Welcome to the 13th century, NC!

[ballen0351]

Actually, it does. Which is what Article IV, section 1 & Amendment 10 cover, in part.

Alabama can't have a law denying blacks the ability to marry.

So why can they have a law doing that to gays?

Can they do that to retards?

They can do it to gays until the court says they cant. The feds passed a law signed by Clinton they says no state must recognize a gay marriage of another state. I dont see a difference but the feds do and until the courts rule the law is valid.

 

[ballen0351]

If that is true it is pretty damning. I am assuming that you are saying it is not so?

Huh?

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: That's what I thought when I read your post #135.

What I unpicked from "You may not have called them that but others have like to picture of the state that ahowed only the college citys voted against the ban as to imply the rest of the state has never been to college and only educated people voted against the ban" was that you were saying that it was not the case that only the cities with a well educated population did not vote for the ban.

 

[Carol]

It's the more educated counties, not cities

View attachment $nc1.jpg

Additional info:

http://www.southernstudies.org/2012...rolina-lessons-from-the-amendment-battle.html

 

[WC_lun]

Those maps do make a point...

 

[Josh Oakley]

There was a time when I would not have been able to legally marry my wife, because of her being black? It was said that interracial marriage would destroy the institution and sanctity of marriage, was perverse, was against God's will, was unnatural, etc.

And now they are saying this about gay marriage.

But here's the reality. Adam and Steve getting married has no bearing on Jack and Jill's marriage. And as to whether it's God's will... This country is about religious freedom. Is it God's will that I'm atheist? Or that an atheist would serve a chaplain?

... Doesn't matter. My beliefs and religious identity is protected by the constitution.

This country does not base its decisions on any god's will. And there is no argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature. That's why this whole issue was non-sensical to me even when I was a Christian. God's will and the government's will are not the same thing.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

This country does not base its decisions on any god's will. And there is no argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature. That's why this whole issue was non-sensical to me even when I was a Christian. God's will and the government's will are not the same thing.

Are there other cultures that do not support gay or lesbian relationships, or prohibit them, that don't do it based on religion?

 

[ballen0351]

There was a time when I would not have been able to legally marry my wife, because of her being black? It was said that interracial marriage would destroy the institution and sanctity of marriage, was perverse, was against God's will, was unnatural, etc.

And now they are saying this about gay marriage.

But here's the reality. Adam and Steve getting married has no bearing on Jack and Jill's marriage. And as to whether it's God's will... This country is about religious freedom. Is it God's will that I'm atheist? Or that an atheist would serve a chaplain?

... Doesn't matter. My beliefs and religious identity is protected by the constitution.

This country does not base its decisions on any god's will. And there is no argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature. That's why this whole issue was non-sensical to me even when I was a Christian. God's will and the government's will are not the same thing.

It is true the country should never base its decision on religion. But this wasnt the countrys law it was put up for a vote. So while a country shouldnt base a law from any religion as a person your free to base your vote on anything you want. The pro gay side didnt get enough votes. Oh well they can try again next year and keep trying. Or take the fight to the courts. People can vote for any reason they want they dont need a good reason they can vote for a president just because hes black and no other reason. The can vote down gay marriage because his neighbor is gay and his dog keepa you up at night. You dont need a reaaon as to why or how you vote.

 

[ballen0351]

Those maps do make a point...

What point is that?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What point is that?

Education cures ignorance and superstition?

 

[ballen0351]

Education cures ignorance and superstition?

So nobody with a degree voted for the ban in the state? And only people in thoea counties have degrees? OR could it be the big cities are in thoes counties and bigger cities tend to be more left leaning and democrat. Thats where i think more of the nongay marriage vote came from not religion but politics. It goes back to dems vs republican. Gay marriage is a dem thing so republicans said nope . I think some people voted for rwligious reasons but i think alot voted for political reasons.

If we ever get to vote here ill vote no not because of a religious reason but simply because this is something our Gov wanted and ill vote against him on everything he wants. My vote has nothing to do with the issue and morw to do with not going along with the Gov. Which like it or not is my right to use my vote however i want.

 

[ballen0351]

Education cures ignorance and superstition?

So when California voted it down twice were they all uneducated stupid rednecks too? Wheres you maps on its voter break down?

 

[granfire]

So when California voted it down twice were they all uneducated stupid rednecks too? Wheres you maps on its voter break down?

Well, in Cali the Church of Laterday Saints had a hand (and lots of money) in it.

And it's Cali...I think the laws of nature are suspended there....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

btw, a difference of 600,000 votes is pretty close.

Based on comments made by the Prop 8 supporters, I would cite significant ignorance on the matter, especially from the people voting no simply because 'there are more important issues like the economy'. That shows ignorance. More people getting married = more business for halls, officiants, caterers, dj's, photographers, wardrobe + more tax money for counties and states via licenses. That -is- economic stimulation at work, which is estimated as a multi-million dollar boost for each state allowing it. (NY estimates over $400M)

 

[ballen0351]

Well, in Cali the Church of Laterday Saints had a hand (and lots of money) in it.

Might be but id be interested in seeing the break down. They waisted no time with tje southern redneck crap on NC Id like to see how it broke down in other states that have said no as well.

And it's Cali...I think the laws of nature are suspended there....

Thats for sure.

 

[ballen0351]

So again it looks to fall more closely down party lines then anything. Most of the areas that were for gay marriage are more dem areas of the state the bigger cities.

 

[Steve]

Like i said if you get enough people on your side it is what it is. You cant say let the people decide and then get pissed when they dont decide how you want. Its ok for the people to legalize marijuana thats power to the people but when they say sorry no gay weddings its people are stupid we need the govt to step in and fix this.

You cant say people have spoken about health care reform and people are atupid about gay marriage.

When this was set up for a vote the pro gay side had just as much chance and the non gay side to get it passed or failed. They did a crappy job getting there message out. Thats on them.

So, if we all voted to force anyone over 40% body fat to quit their jobs and move into a... let's call it a "camp," you'd be okay with it? I mean, if we had enough votes. If the people of Washington State were 90% in favor of sending fat people to labor camp, you think that's cool? No problem? Fat people should have run a better PR campaign?

There is no scenario where state endorsed (and legally enforced) discrimination is good. It's draconian. We've done it before and it's a shameful chapter in our Country's history. We did it to the Japanese citizens during WWII and it was shameful. And we have obviously learned nothing from it.

On the subject of weed, there is a movement to make it legal, and that will pass or it won't. But there is no movement to prohibit people who listen to Reggae music and have dreadlocks from voting, driving on public streets or enjoying any of the basic government services that we take for granted. It would, IMO, be absurd to think that we would single out people with dreadlocks for some specific, state enforced discrimination.

Do you see the distinction?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

An interesting read and highlights the inequality.

 

[JWLuiza]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

There's a generational gap and a religious divide. They didn't break it down by educational background, but other polls and the correlation of decreased religiosity with education would provide a trend of increased support with increased education. Can't wait for the year where all my friends can get married if they love each other.

 

[JWLuiza]

This is also why civil rights should not be subject to the whim of the majority. We had it wrong with slavery and interracial marriage. We've got it wrong here as well.