hope they do.
This touching video tells one story of what can happen without rights for all domestic partners: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM&feature=share
Thank you for sharing the video. Many legally protected straight married people just don’t get it. From what I understand, this vote in NC will also strip benefits from committed, yet unmarried, heterosexual couples as well.
Bible Belt Bigots
//////
I think the gay rights groups of NC should push a constitutional amendment banning divorce and adultry, then we’ll see how fast these people change their tune.
So we’re going to move the Democratic Convention from this backward state to a marriage equality state RIGHT? I don’t spend money on bigots!
Interesting that the “article” doesn’t report the margin of victory. What’s wrong? Too lop-sided for the Post and BDN? If the result was reversed, you would have seen words like “overwhelming victory,” “mandate,” etc.
Nope. No leftist bias in the news. Nothing to see here.
You poor victim.
What are you talking about? The only people claiming victimhood here are those who are demanding to redefine marriage.
You’re complaining that this piece wasn’t written in a way that applauds you for being a straight male. You complain that you are victimized by a left bias in the media.
====
Bet if the outcome was the other way, the Donald would have been on the blower and told the Editors to place it on the Front Page LOL
Instead bury it on the back, nothing to see here people now move along!
The good thing is, this is a wake up call and the PC libs in Maine are now wondering if their PC cause will go down in flames which is what I predict! To loose 61% to 39% shows the average person does not condone the lifestyle!
Every time this is voted on by the people,it “the ram the lifstyle choice down your throat group” has lost, homosexual marraige is now 0-34 when voted on by the people!
Maine should also have an ammendment to ban it so no future Baldacci/Cain/Mitchells can meddle with what the people want, we have voted homosexual marraige down a couple times too. These people should have their civil unions and go away!
This amendment in NC bans civil unions and domestic partnerships.
—-
Yes it was and when they get through “thumping their chests” they might realize what they have lost.
….
Actually, I it was these folks supporting this unnecessary constitutional amendment who rammed their lifestyle choice down the throats of all North Carolinians.
I often wonder where people that oppose SSM get the “facts” from.
EgggManagementFee would you mind providing the dates where “we have voted homosexual marraige down a couple times too”?
Here I will help you with one date but you need to find the others yourself, November 3rd, 2009. Now what were those other “times”?
Gob Bless America and what a great day!!!!!!!
Yeah take away individual rights to personal happiness!
Hey good for them, I wouldnt want my tax money used for state workers who can claim anyone as a domestic partner and drive up insurance costs for the state.
Yes, we should allow civil marriage for all couples, so the frivolous use of domestic partnerships isn’t abused.
I’m so glad this lady can sleep well at night knowing she has control over other people’s lives.
—
Since our country’s inception there have been groups that have seen the promise of our Constitution, and petitioned our society for equal rights, access to government, and legal protections. And all along the way there have been people predicting doom and gloom and national destruction if we extend these things to one more group, race, sex, or other minority. This North Carolina vote is just another effort by folks threatened by people they don’t even know to stave off change.
Every time they fail in the end, and every time our nation has failed to self-destruct. This Constitutional Amendment in North Carolina will be undone eventually, that is certain.
I was never involved in these discussions prior to 2009. I’ve lived in Maine many years and never made it a secret that I was gay, and no one ever made me feel uncomfortable here. Not my neighbors, not my coworkers, and not even the people I interacted with in neighboring towns. I never saw any need to be vocal about my need for equal treatment, because I saw no one visibly wanting to treat me differently due to my sexual orientation or the gender of my soul mate.
When the Catholic church of Maine and NOM organized to take away rights our state legislature had granted me in early 2009, I suddenly became aware of an entire subset of Mainers who saw me and my life as some threat to them. I decided I needed to become engaged in these discussions to put my point of view in front of them.
Most of the time, I realize I’m not changing their minds. But along the way I have found so many others here who support my rights, even if they aren’t affected by my lack of them.
So thank you— thanks to everyone here who stands up for the gays and lesbians who are fighting for equal treatment under Maine law, who are willing to take time to counter these baseless accusations and hurtful attacks that these trolls put forth.
I do hope we can bring marriage equality to Maine this November, but regardless I rest easy knowing that so many have come before us on this path to equal rights, and although the path is long, it does end with our government granting us equal treatment under the law.
Why did they ban civil unions/domestic partnerships as well as SSM?
It just goes to show you how deep bigotry is in this society. The Religious Right is not happy unless we hate someone for something.
Yet they can marry their first cousins without any kind of issues… Ahh, inbreeding: Keeping people stupid AND bigoted at the same time. At least in Maine they have to have counseling first, and it is taboo in MOST places… http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317142841.htm
Maine does require genetic counseling prior to first cousins being married.
I’d just like to add my two cents to this issue. I am not homosexual but I have many friends who are and I love them regardless. I see absolutely nothing different or odd about them and I firmly believe they deserve to have the same rights that I have. People who talk about homosexuals as if they are diseased or disgusting or that they can just change their mind about their sexuality absolutely disgust me.
You are not God.
You do not have the right to pass judgement over anyone. And God most certainly does NOT hate any of his children because they love a certain person. See? I’m Christian, I believe in God AND I have no problem with homosexuals – so what’s everybody else’s problem? They’re just people. They love who they love and that’s it. What difference does it make if they’re homosexual or heterosexual?
They are not sick, they do not need help, they can’t just “get over it.” Its who they are. No one has the right to descriminate against another person because of the person they are. The fact that its happening..well..THAT’S what is sick.
I’ve vowed to do whatever I can to help my friends achieve their hopes and dreams and allow them to be legally recognized as being in a relationship with whoever they love. Whether that means voting to allow it, marching in a big ol’ protest with a sign or just talking and posting like I am now, I’m going to do it.
One day I hope to sing for my friends at their wedding.
Thank you for your support! It does mean a lot.
Yesterday’s insanity is now today’s sanity. I guess NC
is another state who has spoken.
More pictures of bigots celebrating their bigotry…
This bigot shown in the picture above is Frances Newby of Raleigh North Carolina. She is the director of Ringling Bros & Barnum & Bailey Circus. Feel free to call Barnum & Bailey and tell them you will be spending your hard earned dollars on a show that supports all people, not just the Christian Right Wing homophobic community.