Quote :

"And I can call myself "President of the USA" but that doesn't make it so."

LOL.

The president of the us is a thing.

Marriage is a concept.

Are you now suggesting that only the gov. can impart marriage? that gays aren't married because the gov. says so...?

What did people do before government?

Your argument as youve framed it doesn't make any sense.

5/5/2012 12:04:19 AM

Quote :

"What did people do before government Noah Webster?"

5/5/2012 1:37:26 AM

In every way that matters to everyone except those two people (or ten, I think polygamy should be legal anyway) the government's definition of marriage and to whom it decides to grant legal marriage standing to is all that really counts.

So yeah, from a practical matter only what the government recognizes as marriage is important. This is what makes this amendment so incredibly troubling.

5/5/2012 2:00:09 AM

^ which is what a sensible person would think.

What burro seems to be saying is that the gays are trying to hijack the word marriage, and that it doesn't apply to them.

5/5/2012 2:12:29 AM

looking forward to voting later today

5/8/2012 8:46:11 AM

I voted against Amendment I before it was cool

5/8/2012 9:05:29 AM

^^You're actually looking forward to voting? I really wanted to vote, but i certainly didn't look forward to it, another hassle in my day. You must really hate gays if you're actually excited about stickin' it to 'em!

5/8/2012 10:12:34 AM

he's trolling... according to this thread he's trying to troll people by saying

" god it makes me proud that i can show senseless bigotry on this day "

5/8/2012 10:24:32 AM

I don't hate gays.

5/8/2012 10:33:44 AM

why do you think he's trolling? why would someone troll like this? why don't you explain yourself morr?

5/8/2012 10:35:36 AM

I have attempted to put my personal beliefs aside and approach this from a purely legal standpoint. I agree with most points that aaronburro has made:

- the word "marriage" has an established definition: one man, one woman
- the people of NC have an opportunity to solidify the definition of the word in our constitution
- if the public wants to change something, the law should be changed; not a word's definition

I believe in a democracy and would rather the citizens have control in what we deem lawful, rather than judges and politicians overturning laws and deciding themselves what they believe. If the amendment passes and the citizens want to vote again in the future to change the law, then so be it.

- Insurance policies won't be affected. Companies can insure whoever they want.
- Domestic violence cases won't be affected. No state with a similar amendment has ever ruled that it has any impact on domestic violence laws.

5/8/2012 11:16:22 AM

This amendment doesn't define marriage, you idiot.

"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."

5/8/2012 11:18:41 AM

A) The definition of the word 'marriage' includes same sex unions.
B) If the amendment were simply to restate the definition of marriage then why does it prohibit civil unions?

5/8/2012 11:21:30 AM

haha, so Morr is trolling. There's no way his last post was serious.

Quote :

"the people of NC have an opportunity to solidify the definition of the word in our constitution"

hahaha, because that is sooooo important. it must be solidified in our constitution!!!!

5/8/2012 11:25:00 AM

Quote :

"If Amendment One passes on Tuesday, it won’t be our first state constitutional provision regulating marriage. In 1875, we altered our charter to declare that “all marriages between a white person and a Negro or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive are, hereby, forever prohibited."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/05/2044515/the-marriage-amendment-1875.html

This isn't the first time North Carolinians have had the opportunity to vote for "traditional" marriage.

Quote :

"I don't hate gays."

You clearly don't believe that they are deserving of the same human rights that heterosexuals are.

5/8/2012 11:32:43 AM

yep, I'm trolling a thread I created.

5/8/2012 11:32:43 AM

Amendment I says that unmarried domestic partnerships are not valid.

Read it motherfuckers.

5/8/2012 11:39:53 AM

Quote :

"yep, I'm trolling a thread I created."

okay, then you're either ignorant or hateful. i can understand people not agreeing with homosexualitey, but for the life of me, after reading the amendment and trying to understand all the implications, i cannot understand how anybody would think that amending the constitution for this is a good idea. except out of ignorance or hate. that's the only explanation.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 12:39 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 12:39:20 PM

Voted for. Catch me if you can.

5/8/2012 4:01:09 PM

^ you are a dick.

5/8/2012 8:01:50 PM

I don't like the government having the say-so on my religious ceremonies as it is. Some people see things like this and say "yes, I want the government to reflect, recognize, and certify my religious ceremony." I see this and say "I don't want your government stamp of approval sullying my marriage."

The non-sacred legal and financial aspects of two adults consenting to and committing to live together should be all the government concerns itself with and should have as much exclusively to do with the religious sacred ceremony of marriage as documents of incorporation specific to two adults directly - disqualifying consent by proxy such as a legal guardian. Getting married? Well if you're marrying another human adult who agrees then it would probably make sense to register for legal partnership at the same time just as you would register a marriage now. Irreconcilable differences, domestic violence, or other reasons to severing the legal side of the arrangement? The law and courts can handle that; whether or not the spiritual bond of sacred matrimony can or can not be severed is between you and your religion and not something commented on by the government.

Consider this with regard even just to differing definitions of marriage even just within traditional long established Christian faiths, let alone the broader variety of faiths and belief systems. Then you don't have the government doing something like establishing divorce as part of their definition of marriage. That is the government commenting on both the legality of separation and on the fundamental spiritual disagreement between certain large Christian denominations (the largest single denomination and pretty much the rest of them.) The legal aspects of seperation are certainly something I think the government should be fine establishing; it should do so without commenting on or intruding on the spiritual and religious aspects. By establishing and respecting religion and divorce rather than a purely legal association which is simply compatible with those religious concepts the government is unacceptably intruding into the church - even if it just so happens to be barging in to slap a "state approved" stamp on your particular doctrine for the moment.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 8:52 PM. Reason : clarity]

5/8/2012 8:47:34 PM

That's not enough, though. The libertarian view is and can only be that the government doesn't get involved with marriage. The institution of marriage should not exist. Private contracts exist and should exist.

For the religiously motivated, it's not enough to live their lives according to the moral code they claim to believe in. Others have to be forced to live their lives in the same way. It doesn't matter that this directly contradicts the alleged teachings of Christ. The comforting aspects of their religion is that it appeals to their most basic sense of tribalism. They ("followers of Christ") are superior. There is a special place in Heaven just for them, and everyone else literally goes to Hell. For those individuals, there is nothing more satisfying than forcing their beliefs onto others, just as ancient people celebrated when they raided and pillaged a village. Religious conservatives are the barbarians of our time.

Ironically, these same people will claim that others living their life in an unauthorized way equates to "shoving their homosexuality down their throat". No, it's not possible to ignore them. You have to ban their lifestyle.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 8:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 8:53:34 PM

^ exactly, the thought is that the role of the government is to recognize the "contracts" between individuals. If marriage was left to the churches and religious institutions and the role of govt. was in regards to the private contracts that exist between individuals, I think we would be better off.

There are some great articles by some libertarians at the Cato Institute on this. Even then they can vary on what the ultimate role of government is in terms of this, but d357r0yr pretty much hit the nail on the head.

5/8/2012 9:01:01 PM

I told someone that when the Amendment officially passed, I would log in to the Wolf Web to rub you people's noses in it. See, there are liberals I like and liberals I don't like. I'm being nice to the liberals I like, but all the liberals I don't like congregate here on the Wolf Web.

So here goes...


rubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrubrub


That's all. I'm out, see you in another 10 years

5/8/2012 9:13:49 PM

hey, how's Dave, Juliet, and the twins?

5/8/2012 9:22:01 PM

Today, I am proud to have moved out of North Carolina.

5/8/2012 9:22:02 PM

^^^
Congrats on being an evil sack of shit?

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2012 9:25:45 PM

Aha. For a split second I was annoyed at ^^^^ but then I read the backlogs and got a good chuckle.

5/8/2012 9:32:00 PM

Among the youth vote at least I see this causing an anti republican back lash in this state. I bet Obama is happy.

5/8/2012 9:32:18 PM

this is possibly exhibit A as to why you want supermajorities for passing constitutional amendments

5/8/2012 9:34:28 PM

@d357r0y3r

Yeah when I was a kid one of the priests (Catholic, but formerly Episcapalian so he had a wife) would come and would sit in on class and answer random questions we asked him. Someone asked him what he thought about divorce being allowed by law. The gist of his response was that he thought it was a shame that the law commented on marriage at all; it was something along the lines of:

It is lamentable. What is holy about a ceremony or sacrament does not, can not, and should not be imagined to come what the law says with regards to it nor what the wider society defines it to mean. If you believe in the sanctity of an article of your religious beliefs you must do so on faith and faith alone. For the government to enshrine an article of faith under law at best detracts from the meaning and importance of faith - and this is in the rare case when the law and your faith are in total agreement. For that to be true, you would probably have to be the one who wrote the law yourself; if that were the case you'd do well to consider that such hubris is detestable unto God.

I don't think his view that the law and what is sacred are best off if they give each other a wide birth is shared by all his peers though. Now his ideas of faith and science and why he found attempts to pass off articles of faith in the guise of science or common sense to be abhorrent were more standard - at least amongst his peers at the time. I believe he described creationism as a perversion and antithetical to all that was most important and laudable about having faith.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 9:48 PM. Reason : asas]

5/8/2012 9:38:00 PM

The election is rigged, anyone could have predicted that the vote would go the opposite way of what the people really want.

5/8/2012 9:41:44 PM

i'm fucking pissed. what the hell kind of country are we where we deliberately take away a person's freedom?

5/8/2012 9:48:32 PM

wait. whose freedom was taken away, again? who is being thrown in jail now?

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 9:54 PM. Reason : 's]

5/8/2012 9:53:34 PM

this is why both strong government and direct democracy are terrible ideas.

5/8/2012 9:53:59 PM

ITT aaronburro argues that not having the right to do something is the same as being jailed for doing something.

aaronburro, I am now passing a law that says that the state will not recognize drivers licenses from white males.

according to your definition, this is not restricting anyone's rights because they are not being arrested for it.

5/8/2012 10:07:22 PM

again, WHO DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING? please, show me that, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Quote :

"aaronburro, I am now passing a law that says that the state will not recognize drivers licenses from white males. according to your definition, this is not restricting anyone's rights because they are not being arrested for it."

ummm. If I claim that I am married to a man, I don't get arrested. if I try to drive without a license, I get arrested. see the difference?

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 10:11:11 PM

what if you claim you are married to a man, and then mark that you are married on your taxes?

you are arrested for tax fraud.

there, does that help?

5/8/2012 10:13:20 PM

so, AGAIN, you've done more than simply say you are married. you do see that, right? You've said "I qualify for this benefit," when you clearly don't. It's the same reason that I can walk outside and say that I'm Dan Rather and no one bugs me. But if I sign my name as Dan Rather on one of his checks, I go to jail

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 10:16 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 10:15:48 PM

well, you don't have to drive but you can claim you are licensed, right?

5/8/2012 10:16:39 PM

Poll test
Granfather clause
Jim crow

5/8/2012 10:17:39 PM

I can walk around all day long and say I have a driver's license, yes. but when the cop pulls me over while I'm driving, I've then got to actually have a license. or I go to jail


^ care to make a point?

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 10:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 10:18:16 PM

I think the point is just flying above your head. You just need to look up and see it. You're so close. I believe in you.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 10:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 10:18:29 PM

i see you changed it, cause you knew how stupid it was


[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 10:20 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 10:19:43 PM

^^^^i bet if you had a basic literacy test for voting this wouldnt have passed

5/8/2012 10:21:15 PM

So, a man can claim he is married to another man. And he will not be arrested for it.

Yet, according to the law, he can not claim any of the benefits that the government allows straight married couples to have, including tax benefits, visitation rights, protections, etc.

If he attempts to get any of those benefits, he is committing fraud and will be arrested.

Now, you are stating that this is not restricting his rights, correct?

5/8/2012 10:21:22 PM

gov't benefits are NOT rights. the right in this case is the right to live with whoever he wants, to enter into a private contract with whoever he wants. in the same way that if I want to drive on gov't roads, I have to meet gov't qualifications, so too, do I have to meet gov't qualifications if I want to gain gov't benefits for marriage. As well, the ability to obtain a driver's license is available to all, as is the ability to obtain a marriage license

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 10:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 10:22:12 PM

What do you consider "rights?"

Is marriage not a right? I assume then that you would you be fine with the federal government passing a law that banned all marriage?

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 10:23:07 PM

marriage is a right. gov't recognition of your marriage, is not a right
you can't seem to separate the two.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 10:24:39 PM

I think I understand your point.

It's a stupid semantic one, but I understand it.

However, I do not feel that it's fair for one group to have tax benefits/protections/etc over another for no reason other than religious bigotry.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 10:26 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 10:25:55 PM