« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Remember to Vote Yes to Amendment 1 In North Carolina

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 8th, 2012 at 04:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Today voters in North Carolina will go to the polls to consider Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment to ensure liberal judges and gay rights activists are prohibited from changing the definition of marriage under North Carolina law. Polls suggest the measure will pass. But then polls suggested the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi would also pass and it did not.

The Republican Primary is largely over in North Carolina, except in some contested seats. Republicans may not want to turn out. I do hope they turn out to vote for Scott Keadle, however, in his race. And I hope they turn out and join Latino voters and black voters as they did in California to support traditional marriage.

In 31 states that have considered constitutional amendments to uphold traditional marriage, all 31 have passed those amendments. Republicans should go to the polls in North Carolina to make sure North Carolina becomes the 32nd state to uphold traditional marriage.

The last thing we need is for Anthony Kennedy to decide that one state out of 32 is an “emerging national consensus.”

In the past decade, spurred on by the siren song of happiness and fairness and claims for equality and progress when men and women in the country already have equal rights to marry, gay rights activists have systematically sought to redefine marriage as something other than what several thousand years of human history have come to define it. They have been helped by liberal activist judges and deteriorating cultural values. In a day when we should be doing all we can to save marriage, we’re on a course to have its meaning eroded.

Over several thousand years, whether by edict from on high or through trial and error, humans settled on the two parent, heterosexual nuclear household as the most stabilizing force in society. In the past few decades, many people have decided that several thousand years of human history can be ignored in favor of unproven claims of happiness, fairness, progress, and an expanded notion of equality. The standard argument is that with divorce already at 50% in heterosexual households, it is not like gay marriage can undermine what is already being weakened. If it’s already broke, why not break it further?

In fact, I take the reverse position — just because people have already devalued marriage does not mean it should be devalued further — particularly by changing long held definitions and claiming that the equal right we all have today to marry is somehow unequal. At no time in human history until the past few decades have people thought marriage should be anything other than between a man and woman. We should not be so quick to further erode the cornerstone of stability in society and slide further down the slippery slope.

Whether you believe it was a god or just nature, we should not think ourselves so unique as to be so brazen to upend the existing order of our nature when marriage, as it exists and has existed has been tried and tested by billions of people over thousands of years.

I hope North Carolina voters will reaffirm what marriage is within their constitutional framework as a sign that 32 states are not quite ready to give in to progressive norms. Oh, and Amendment 1 passing today would make the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC even more awkward than it already will be.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • rightwardmarch

    I’ve given Amendment 1 a think-over.

    It took a while, but I came to a pretty obvious realization… Amending constitutions should be done with great care. And amending constitutions with the sole purpose of preventing people from an action that has no consequence for others is unwise in the extreme.

    I’m not sure if I’m going to abstain or vote no yet, but for me at least the amending-the-constitution game to gin up votes has grown very old. But that might just be me being conservatively cautious about changing our governing documents for what seems like no purpose other than targeting a narrow group of people I have no truck with.

  • Jack_Savage

    “And amending constitutions with the sole purpose of preventing people from an action that has no consequence for others is unwise in the extreme.”

    I can’t tell you how much I disagree with that statement. That is like saying smoking pot has no consequences for anyone other than the smoker, then wondering why there are bodies hanging from bridges across the border in Mexico.

    The reason the constitution is being amended is not to gin up votes, but to answer a question that thirty years ago no one ever believed would even be asked – “What is the definition of marriage?”

    It’s really as simple as that. And I voted “For”. And to channel Forest Gump, I may not be a smart man, but I know what marriage is.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    your example was idiotic in the extreme. The reason there are bodies on bridges in Mexico is precisely because the drugs are illegal.

    Now you can be in favor of drug laws, but you have to logically admit that if they were decriminalized you would not see Huge Narco gang violence. So that example is unfortunate.

  • acat

    on pikes near the city gates….

    Mew

  • northcack34

    …it will come down to the appellate judges and how they interpet the Amendment. Remember that in NC, judges are elected. I know I’ve posted about this on RedState before, but the judicial races in NC are critical. They have no primary today, but their fundraising deadline is today.

    A friend of mine, David Robinson, is running for NC Court of Appeals and needs to raise $6,000 today to qualify for public financing. Whatever your thoughts are on public financing (and I don’t like it at all), if David doesn’t qualify, his liberal opponent will get the funds and put him at a severe disadvantage. If you’re registered to vote in NC, please give to David Robinson today by going to www.robinsonfornc.com/donate/ today, and please share this with others in NC.

    I apologize for the threadjack, but these judicial races are crucial and the Dems took the advantage in 2002 by taking away party labels on the ballot after they got beat handily in the 2000 judicial elections. Please give to David Robinson today.

  • Jack_Savage

    The statement in question was whether something that appears to be benign affects others. I gave the example in order to show that something that seems individualized and harmless actually isn’t. My apologies for that going over your head like an F-16, and until you are able to understand and absorb what is being discussed I would gently suggest you stay out of it and go back to Nickelodeon.

    Even if drugs were legalized, which I am sure you and Ron Paul would think was really, really cool, a pot smoker would most certainly have an affect on others through increased health care costs, lack of productivity, impaired driving, and obesity due to eating far to much junk food in the evenings, just to mention a few. That is why as a society, best practices would dictate that we not affirm things that do not move us toward the goal of improving society just to make people happy, which is another argument against gay marriage and for the amendment.

    Again, that was the point, which you missed completely. It was not a discussion of whether legalizing drugs will or will not eliminate narco violence, which is actually still up for debate (although not to stoners in the basement, of course), and to concentrate on that aspect of the example is really idiotic in the extreme.

  • wintermute

    but like kyle8 not so delicately pointed out- your analogy was unfortunate. But arguing about analogies is getting into the weeds and away from the point you were trying to make. I dont understand your point about how 30 years ago nobody would be asking the question. I fail to see the relevance given that many wrongs few people questioned that were initially institutionalized in this country have been made right as society grew.

    For the record I believe that forbidding gays from marriage is discrimination and I think its unfortunate these are the arguments we are having given the financial state of the nation. Im obviously not a social conservative.

  • acat

    Government intrusion comes with consequences.

    In the case of the “war on drugs”, one consequence – similar to the “war on alcohol” (a.k.a. prohibition) has been to greatly enrich and empower those who are willing to break the law in the most violent ways.

    In the case of the gay marriage debacle, there are other consequences that you are simply ignoring.

    Your decision to insult kyle8 rather than admitting you chose poorly, and your decision to double-down on your lousy example are not helping your position.

    Mew

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    heard all that crap before ad infinitum Your arguments for prohibition show that you are the one with the arrested development. I also got your original point and the way you made it was poor.

    By the way, just so you will know, NO there is no debate anymore about whether decriminalization will lessen drug violence. The problem is that so many gung ho social conservatives have not read a single damn bit of the many years worth of well researched literature on the failed drug war. You also reveal your ignorance by the common practice of assailing anyone who brings this up as being either a “stoner” (which I am not) or an RP supporter (which I am not). The usual way a liberal argues.

    And as for the original pint of the post, You are fighting a losing battle. I don’t like it, but we just have too many more important things to do right now, and the public opinion has shifted on gay marriage. It is going to happen.

  • renl57

    There are a lot of behaviors that citizens engage in that may be destructive to society.

    The question we should be asking is not “What is the definition of marriage?”, but “What is the purpose of a constitution?”

    As I see it, the purpose of a constitution is to define how a national or state *government* should work. The U.S. Constitution is like that. It doesn’t say much about what us ordinary citizens are required to do. It says a lot about what the Government *cannot* force us to do.

  • rowanconservative

    The narrow group of people this amendment targets is the liberal judges who try to circumvent the existing laws and will of the people by redefining the word “marriage”.

  • tricianc

    In early voting on Saturday, I voted FOR the NC Marriage Amendmen. Here’s just one reason why. I am Catholic so this affects me …directly.

    THIS YEAR Catholic adoption and other agencies had to shut down rather than sacrifice their religious beliefs and morals. I have no opposition to anyone’s life style. I don’t think it’s the Government’s job one way or the other.

    The opposition I do have is the forcing it on those that do not… or cannot believe in it. Just as same sex couples have their beliefs and wish them to be respected, so do individuals and religions. In Illinois, gays (individuals or couples) are allowed to adopt children, I don’t have to like it but it is law, fine. What is NOT fine is that instead of going to the numerous agencies that allow gay adoption, some went to Catholic agencies whom they know doesn’t allow it. They sued when they were turned away as they knew they would be. Due to lawsuits and the law that was then lobbied for and passed, those Catholic adoption agencies have to shut down.

    Who was hurt? The children.

  • Bill S

    The fact that unprincipled people refuse to recognize immorality doesn’t make them less wrong.

    I try to ignore that I despise libertarian thought, but these exchanges re-cement it every time.

  • acat

    that both drug use and homosexuality are wrong .. what is the correct government response?

    Mew

  • kipling

    Marriage [between one man and one woman] is the bedrock of a civil and prosperous society.

    How does the radical redefinition of that institution to fit the demands of less than 1% of the general population not impact others? The destruction of the nuclear family will have major consequences.

  • elon

    Anyone should be able to choose to spend time with, have a relationship with, or enter into any contract with any other adult who agrees, even if the evidence shows that it is harmful – adults get to make their own decisions.

    However, when people try to take a word with a specific meaning, and try to make that word mean everything, then that word becomes a useless word that means nothing.

    The same-sex issue isn?t the only ? or even the primary ? issue. Western Civilization has already been fervidly working to destroy the words ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ since at least the forties and fifties ? first by propping up the ?man? as the stereotypical ?king? of the house who was to be ?served?, and then by (predictably) rebelling against this caricature of the family. Instead of adding more nails to the coffin, culture needs to re-learn what it is to have mutual, self-sacrificial love and respect between fathers and mothers who stay together so the kids stop being as screwed up as we’ve been the last few generations.

    Instead of teaching following generations what we were ?taught? since the 60s ? that life is to be lived mostly for my own benefit and pleasure, that we need to be focused mostly on ?my rights?, and that sex is all about what makes ?me? happy, and that if my wife stops being pleasing to me I should just chuck her and get a new one and leave the kids in a pool of confusion and hurt, and that basically everyone should live selfishly about everything (except, of course, money); Instead of all this, we should be re-discovering what a healthy family actually looks like (yes, that rare species does really exist).

    Only then will we end the dystopian slide we are on with each generation more angry, more directionless, more undisciplined, more resentful of the love they deserved but never got as children, and more confused about their potential in this world than the last generation. I?m not talking about religion here at all, because that doesn?t seem relevant to people outside of it. No, I?m talking about civilization itself, and the fact that the family is THE necessary institution to continue it. The genuine, healthy family, with a respectful, loving relationship between the father and the mother must be admired, and supported in every way possible if it is to ever be re-claimed.

    I?m not saying it is the government?s job to re-teach these things to the country ? not at all. But the state does have an interest in having children grow up safely. It is the state?s job to recognize that the ideal, safest home for children is in the home of their biological parents. That is the ONLY reason the government has for having ANY involvement with marriage in the first place.

    Objective facts show that the best, healthiest home for children is one that is run by their biological parents who love each other.

    The facts are that studies prove that children who grow up in a home in which the adults are not blood related parents are many many times more likely to suffer from physical or sexual abuse. Children who grow up in single parent homes are many many times more likely to suffer physical or sexual abuse as well, and are more likely to commit suicide, be on drugs, be in a gang, or fail at school. This isn?t conditioning, this is a fact.

    There are many families who are making do with a less than ideal situation. So many single parents live heroic lives to ensure that their children have all that they can provide for them. But even the most heroic of them can?t make up completely for the missing parent that their child deserves, misses, and needs. And many adoptive parents love and care for their children without blemish. I am not faulting them. I am only saying what the studies show ? the best, safest home for a child is in the home of their biological father and mother who love each other.

    Adults can pick what ever relationship they choose for themselves. But the government has an interest in protecting children. Based on objective evidence, the government has an interest in helping biological fathers and mothers stay together if they can. That is the only legitimate reason the government has for having any involvement in marriage. The Social Security and tax advantages of marriage are legitimate means the government has for helping to keep biological moms and dads together. EOS

  • Jack_Savage

    I had also forgotten how I despise libertarian thought, how utterly narcissistic, unrealistic and worthless it is when taken to its logical conclusion, and this is indeed a good reminder.

    Short answer. Acat, smarter people than you and I have come to the conclusion that some form of government is necessary. The Founders are a really good example. Laws in a democratic society codify what that society affirms, and what it rejects. That is what Amendment One is about – what does North Carolina affirm as the definition of marriage? It is a simple question, which is about to receive a simple answer.

    This is not about breaking down a bedroom door and arresting two people who are sodomizing each other until they bleed out their ears. I honestly don’t care a whit if two consenting adults are doing that. What I do care about is what we as Americans are affirming as a best practice when it comes to marriage and families. You seem to be conflating these two points.

    kyle8 – your assertion that nothing that anyone does in privacy affects anyone else is stupid on its face, except in extremely rare and odd instances, for a myriad of reasons that I won’t recount here. Legalizing drugs may prevent narco-violence, but it may result in an increase in traffic fatalities, failed marriages, unemployment and health problems, all of which are eventually paid for by society. Interdependence and the need for order is simply a fact, it has been a fact in all of human history, and no utopian libertatian arguments can change that.

    I am glad you are not a stoner or a Ron Paul supporter, and I am also glad we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Amendment One is on the ballot in NC, I am voting, so I need to make a choice, whether I have more important things to do or not. And I have made that choice.

    It does seem I am a little on edge today, so since I would rather stick my head up a goat’s ass than argue with a libertarian, off to the barn I go. I hope that doesn’t offend or insult anyone, but since I am typing this in the privacy of my home it shouldn’t really have any effect.

  • Jack_Savage

    An amendment to the constitution of North Carolina is on the ballot because, unlike thirty years ago, there seems to be a question about what the definition of marriage is. This question has effects on most every single part of society, so instead of litigating and re-litigating the issue, the amendment was proposed. If passed, this amendment will circumvent endless litigation about issues related to marriage.

    You seem to say that because the definition of marriage was apparent on its face thirty years ago, it was a wrong that needs to be corrected.

    You are correct in that this country is in a terrible situation financially. The budget is not on the ballot today, however – this amendment is. Thus the discussion.

  • Jack_Savage

    But in this particular case I would answer you by saying that drug use, or lack therof, is less of a foundational aspect of society than is marriage. Foundational issues, like freedom of speech, press, etc., need to be dealt with constitutionally, whereas other situations can be dealt with effectively through legislation.

    I like the point, though.

  • wintermute

    on the premise that heterosexually limited marriage is whats holding society together. I don’t see any evidence of that at all.

    I’d rather not have anybody dictating who can/cant be married but it looks like constraining state/federal power in this area is not in the general discourse.

  • wlcjr

    The problem with ammendment 1 is that not only does it effectively ban gay marriage, which I would certianly support, but it also bans civil unions, which I can not support. It is a “bridge too far” to deny relationship rights protection to gays completely. This kind of legislation is out of touch with mainstream American society, and becomes the poster-child example for political opposition.

  • lineholder

    For me, it’s really simple. The moral absolutes set forth in the Bible provide a positive guidelines by which we should live our lives. They keep us, as individuals to the side of what is of good in life. “Thou shalt not kill” is one of the precepts that keeps us from becoming murderers. “Thou shalt not steal” keeps us from becoming thieves. When enough people hold to those precepts, it keeps our society as a whole to the side of what is of good.

    We’re losing those precepts in our society, one by one. That’s the slippery slope we’re on, and it is undermining the moral strengths of our society as a whole. Maybe people just don’t see how dangerous this truly is for any society to lose such precepts, but I do see the danger of it.

    So, I went with what I believed to be right, for myself, for future generations, for my state, and for the society in which I live. I don’t regret doing it and never will. That may offend those who don’t agree with those precepts, but it IS my country every bit as much as it is theirs.

  • acat

    Well .. not for long anyway.

    I would like for you to, perhaps when you’re done, to clarify what you mean by “affirmative laws”.

    Laws establish the outer boundary markers – the point beyond which civil behavior should not go. Murder, rape, robbery, vandalism, failure to pay taxes.

    How does an “affirmative law” work? Can you provide a non-marriage example of such a law?

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    Who is saying that some form of government isn’t necessary?

    Libertarians I know and read support all of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Libertarians talk about courts and federalism—things that don’t exist without government.

    This kind of straw man argument is totally unproductive. You acknowledge that you are on edge, so I will say nothing more.

  • JSobieski

    However, given all of the examples of state courts and federal courts playing games on this issue, the courts have let the population with little alternative than to constitutionalize the point.

    Defining marriage is not saying what citizens are required to do.

  • westcoastpatriette

    —

  • westcoastpatriette

    ,,,,

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Cool story bro.

  • huskerchuck

    We made this decision in Nebraska overwhelmingly several years ago. Of course, at the time, we were ridiculed as exlusionary, not being welcoming to homosexuals, etc. And now, hopefully after today, 32 states will have taken back their definition of marriage and cemented it in their constitution to prevent the decisions of judges in other states from being used against them to require their home state to recognize marriage in a form that has never been recognized as marriage.

    Like it or not, unless a federal constitutional amendment was possible (likely not going to get the necessary votes in Congress anytime soon), the best solution at this point is for as many states as possible to pass such amendments, to allow states to preserve the definition of marriage, and by so doing, preserve the definition of the nuclear family. Elon’s commentary above was well thought out, and provides the basis for the state’s involvement in this issue, and provides the basis for support of this on a state by state basis.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    For those who say our government doesn’t and shouldn’t impose morality, I’d like them to explain just what the basis for our laws is.

  • funwithknives

    gets you really alone in that barn you got, friend.

    I’m a lapsed large ” L” libertarian, but not lapsed due to your stated Biases.
    I walked away ’cause of Purity Protocols and all that entails.
    …and here you are, with Version 2.0, with all the venom and seeming hatred I’ve seen before.
    I’d pity you iffin’ I gave a dam but I won’t,and don’t. You would not care, anyhow….and more’s the pity…..

    How many of The Evil Spawn do you know, personally ? Meet and greets? Outreach?

    So nothing, Nada, zilch, good comes from Libertarian thought?
    A few dozen authors want to discuss this with you. What’s your barn’s address?

  • streiff

    what kind of “relationship rights” would you advocate reserving to gays that can’t be achieved via a will, power of attorney, etc.?

  • elon

    place in which to raise children – by their biological father and mother. In my post downthread I point out that studies indicate that homes with both biological parents are the safest, stablest homes for children. You may remember when those studies came out.

  • APA Guy

    We are a Judeo-Christian nation. If marriage is not “holding society together”, it’s because too many have turned away from Christ and selfishly dissolve marriages instead of honoring their covenants.

  • wintermute

    ? 51?1.2. Marriages between persons of the same gender not valid.

    I am not sure what this amendment is supposed to accomplish besides prohibiting civil unions?

  • wintermute

    so argument from faith don’t really resonate. However I would say that I have absolute faith in the power of the BELIEF in those scriptures. I pretty much recognize Im in the minority here about these issues and thats ok. All I can do is argue.

  • APA Guy

    Not many agree with me among the rest of the college faculty, either :)

  • Jack_Savage

    And the simple fact is that at this point in my life there are some things that are completely frustrating and exhausting, and libertarianism is one of them for me. Don’t confuse hatred with complete frustration.

    If you *didn’t* mean this for me, then hell yeah! What he said!

  • Jack_Savage

    …at that hanging curve ball I threw everyone.

  • Jack_Savage

    If we agree that some government is necessary, then we argue only over details. It seems the disagreement with libertatians comes most often when those details involve issues that can be categorized as “moral”. Marriage, in my view, encompasses vast swaths of territory – societal, moral, ethical, and can’t be reduced to small-government arguments.

    Libertarianism, in my view, comes far too close to post-modernism, and does fall completely apart when argued to its conclusion.

    See what a trip to the barn and a martini at lunch can do?

  • Jack_Savage

    If we agree that some government is necessary, then we argue only over details. It seems the disagreement with libertatians comes most often when those details involve issues that can be categorized as “moral”. Marriage, in my view, encompasses vast swaths of territory – societal, moral, ethical, and can’t be reduced to small-government arguments.

    Libertarianism, in my view, comes far too close to post-modernism, and does fall completely apart when argued to its conclusion.

    See what a trip to the barn and a martini at lunch can do?

  • wlcjr

    It’s not about what rights protections I would offer. The public generally favors civil unions, and civil unions allow the distinction of being legally separate from marriage, thus “preserving marriage”, which is the aim of the ammendment… or so I am told.

    My point is that if Republicans push an ammendment which denys a publically supported compromise in a state which has already banned gay marriage legally, then don’t be surprised when you are perceived negatively.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Don’t insult our intelligence by pretending you’re not advocating a policy position here.

    Argue honestly.

  • Martin Knight

    If same sex can get married, why not same family?

  • acat

    Hopefully you’ll answer my question above. What is an “affirmative law” ?

    Mew

  • docaja

    The bodies hanging from bridges are a result of laws restricting access to marijuana, thereby creating black markets controlled by murderous outlaws. Smoking marijuana, per se, does not result in anyone being hanged from a bridge, tree, or any other sort of cross member.

  • JSobieski

    So is serving another without expectation of compensation.

    So if you are saying that you support the government making morality mandatory—-I think you are hitting “the” issue that divides us.

    Either you think that government exists to protect individual rights OR you just want government to enforce a different moral code than what liberals want government to enforce.

    Morality that relates to protecting the rights of another should be encoded into law.

    Morality that protects someone from themself should not.

  • streiff

    I don’t think that makes a compelling case for providing them.

    Legally recognizing a fraudulent simulacrum of a real institution is hardly an act of courage or wisdom.

  • texasref

    Neither NC law nor the NC constitution can trump the upcoming Supreme Court decision in 13 months.

  • texasref

    Since you and I have a respectful history and you actually appreciate the fact I take stabs at your incisive questions unlike most others, so give me some credit I’m swinging at some wicked curveballs here :-)

    I agree with the law against first-degree family members having sexual relations because it can lead to birth defects. However, I see no role for the government in saying who can and can’t have sexual relations when there can be no possible birth defects, as long as it is between consenting adults. I would define “adult” as age 16 or older for this purpose, as does the majority of the states.

    How about this…let’s all just make sure the church each of us attends is right on this issue and hold our church accountable to marrying only the people that should get married, and leave the government out of choosing which marriage-related religious prescriptions and proscriptions to follow.

  • wintermute

    that I dont think the government should be involved in people’s lives at this level. Id like to think that my potential future vows to my wife are not subject to a bunch of clowns up at the statehouse.

    I really didn’t want to respond to your comment b/c the subject makes me shudder but the truth of the matter is that no matter how disgusting I find that behavior to be, its going to occur with or without any legal designation. *retch* If there is a church that would marry 2 siblings, then that’s their own screwed up issue. Ugh.

  • texasref

    This amendment goes beyond gay marriage and doesn’t even let the government grant civil rights equally in the form of civil unions. It is just asking to be overturned as animus lacking a rational basis. It is one step removed from banning being gay itself, which has already been ruled unconstitutional in 2003.

  • streiff

    what is the statistical risk of birth defects of a incestuous birth? What is the risk in any other birth?

    Up until the mid Victorian era the preferred marriage partner was a cousin. Was there some outbreak of imbecility that escaped historical notice?

  • streiff

    right now. That is a lot yuckier (unless the two chicks are hot) than siblings getting married.

  • texasref

    My vision of what is moral differs slightly from yours. My morality says there is no rational basis to prevent any loving adult couple from receiving the same governmental recognition as any other. However, I would not presume to force your pastor to officiate any ceremonies he does not find moral. For example, I support the conscience exemption for pharmacists who are pro-life (and not just because I happen to be pro-life).

  • streiff

    use a dictionary if you have to.

    Civil unions are already available. It is called “marriage.” All you are really quibbling about is gay marriage.

    And the US has never banned anyone from being gay though, rightfully, homosexual acts have been outlawed in Western culture for over two millenia.

  • JSobieski

    Giving money to the poor is moral, but it shouldn’t be legally required. Giving up your life for another is moral, but it shouldn’t be legally required (in most circumstances).

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    there’s no restriction for brothers and sisters to marry, including brother to brother or sister to sister. And you can’t have it both ways. There are either restrictions or there aren’t.

  • barleycorn

    Jack’s example was just fine. Kyle’s petty gripe is analogous to someone objecting to likening the ’27 Yankees to the ’85 Bears based on the fact that the Yankees had a great offense while the Bears had a great defense.

  • acat

    Mew

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Perhaps this explains a bit….

  • streiff

    the type of argument you are responding to is really typical of people who don’t want to fight over icky social issues. They are perfectly willing to enshrine their own biases into law but unwilling to allow anyone else’s biases the same opportunity.

    The issue is really simple. Can the state regulate marriage? If it can, then it can forbid gay marriage in the same way it can forbid pedophilia or bestiality or any other sexual misadventure. If it can’t regulate marriage and moreover, since Lawrence v Texas, can’t regulate sexual activity then anyone can marriage anything or any group of things.

  • acat

    That two same-gender potentially non-hot individuals are shacking up, or that a “church” is “marrying” them, or both?

    More importantly, what role do you see for government in this?

    Mew

  • streiff

    so long as both chicks are hot.”

    But my wife wouldn’t let me.

  • zachv

    There’s about 1,200 rights that are granted to couples in marriages. You’d not be able to list them all out and categorize each and every one of them because it’d be a headache.

    But for example, some of the rights I won’t be able to receive through private contracts are: Joint tax returns, immunity from testifying against partner, second parent adoption, ability to inherit in absence of will, and depending upon the health care / job benefits plan … what exactly you’re able to benefit from.

    Likewise, there’s contracts that you are able to draw up but don’t always pan through in court. There’s unfortunately a lot of families that are not accepting of their gay relatives and therefore because there is no marriage/civil union license, they are able exclude the spouse from making health decisions (pull the plug), inheritances, death benefits, etc.

  • Bill S

    I’m sure they were assured their pastors wouldn’t be forced to marry gays, either.

    The slippery slope is alive and well because the issue is not marriage. The goal is full, forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as “normal” by everyone. Marriage is a stepping stone.

  • texashistorian

    though, is it not, Streiff? If all we are talking about here is a legal arrangement like any other business partnership, then why would any of us want to oppose it? We who oppose gay marriage do so because of what we believe marriage to mean above and beyond a mere legal arrangement.

    If we understand marriage to mean something beyond the civil law, then I am not sure of the societal harm in allowing homosexuals to have some sort of legal arrangment between them that is as simplified as a the civil union side of marriage in order that they can make hospital visits/decisions etc.

  • rightlane1111

    n/t

  • streiff

    people who co-habit don’t have those privileges either.

    The institution of marriage exists for a reason. For several millenia it has been the building block of society. Society, in its turn, has every right to regulate marriage.

    BTW As to “joint tax returns”, if you’re married you realize that is only a benefit if your spouse isn’t working. That’s why it’s called the “marriage penalty.”

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    to punish those of us who do not accept homosexuality as normal under the guise of “hate” crimes.

  • streiff

    then that is your view. I don’t subscribe to that view. I don’t see the benefit to society of allowing marriage-lite.

  • lineholder

    For liberals, NC has been considered “gateway to the South”. Historically, the state runs right-of-center, meaning that it has long been inclined to support traditional values. This state is the “experimentation lab” for liberals, trying to find out what will or will not work in breaking down resistance to liberal positions, etc.

    From the late 1800s, Dems controlled either one or both portions of the NCGA, which gave them plenty of leeway in using various measures to break down social resistance to forsaking traditional values. The “various measures” alluded to do include biases of judicial entities within the state. In 2008, Obama won here with just over 50% and the Dems thought the time had come when they would finally have the breakthrough they were looking for.

    Then came Obamacare. By the time the midterms rolled around in 2010, a rather significant shift to the right had taken place in NC, and people voted overwhelmingly to give Repubs control of both house and senate in the state NCGA. This threw liberals plans into a tail spin, what with redistricting, voter ID laws, the bill defunding Planned Parenthood and other such right-of-center pieces of legislation that were more in context of what this state has trended traditionally. Those pieces of legislation I just mentioned were strongly supported by the people here, and Perdue vetoed most of them. Then the NCGA got the votes to over-ride the vetoes. Then the judicial branch put the brakes on implementation of those legislative changes. And add into it that this is a right-to-work state with Unions breathing down our necks right now…well, it might give you an idea of how deep this power struggle goes.

    Amendment 1 is just one sliver of it. “We the people” get a chance to speak for ourselves in regards to whether or not we want to try to protect and preserve the traditional definition of marriage. The liberals in our state would just as soon we not have that chance.

    I honestly do not know what the outcome of the vote will be. Like Erick said above, we’ve been hearing the “fairness” and “equality” mantra for a good while, especially from the group of “academics” across this state of mine. My instincts say that, because of the last few years, there are people in this state who have come to realize that a portion of that mantra is a political ploy, nothing more and nothing less. It doesn’t hold the kind of sway that it would have five years ago.

    Truthfully, understanding that a certain amount of it IS because of that power struggle is what convinced me, beyond any shadow of doubt, that I should vote my conscience and go with what I believed to be right in this case.

  • westcoastpatriette

    and these are the things center77 refuses to acknowledge.

  • acat

    Admittedly, very fashionably dressed whiners …

    Mew

  • texasref

    …”called ‘marriage’ “…not to me they aren’t..

    oh wait but you expect me to turn straight, that’s right I forgot.

    Give me a break.

    And then you say its ok to be gay but not to act that way

    How would you feel if a country outlawed being Christian, saying it’s ok to say youre Christian just not allowed to ACT Christian. They are one and the same and you know it.

    Your position is so bankrupt you can’t even argue it straight up.

  • huskerchuck

    And to extend Melody’s thought process, if there’s no restriction under TWO loving adults, what’s the difference between that and three or more loving adults? By this same thought process, what prevents two females and a male, or two males and two females from marrying as a unit, and calling it a marriage? Where do you ultimately draw the boundary? And why is the boundary drawn there, to where you have allowed x but not allowed y, versus allowing whatever an individual is interested in? And I won’t jump the shark on this, but certainly a group marriage concept isn’t that far a stretch.

    I’d rather keep the boundary where it is currently and has been for millenia, rather than trying to stretch it to, as stated below, eventually force acceptance, not tolerance, but acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.

  • Jack_Savage

    I really don’t know. But in a broader sense, there are some behaviors that society deem good in order that society may continue. Marriage, for example. Supporting children. Staying on the correct side of the road while driving.

    In every law that rejects a behavior (murder), there is an affirmation (not killing people is good).

  • texasref

    that did such a thing.

    But then again, I’m one of those fringe wild-eyed libertarians who don’t think provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are constitutional (see Dale v Boy Scouts of America) where private entities or businesses are required not to discriminate. Only the government must be required not to discriminate. If people don’t approve of a diner that serves only whites, they should vote with their feet and their dollars, and I hope that diner goes under. But I don’t think the government should dictate to any private entity, including any church, who they should or shouldn’t let into their organization, etc. That’s why I respect the Boy Scouts having religious and heterosexual requirements for membership. The government has no business dictating to them any differently, and if people don’t like it, they are welcome to found their own organization.

  • Jack_Savage

    “So if you are saying that you support the government making morality mandatory?-I think you are hitting ?the? issue that divides us.”

    I am not saying that at all.

    The marriage issue, in my view, is not necessarily a moral one. I hardly ever argue it from a Biblical perspective, although I certainly can, because it can be argued very effectively from a non-Biblical perspective.

    The bottom line is – what form of domestic relationship is BEST for society? Within that is the question of whether it benefits society to positively affirm this “best” domestic relationship, bearing in mind that only one thing can be “best” even though we all may get trophies at the end of the season.

    For gay marriage advocates, the burden is on them to prove that same-sex marriage is as good or better for society than heterosexual ones, or at least to show that affirmation of heterosexual domestic partnerships is not beneficial to society. So far I haven’t heard anything that comes close to meeting that standard.

  • Jack_Savage

    “…heterosexually limited marriage is whats holding society together.”

    I am not saying that. I am saying that it is essential, and worth affirming.

  • Christine

    “I am not sure of the societal harm in allowing homosexuals to have some sort of legal arrangment between them that is as simplified as a the civil union side of marriage in order that they can make hospital visits/decisions etc.”

    Why are you limiting this concern to gays?

    If I am not married, I should be able to name any person as my “next of kin”. That person should be able to make hospital visits, decisions, etc. The government should not decide for me who is my next of kin. I may not have a good relationship with my parents and would prefer to have my cousin, or my best friend, or the guy I’m living with, be the most important person in my life. I should be allowed to do that.

    Making this an easy, straightforward process eliminates a decent percentage of the argument against civil unions, and benefits everyone who is not in a legal marriage, not just a special interest group.

  • Jack_Savage

    It went something like, “Between here and the absurd there would be no backstop.”

  • Christine

    what would happen if a nice group of 10-20 people all showed up one day in CA or Mass to apply for a civil union. Or maybe one really small town. Hey, they are a loving family unit and they want to be recognized!!!

  • streiff

    by every major religion and by several thousand years of human history.

    Personally, I’m not asking for you to turn anything. And I don’t really care what goes in which of your orifices. No one is telling you to not act gay.

    What I do care about is a cheapening of our culture to accept what is definitionally deviant behavior as normative.

    I don’t support any sort of legal recognition of any relationship outside those generated via the institution of marriage and I believe that institution should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman.

    If you can’t handle that, well I can’t help you.

  • wintermute

    people will come around, but probably not fast enough for your liking.

  • JSobieski

    If government has no basis to say “no” to two people who consent to something, what stops:
    marriage chains? On person could be married to lots of people for reasons re: goverment benefits.
    group marriages? Families that marry each other. Great way to keep SS payments coming.
    related persons? If its not about procreation, how do you stop a parent from marrying an adult child? Siblings?

    Marriage is currently a narrowly defined thing that you can choose by comporting your own behavior to fit.

    If we change marriage to fit the consent/intent of what adults want, it will be close to infintely fluid.

    There are already marriage chains in Europe.

  • JSobieski

    If marriage is stripped of all traditional family building content, it really is just an arrangement between two or more people legally competent to enter into an arrangement.

    No presumption of kids.
    No presumption of romantic love.
    No presumption of exclusivity.
    No presumption of any meaning behind the arrangement.

    When entire families marry great grandpa to keep the SS payments coming, marriage, SS, and the country will be destroyed

  • Jack_Savage

    Exactly?

  • rightlane1111

    I love your comments and you are one smart cat…but I have a quibble with you concerning your comment.

    Let me address pot, Astra Zeneca, Merck, etc.

    Pot is a gateway drug. By that I mean that it leads to the person using more powerful drugs to enhance their ability to escape reality. I see your point concerning prohibition and alcohol is after all, a drug. However, people use that in moderation and don’t have a problem with it. However, as with alcohol, many more people than society cares to admit use pot as an escape mechanism. No…it is not some gene thing. It is a result of the breakdown of personal responsibility. Too many consequences to other people with pot. Other people suffer because of the effects of pot.

    Ask any person who smokes pot why and they will say that it relaxes them, it allows them to kick back. What preceded the smoke…something they did not want to confront. So…it is in effect, a tool to not only allow sloth with regard to the problem but inhibitions are so relaxed that in some cases, more often then we would like to see, accidents take place. Pot also leads to a mindset of self-centeredness. So, if I am driving along the road and someone is “high” on pot and runs into me…I become the victim. It’s no different than this administration’s concept of redistribution…there is the give and the gimme mindset. “I needed some relief to my stressful life…and too bad I smoked so much and you were in my way when I crossed the yellow line”

    Prescriptions drugs, when not taken EXACTLY as prescribed have lead to many people being addicted to them. Oxycondone is an excellent pain reliever…but you can’t use it but a few times and you are addicted. Again…was the person born with a gene that turned on a switch in his head? No.

    Drugs are a big problem in the USA today. People don’t want to face up to what has to be done…they would rather dream…more or less what our current Congress seems to do…DREAM…and look at where that has gotten us…kicking the can down the road.

    It’s a slippery slope where uninhibited behavior is accepted as the norm facilitated by the drug.

    Then we get into homosexuality. When this issue first came up it was argued that Gays needed laws enacted to allow their ability for powers of attorney, to visit their dying partners, etc. Now…the slippery slope comes into effect and the institution of marriage is under assault because two people of like sex want their way. Well, the government gave them their way…but it was not good enough.

    Do you think, Kitty, that this whole exercise is really about getting God and the Church out of the people’s lives? I do. In my religion, marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. Marriage is now being disparaged by the Left. This also hurts with regard to the unit called the family. Children need a male and female role model.

    I do not believe that homosexuality is a moral behavior but I leave that up to God. However, when, after constant pecking, they want to blemish marriage and put themselves into a category wherein procreation is impossible and they dictate to religions, under the guise of discrimination that they are equal under the tenets of the church…that is an affront to the First Amendment, IMO.

    Should there be a question in your mind concerning drugs, pot, etc., visit any jail and you will find that 98% of the inmates are in there on our dime due to alcohol and drug addiction, pot being the precursor. Oh…and Kitty…don’t think those drug dealers from Mexico and SA in California/Arizona jail are not hooked on drugs themselves…because they are.

  • blakemoney

    and I just don’t give a crap about it. It’s a small percentage of the population who want this. It doesn’t affect me in the least, and any “ethical” argument about marriage is outdated. There used to be strong ethical arguments about mixed marriages, but do we think there ought to be laws against it?

    My father is about as conservative as they get and growing up in the South in the 40s and 50s, it took him a long time to admit he was on the wrong side of the civil rights movement. This gay marriage thing is going in the same direction. Less and less people in America are objecting to it, and eventually, it’s going to be looked at the same way we look at interracial marriage today. Why torture ourselves by taking a stand on this? Why can’t we focus on more important issues instead of these divisive issues that Democrats gleefully use to paint us as extremists who are out of touch with evolving national values?

  • acat

    A co-habit of long enough term becomes a legal marriage… including alimony and child support burdens when it finally ends.

    I am not, note, denying a thing about marriage as a fundamental building block of culture, nor am I denying that Society has a right to define what that building block is called, and who can and can’t have it.

    I am, however, asking what role you see government filling as enforcer of Society’s rights, given that Society is clearly of two minds on this.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    IF the pro-gay marriage crowd was smart, they would find a way to allow gay marriage without opening the door to having to give the status to any two adults who want their relationship so covered.

    There is an important slippery slope invovled here. Pretending it doesn’t exist just makes your case less persuasive.

  • streiff

    support “common law:” and am willing to support common law in principle. The same way I think “adverse possession” is a crappy idea but it is the way land possession can be decided.

    If society is of “two minds” on this the way to decide it is via legislative means. The fact that supporters of gay marriage are unwilling to take their imagined “marriage equality” crap to the voters tells you all you need to know about what their real agenda is.

  • lineholder

    The day for worrying about how Dems might paint us needs to be over and done with. The majority of them are morally bankrupt as it is. And we shouldn’t be letting people who are morally bankrupt define what the “evolving national values” of this country are going to be.

    Traditional values have served this nation well in the past two hundred years and will continue to do so in a way that has a positive impact in our society provided that we the people take what opportunities we have to protect and preserve the place those traditional values play in our society as a whole.

  • timhawke

    If the government can decide what form of domestic relationship is “BEST for society” and then mandate that type of relationship, why can’t it also decide what health plan is best for me, and mandate that health plan? Or decide what kind of job is most useful for society and require that I get the training necessary for that job and then do it? Or decide what uses of my hard-earned salary is BEST for society, take all of it, and use it for those purposes?

  • streiff

    and how it would be framed to overcome enough objections to allow it to win a statewide vote anywhere.

  • zachv

    I’d trust my C.R.’s to vote for me to get married more than I’d trust 65+ yr old Democrats.

  • streiff

    because that covers a lot of waterfront

  • aesthete

    Blasphemy was a capital offense under Levitical law (the same cannot be said of drug use, which is not mentioned at all in the Levitical code). It’s also at the tippity-top of the Ten Commandments. Do you think that the First Amendment’s allowance of blasphemy is, to use your words, “narcissistic, unrealistic and worthless” because it allows an act that is among the most offensive acts against God? Are we affirming blasphemy as a good thing, simply because we make it available as one of many actions that doesn’t carry legal sanction in a free society?

    No one on this thread who is in favor of legalization thinks that drug use is a “best practice” of society. Speaking for myself, I’m just tired of seeing murderous cartels enriched and non-violent offenders put in a cage with rapists and murderers, in return for nothing concrete. Far from utopian, I am disappointed that the real-world examples of Portugal, the Netherlands, Prohibition-era America, and other data available are entirely rejected by drug warriors, in favor of inconsistent “morality” which incoherently places drug use as a worse offense than drinking, blaspheming, and poor health in general. (I guess those are best practices for society, huh?)

    Trying to create and mandate a society which has as moral avenues only “best practices” fails every time. Either people just give up when the bottom falls out (as in Prohibition), ignore and spread the costs amongst the general public (as in the War on Drugs), or double down and create dystopian hellholes in favor of this abstracted “best practices” society (see Iran, N Korea). I guess we’ll see which one we choose.

  • Jack_Savage

    Then it would mean absolutely nothing, so the objective would have been achieved.

  • PowerToThePeople

    How about we let the people decide whether gay marriage is or should be legal and then have the government back up that assertion. All this nonsense I see spewed here about we want less government has nothing to do with this issue especially with what is going on in NC. The people will decide and then make it law backed by the government which is a role it is supposed to play.

    We have already tried simply letting the people decide and nothing more and we found out activist could overthrow the will of the people. We see currently in Hutchinson KS and Washington State that activist are pushing to force churches to not only accept gay marriage but force them to allow gay marriages to happen in their churches. We have seen how gay activist have pushed for hate crime law that would make stating gay acts are a sin a crime.

    So lets stop with the BS games for once. The people are deciding and when they decide, government will make it law, constitutional law. This is not government impeding on rights or deciding what is moral, it is the people deciding what is best for their own state, and then enforcing it. And they have that freaking right without having to hear from some absurd libertarians about how they want lawless utopia.

  • aesthete

    “Details” like strong protection of private property as opposed to arbitrary confiscation, make the difference between failed countries and successful ones.

    “Details” like an open society as opposed to a closed one make the difference between freedom and scientific advancement, and secretive, scared societies.

    Libertarianism is just a governing philosophy. It is only tangentially related to worldview, and only to the extent that one’s worldview recognizes non-violent responses for people who disagree with you or act in ways that harm themselves.

    Right now, the general public is picking up the tab for druggies to a much greater extent than they would under a legalization scheme. Mexican, Central American, Colombian and Venezuelan, and Caribbean nationals are picking up an even bloodier tab for same. I am in favor of legalizing dr decriminalizing the substances which we know produce very little (or more manageable) medical harm, like cannabis and opiates, thus producing taxpayers who pay for the systems that they use. I am in favor of taxing these substances and using the proceeds to pay for the damages caused by addicts. You seem to be in favor of locking these people up (i.e., producing net costs for the general public), and not taxing a lucrative market (i.e., taxing everything else) to pay for these damages, to say nothing of the harms abroad from our drug policy. How is your policy enabling more responsibility than the one that I just proposed? No comprendo :)

  • zachv

    Gay conservative here — I’d just really like to be able to get married someday.

    Also. yeah, I’m worried about this being an issue in the November election. It’s a divisive issue that’s split 50/50 in public opinion.

    Bringing it to the national stage will drive independents and swings away, as compared to a 80/20 issue like balancing the budget or bringing jobs. It should really be fought on a state by state basis.

  • streiff

    it doesn’t even rise to the level of a non sequitur. I guess you are against government being involved in deciding how the property of intestate people is handled or what are acceptable arrangements for orphaned/abandoned kids.

  • lineholder

    But tell me the truth…if the vote of the people and by the people in my state is to protect and preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman succeeds, can you honestly say that gay activists who seek to gain their way on the issue will not be jumping at the bit to attack by any means they can find to have it over turned?

  • acat

    is that the government, back in the dark ages*, saw the church records of marriage and birth as a convenient way to legitimize things like inheritance – things that were very important to a feudal societal structure. Remember, “divine right of kings”, so only the “divine” (i.e. on the right side of the blanket) heir can become the next king.

    This government/church use of the same terms (marriage, son, wife, etc.) made the trip to America, along with a lot of common law and a mix of enlightenment and christian philosophy… and things went along reasonably well, so long as people were content to work out issues locally.

    There were some very odd spots in early America; the Oneida Colony being a rather extreme example. They’d raise eyebrows even today… but nobody in D.C. seemed to have much to say. It was a local matter, not one for Washington.

    For the most part, any problems arising from gays, likewise, were a matter for society in general, handled via shunning, casting out, and other extra-legal means, with a good bit of variety in local standards (read the history of Mineral Point, WI …) until the mid-1900s when – for some reason I don’t grasp – suddenly it became appropriate for the government to act as the arbiters of local standards … nationwide.

    Since then, it’s been a battle, mostly between those whose morality comes out of a holy book and those who have no morality (the Religious Right and the Libertines**) with the rest of us, who just want to get on with their lives according to the old “local standards” system, getting caught in the middle.

    I don’t see a way for either side to achieve victory – the victory conditions for both are similarly poorly constructed. Libertines demand that there be no rules while the Religious Right seek to apply their historical rules… and both are trying to bend the limp noodle of D.C. to make it so.

    My hope is that the Religious Right will, at some point, realize it’s much easier to attract people, to get people to *want* to be married if marriage is seen as a Good Thing…. as opposed to the current march-on-Washington brute force approach…. but for that to happen, it is first necessary for the Religious Right to clean their own house, to bring divorce rates among church attenders down to significantly lower levels, etc.

    I have to hope the Religious Right will come around as the Libertines** can’t be negotiated with. That’s actually the best way to tell them apart from Libertarians or libertarians … the latter two are rational, at least on most points.

    Mew

    * literally .. “in a time shortly after Rome fell”

    ** let’s see if Neil flags this…

  • Jack_Savage

    Societies have done well without them for centuries. What societies have not done without is a strong family structure – at least not for long.

    And I agree with PTTP above. To frame this as a small government issue is missing the point entirely. The government is not mandating a relationship – not in the slightest. No one is being forced to marry. The government is saying – or actually, the people of NC – that if we are going to affirm a relationship, we will affirm the one that has worked best for us throughout the centuries.

    The cat is out of the bag – societies have been affirming marriage in all sorts of ways in nearly every instance for quite some time. Following your argument would lead one to declare that no domestic relationship is worth affirming because government would be doing so. Following it further would lead one to determine that no behavior or status is worth affirming or codifying, including that of parent or child.

  • acat

    you lose?

    Mew

  • Kyle-MI

    Religious liberty is not collateral damage in this fight; it is the goal of the gay rights leadership.

  • acat

    Society can and has affirmed marriage for millenia, with outliers (i.e. gays, polygamists) managed by local standards and extra-governmental methods. (i.e. shunning, casting out)

    Why, now, is it up to government to defend this?

    Mew

  • Kyle-MI

    nt

  • zachv

    That’s a bit obvious? This is something that personally effects me and others in pretty much every facet of our lives. I don’t know if you’re married, but aren’t your wife and kids pretty important to you? Same holds true for my future partner and kids. I don’t think it really needs to be stated we’re going to be fighting this tooth and nail until we finally overturn it.

  • Viet71

    1. Connecticut, where I live, allows for gay marriage via a Connecticut Supreme Court decision. The decision hasn’t caused any ripple of which I’m aware. (I’m a traditionalist as to marriage, but that’s another matter.)

    2. Justice Kennedy’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas makes two things real clear: (1) states may not proscribe private, consenting homosexual conduct in one of the party’s homes; (2) but the state is not required to give any particular recognition to a homosexual couple.

  • zachv

    I think I’m going to crossover and vote for Falk. Definitely weaker than Barrett.

  • streiff

    aren’t congruent sets? How so? Society chooses a form of government which, in turn, enforces societal norms. I don’t think we really want to go back to a pre-feudal form of living.

  • lineholder

    That is your definition of “liberty and freedom for all”?

    That’s part of the problem, and I’m telling you right now, IF such an effort is made in NC, it will not go well for gays. We’ve had more than our share of power play kind of games going on here lately, zachv. It will intensify opposition.

  • streiff

    but we all know that

  • Viet71

    He’s good on guns, good on the First Amendment, and I predict he’ll be good on O-care. He’s a much better swing Justice than Sandra Day O’Connor.

  • Joshua Persons

    I think I’m mostly on your side here, acat. But divorce rates are 35% or so lower among evangelical Protestants than among the US as a whole. “The divorce rates are the same” is a Christian urban legend.

  • arthurjake

    I have seen lots of stories in the news where oxy addicts killed people working in drug stores. Legal does not always mean safe. Besides Mexico is so screwed up people would still find a reason to kill each other in mass. It is a country with a long history of bandits of one form or another.

  • acat

    Admittedly, she’s not a great interviewer…

    Oh.

    You meant Justice Kennedy, didn’t you. My bad!

    You’re right. He’s an idiot.

    Mew

  • Flagstaff

    If an arrangement, whether it’s called “marriage” or not, is created that confers all the legal rights and privileges of marriage upon two people, why does it have to be, or even how can it be, restricted to two people who want to have sex together?

    Why not allow two brothers or two sisters to sign up? To prohibit them from such a legal situation seems patently discriminatory if same-sex marriage is formalized.

  • Flagstaff

    Only more so. See elsewhere.

  • PowerToThePeople

    as it should be.

  • Viet71

    His positions have been very good of late on the First Amendment (Citizens United), the Fourth Amendment, and the Second Amendment.

    He’s certainly a man of the Constitution, in a reasonable and modern sense.

  • alabamared

    I am a conservative because I don’t want the government in my business. And because I believe in the freedom and sanctity of individuals and of individual choice.

    Enshrining discrimination into a state constitution is an ignorant, bigoted, and fundamentally un-conservative act. It takes choice away from people in the name of “tradition.”

    Two people want to get married. They are of different races? Fine. They are of different religions? Fine. They are of the same gender? Fine. God bless ‘em. Not my business, and I hope that they find the peace and happiness that marriage can provide.

    Freedom means that sometimes people get to do things even if you would not choose to do them yourself.

    We did some great things in 2010 because we believed in freedom. We have a chance to build on that in 2012 if we keep it up.

    Playing on bigotry in the name of Christ won’t get us where we need to go. Let’s get on the right side of history on this one.

    That said, keep up the good work on the numerous issues on which you are exactly right.

  • PowerToThePeople

    you do not hear me railing against legalized gay marriage in NY, MA, etc because the majority voted for it.

    I have no issue with states deciding what is best for them. My problem lies in some asshole in CA who decides the law in NC is wrong and finds some judge who agrees. This is why, especially considering the 60 plus percent in this country who are against gay marriage, the federal government must make a law protecting NC from CA. They have to pass a law that allows states to decide their own fate but also protects their decision from activist within or outside the state.

    If you can not understand the need for that, your problem. Especially after what we have seen in NC, CA, WA, KN, etc.

  • PowerToThePeople

    where do you draw the line?

    Sister marrying sister

    Brother marrying brother

    Man marrying infinite women

    Woman marrying infinite men

    Man marrying sex doll (has already happened in Japan)

    Man marrying internet sex character (Japan as well)

    Human marrying beast

    Where is your line? Need your answer before I tear your nonsense apart. Can not wait………..

  • Viet71

    I’d vote against gay marriage. But your idea has been been borne out here in Connecticut, where gay marriage has caused no ripples so far.

    My take: gays and lesbians would be best served by chucking their activists.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    But I fail to see many conservatives even bother to argue them. Instead it is name calling, “frustration”, emotionalism. cliche’s, and “known facts”.

    I have been on this site now about 6 years and from time to time I challenge someone with all the “known facts” on consensual crimes and none of them can ever quote me a book or any research that amounts to a hill of crap. The closest anyone has ever come is to mention one of Bill Bennett’s poorly researched books.

    Instead the assumption, as is in your case, that you are right and I am so wrong it gives you a headache. The reality is you would be demolished in any point by point debate on the merits of a prohibition regime.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    If there is any such thing as a gateway drug it is tobacco because it is illegal to minors and it is the first thing any punk gets access to.

    But in reality. If pot were a gateway drug, if that had any meaning then there would be millions of hard drug addicts out there instead of the small and falling number that we do have.

    Why? Well because guess what literally tens of millions of Americans have smoked pot at one time or the other.

    Which also means that millions are hypocrites.

  • acat

    What is a positive or affirmative law?

    Laws are purely the outer bounds of acceptable behavior. “Don’t go beyond this or there will be consequences”.

    Government enforces laws. Sometimes, in the case of a feudal form, the “law” is the word of the king or shogun or whatever. Sometimes, “law” written down. Government changes as society changes because Government is a subset of society.

    “Church” (using this generically to cover all common deeply rooted religious institutions) is another subset of society, one less subject to change over time. “Church” enforces its’ own standards, through extra-governmental means. Shunning, for example. Refusing to shop at the store owned by someone of a different sect. Refusing to rent space to an abortion clinic.

    It is strange to me that “Church” seems so dependent on “Government” for enforcement, abandoning so many centuries of extra-governmental enforcement, and especially when there is no visible difference between a church marriage and a secular one. Same divorce rates, similar infidelity and abuse rates…

    Mew

  • blakemoney

    by defining Dems as “morally bankrupt,” you are helping them make their point that evangelicals are intolerant and outside the mainstream, and although there’s no price to pay by being rigid in your moral and ethical beliefs individually, this is a political board, and politics is a game of gaining power electorally. We can’t afford to lose these battles in predictable fashion. We can’t keep going back in time to the good old days because they weren’t all good.

    Not all traditional values served this nation well. There have been amendments to the Constitution to address many of those values that society now views as flawed. I would argue that the country paid, and continues to pay a severe price for codifying racial values. There’s no telling how great this nation could have been if these issues could have been resolved differently in our courts, long ago. And looking to the Bible for guidance in these areas seems archaic and about as practical as using the good book for guidance in science.

  • texashistorian

    because that was the topic of the thread. I have no problem with extending the benefits to whomever- that is the heart of liberty: a choice of who to give next-of-kin designation to, etc.

    For what it’s worth, I agree with those that say this isn’t really about legal issues, it’s about forcing the country to accept and even embrace homosexuality. What you suggest, Christine, and Flagstaff, would actually force them to admit that is the agenda, and stop hiding behind “rights.”

  • acat

    His positions have gotten noticeably better since Obama was elected…. I don’t think this is coincidence.

    Mew

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    No government stooge should have the right to tell me what or how much I can eat or drink, whom I can associate with, or whom I make love to (provided it is adult and consensual). Or what I can do with my private property without due process.

    Anything else is tyranny and it is counter productive. There is scarce little difference if some left winger wants to lord it over me or some well intentioned conservative.

    I don’t like the reinterpretation of what marriage is, but that is only based upon tradition. Who knows? If Gays are allowed to call what they do a marriage maybe it will cause some of them to settle down.a bit. I don’t much like it, but I can’t argue strongly against it because they are people and as such deserve the same rights and liberties.

    In my view I would only be arguing semantics. Give them the same rights just don’t call it marriage.

  • acat

    Last time this came up, I went and looked.

    Mew

  • blakemoney

    is “full, forced societal acceptance of homosexual as ‘normal’ by everyone.” And say the goal is somehow achieved. What then?

  • lineholder

    If want to choose a path filled with contempt for traditional moral values, that is your choice.

    I have no wish to follow that path because of what history has revealed about what happens to societies who forsake and abandon traditional moral values.

  • ghostship

    The whole issue that allowing gays to marry undermines marriage is pointless because the whole thing has been turned into nothing but a public declaration of love.

    Whether gay marriage is allowed or not as long as every vow continues to comes with a free get out of your vows card the institution of marriage was undermined already.

    It’s like arguing over what color to paint the house when the foundation has major cracks. It’s not a pressing issue and worse it paints over the more serious problems.

  • conservativerock5

    Christians should not be advocating that the government is defining marriage on way or the other.

    Marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman with the blessing of God. The government need not give permission for such a thing to take place.

    Marriage will be better off without government licenses. It will neither be incentivized nor discouraged, allowing people to make the right decisions for themselves.

    But some say, “but if the government doesn’t define marriage, then gays will get married!”

    Is that really true though, if you accept the definition of marriage I gave previously. Gays may call themselves married, but that doesn’t make it true. And who cares what they say? As long as marriage is a government sanctioned act, that gives them the platform to speak.

    Because of these things, I do not support this amendment-it is heresy and authoritarianism, which conflicts with my religious an political philosophies. I understand that there are some instances in which the government needs to recognize two people, so let there be a system of contracts. But do not call it marriage.

  • blakemoney

    I always hope that any Muslims on board are those who have forsaken and abandoned their traditional moral values!

  • texashistorian

    that claim the divorce rate among Christians is the same as non-Christians are correct. However, what is problematic is the definition of Christian. Joshua I believe is correct if we define Christian more narrowly than just folks who are or at one time belonged to a church and claim the label. Barna does some great work on polling, but it’s always the same problem in that their subjects are self-identified. I know many who make the claim to be “born again” or “evangelical” whose lives do not bear out the claim.

    Not that I know of any better way that wouldn’t require a massive longitudinal study.

    Anyway, just something to consider, but its a bit off topic.

  • aesthete

    No. Even if there were a voting method which satisfied Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem (there isn’t), even if most of the history of government were not dominated by un-democratic systems often at odds with majority will, and even if there was a way for society to express its wishes in terms of ordinal utility and strong, real-time signals to government (there’s not), almost all societal norms are enforced outside of government. Politeness, friendship and relationship norms, almost all of the norms of subgroups, are all outside of government, and should remain that way.

  • lineholder

    However, blakemoney, it is fairly typical for Conservatives to seek to protect and preserve elements of tradition that have served a positive purpose within a society (such as rule of law rather than rule of man, eh? That cornerstone on which our Constitution was built)

    Not all Conservatives are as staunch as I might be where moral values are concerned, but I do see how those values served a positive purpose for our country over the years, and I have no desire to see this nation lose that either.

    Dems would chuck it in the blink of eye, if it would allow them to accomplish and achieve their own goals. They really have very little moral fortitude on such things at all.

  • acat


    Laws in a democratic society codify what that society affirms, and what it rejects.

    To be fair, you did say that before your martini and .. barnland adventure .. so I suppose you could have meant to use different words, but .. that sure looks like you think laws can affirm.

    Mew

  • californiasquish

    When the will of the majority curtails the rights of a minority, we all lose.

    From the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    I don’t see anything in there about it only applying to heterosexuals.

  • acat

    I find the same problem with political polls that allow people to self-identify as “conservative”. Much of the time, the final votes indicate at least some are lying and/or mistaken.

    I accept your caveat.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    How do we draw the line between morality which is backed up by law and morality which is not?

    Or do you propose laws against blasphemy and selfishness?

  • acat

    Too far?

    Mew

  • Jack_Savage

    I guess the difference is “affirmative law” and “law that affirms”. My definition of “affirm” would be “sort out what we think is OK, and what we think is not”. By definition, a law that prohibits a certain thing (murder) would automatically “affirm” that its opposite was what we think is OK.

    If “affirmative law” is a legal, political or ethical argument I am not aware of it, and did not mean to make it.

    As far as the barnyard goes don’t knock it ’till you’ve tried it.

  • JSobieski

    The odds of obtaining meaningful data in a statistically significant way on people like me is problematic. Remember that in many divorces, the desire for divorce is not mutual.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the primary cause of divorce is societal attitudes on shame. Had I been married in 1904 rather than 2004, society’s reaction to divorce would have kept my marriage together.

    I say this not as a copout and not a recipe for fixing anything.

    Just my 5 cents from being on the front line of the issue.

  • acat

    Only people can affirm.

    No cop will pull you over and give you a citation for driving the speed limit. No FBI agent will knock on your door at 2:00am and thank you for not using your laser printer to make fake currency.

    In short, if you want marriage affirmed, then go affirm it! Mrs. Cat and I have been married for .. wow. Decades. (now I feel old) We’re quite happy with the way it’s worked out, and try to provide a sounding board to other couples – affirmation-wise.

    The law, though, can only punish – it can only say “this is the standard, the penalty for failure to adhere to the standard is …..”.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    to prevent people from infringing against the rights of others and that government’s role (particularly the federal government) should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves.

    This has been articulated as the “harm principle.” I believe it was articulated by a wide range of folks, begining with John Locke and more recently people such as Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman.

  • acat

    Explains the clarity of your vision.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    The leftists on the court are apparatchiks, but they’re smart. They understand exactly what they’re doing — they just don’t care.

    Kennedy is an inconsistent moron who flops from one legal principle to another, without a comprehensive or consistent view. Reading the entrails of a deceased chicken would give you more of an intellectual framework for Constitutional interpretation than whatever drives Kennedy’s “thought” processes.

    That said, better a Kennedy-style brain aneurism than what has befallen our friends on the left side of the Supremes.

  • JSobieski

    That being said “libertarian BS” is the intellectual foundation for fiscal conservatism and the principle of government limited to specified enumerated powers.

    There is a lot of BS on all sides, but one side seems to use more straw than the other.

    Given how poorly so many libertarians and conservatives conduct themselves, I am going to self-identify as classical Lockean liberal and invite everyone to heap all sorts of scorn at me.

    Politics is a team sport after all.

  • JSobieski

    Remember that while O’Connor was on the court, the 5-4s were always decided by her, not Kennedy.

  • kipling

    With the self-identified Christian, I think the rates are pretty close.

    However, when you factor in commitment levels and church participation, the greater the level of commitment and participation the lower the divorce rate.

    I do not have the poll data handy but a friend of mine used it recently in a lecture. I can get it from him if anyone is interested.

  • kipling

    The church is to serve as the conscience of the state and call the state and the society to the standard of God.

  • aesthete

    gay people are going to be quite boring. They will live in square homes, pay high taxes, wear business suits, and be overwhelmingly white. They will look abroad, and see how terribly uncomfortable life is for gays in countries that conservatives despise. Do you know what will happen then? They will overwhelmingly vote and donate to Republicans. On that day, I will have a great time laughing as my oh-so-tolerant liberal friends sputter to explain the completely logical move of gays towards the Republican party.

  • lineholder

    The vote isn’t even decided yet, and in all honesty, I have no idea of what the outcome will be. Even at that, I’ve been told that the votes of the people (and to some extent the rule of law) mean next to nothing if a person decides that their way is to use the “activist” strategy for getting what they want.

    Really discouraging in some ways. What’s the purpose in even voting then if no one will respect those votes?

    On the bright side, there’s been just enough of the power play nonsense going on here lately that most of the people I know are sitting rather close to that verge of “royally ticked off”, as one of my friends expressed it. It’s pushing this state to the right. For that much, I’m glad.

  • aesthete

    the only consistent, pro-liberty approach to the government marriage issue is to pull government out of marriage and have it offer similar contracts to any two people who consent, regardless of their sexual partners, orientation, or lack thereof. Anything other than that is dickering over the price of the whore.

  • aesthete

    :)

  • demsaresatanic

    the fight.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • ww2nd95

    So because two same sex people want to get married, you think all of the sudden we’re going to see sister and sister marry? Or brother and brother? Or bestiality? Give me a break. That’s an ignorant reply.

    And if you truly think that there is going to be a rash of men marrying dogs/animals and sibling marrying sibling if gay marriage becomes legal…. either you’re being willfully blind or you’re simply trying to fear monger.

    As Viet71 pointed out in Conn. where it’s legal, we sure haven’t heard of anything of the sort that you’re talking about.

  • texashistorian

    “Not many agree with me among the rest of the college faculty, either :) ”

    I feel your pain, my friend. Still, if we can just send one little brain of mush out into the world each semester not bowing at the altar of modern liberalism, we have done our good work.

  • aesthete

    Some fights are either not winnable, or they are not being fought on favorable terrain. IMO, we lost the government marriage fight with the emergence of no-fault divorce. I’d much prefer to sort out marriage in voluntary society: Traditional marriage works great, and would win in the marketplace of ideas for the same reason that it emerged as a feature of successful societies in the first place. Government is one of the places where stupidity thrives longest (hell, it’s rewarded if anything); I’d rather watch “alternative” marriage collapse under its own weight as the “free love” movement before it did, than have people miss the fireworks by focusing on government control.

  • acat

    (nothing further)

  • conservativerock5

    Completely agree.

    Government marriage is heresy and authoritarian.

  • lineholder

    IF a plurality of people in NC vote to support the traditional definition of marriage…that’s our choice to make and the outcome of that vote should be respected, not attacked for the purpose of rendering it null and void in total opposition to the expressed will of the plurality of people who made their voices heard via that vote.

    What zachv is saying is that regardless of what the people of NC might choose, gay activists will take it upon themselves to pursue any legal recourse they can find to override the vote of the people, and that this is a course of action that they will deliberately and intentionally pursue.

    We’ll just have to see how it goes. But IF the traditional definition is upheld in this state, I hope to goodness that people who are gay will think long and hard about whether they want to challenge it, when, how, in what way, etc. I wasn’t lying when I said that it would increase opposition. People here are just hitting a point of being sick and tired of the power plays.

  • acat

    Seems to me that, given the divorce rate inside churches, the conscience is pricking enough to act the scold, but not enough to actively clean house.

    Mew

  • garfieldjl

    I can make a case of traditional marriage in a way that does not involve religion.

    Specifically it is in the interest of this country’s continued existence to have new generations being born. In order for this to occur naturally, it takes a man and a woman. When you see polygamy on a massive scale you start seeing inbreeding which leads to birth defects. Then there is the fact that two people of the same gender cannot have offspring.

    Therefore it is in the interest of the continued existence of this country to support marriage between one man and one woman (whom are not closely related) where they are old enough to have children and then care for said children.

    When you throw homosexual marriage into the fray, there is no grounds to block cousins marrying, siblings marrying (I mean blood relatives not adopted siblings), etc.

    We could also see children being dragged into this as well. Seriously, they would probably argue that the reason children end up psychologically hurt is cultural, not because of the obvious fact that they are children and it is robbing them of their childhood.

    From what I have read, it is my understanding that there are quite a few homosexuals out there that do not support gay marriage for these reasons.

    Then we have the fact that allowing this would open up legal discrimination of the Catholic Church as well as other Christian Denominations that are staying true to what the Bible states, there would also be discrimination directed towards Jewish people, not sure it would happen to Muslims under this administration, but probably would in the future.

    It could be argued that on one hand we have discrimination based on sexual orientation, but on the other hand we have discrimination of religions.

    I’ve been largely trying to stay out of this debate cause it tends to end up getting very ugly, very quickly. It doesn’t help that one side is also trying to shut the other up (specifically many gay activist groups are trying to deny religious groups their 1st amendment rights). I don’t see this being resolved in the near future, I would be fine with “civil unions” that is recognized between two consenting adults, but demanding it to be called marriage is getting into forcing people to go against religious beliefs and therefore crosses the line.

  • aesthete

    between church participation and longevity of a marriage would be consistent with my experience and observation.

  • demsaresatanic

    because PTTP’s argument confounds you. For those who can follow an argument the point is clear, for you, try this; the argument that the homosexual marriage advocates make is more or less that love trumps everything else and that if two people love each other they should be allowed to marry.

    If loving each other is the criterion then why should polygamists, for example, have fewer rights than homosexuals. The same argument applies to the more atypical unions PTTP mentioned, which is the point, not your silly strawman that ?if you truly think that there is going to be a rash of men marrying dogs/animals and sibling marrying sibling if gay marriage becomes legal.? If you try to make the case for homosexual marriage using the love trumps all argument while simultaneously opposing polygamy you may start to understand the point, which is why I don?t think that you will try.

  • PowerToThePeople

    and try to pay attention. I do not waste my time with jackasses or dumbasses and so far you fit both bills.

    For sake of time, you will be the idiot I refer to in this response and dummy will be the original poster.

    The original dummy stated that he did not like people putting rules on another persons happiness (paraphrased of course) and disliked government intervention.Dummy then goes on to state piously that freedom is letting others do as they want even if it is something we would not. And dummy added in all the leftist nonsense about bigotry in the name of Christ even though being against gay marriage has nothing to do with bigotry.

    Now your dumbass walks in and just shows us all your stupidity and you complete lack of reading comprehension skills by stating that somehow my post equated gays cause all the things a listed or that somehow gay marriage will cause it. I am sorry, but if you are too stupid to understand the conversation or the question, find your dumbass another spot to stop.

    To put it in simple english for even a moron such as yourself, the question simply asks where the original dummy draws the line in the sand. He decided to lecture us on our intolerance and line drawing and babbled on about his lack of lines. I do not believe that to be true. So either he is a POS that supports all forms of perversion as long as everyone is happy, or more likely, he has his own limits. Given the reasonable belief he has his own lines as to what society should accept, he then destroys his pious pedestal as to his lecture towards us on our line in the sand.

    Anything else to babble about dumbass?

  • acat

    My argument is to use judo rather than greco-roman rules….

    Don’t just stand here and try to grapple, try to get ‘em off balance and use their own weight against ‘em! Work the extra-government angle.

    There is no way social conservatives are outnumbered by activist homosexuals … it is only because social conservatives don’t fight smart that we’re having this conversation.

    Mew

  • blakemoney

    My only point is that liberals believe that moral values served a positive purpose for our country during Civil Rights legislation, which gave birth to Dixiecrats and the Southern Strategy. The country remains split on certain morals values, with each side certain of their moral superiority.

  • runner12

    too much of common sense. If we actually solved the problem in the practical sense you suggested, the pro-gay marriage crowd would have to admit that their real agenda has little to do with equality. It is more about forcing everyone in the country to agree with their point of view, even if they have to use the courts to do so.

  • runner12

    No text

  • rbdwiggins

    Chapel Hill is “All-In”… So are Wake and Guilford counties.

    Early returns: Completely reported – 8 of 100, Partially reported – 41 of 100.

    North Carolina State Board of Elections: Interactive Link

  • texasref

    We surely got trouble with a capital T that rhymes with P and that stands for POOL!

    *eye roll*

  • texasref

    When the folks who oppose marriage equality come up with ONE rational argument against it, they can try fighting it, like you say, one a “state by state basis.” Until then, court after court is going to continue to overturn their irrational animus.

    Irrational is not an inflammatory word, by the way. Rational thought has to do with science and what can be proven. Faith is the other side of the coin. In America, we don’t have a government that adheres to any one faith; it rationally respects all faiths. Or at least it should.

    Great, learned men of faith were able to blend rational thought with their faith and separate them when appropriate, as well.

    Let marriage stand for whatever you want it to stand. If your religious beliefs are the foundation for your position on this issue, then I hope you go to a church that respects traditional marriage like you do. ALL I AM ASKING is that you don’t impose your religious beliefs on me using the power and authority of the government. And if you try, like you did in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas), you’re going to get smacked down again and again.

  • lineholder

    I honestly wasn’t sure what kind of outcome we might see. So far, turnout looks to be relatively high. Good for the state all the way around, if you ask me. And last time I checked, Repub voting % (as related to # of Repub voters in the state) was higher than Dems. Speaks well for the fall, as long as it holds.

  • texasref

    then yes, thats the whole point of having Article III of the Constitution, to ensure that gets corrected.

    Talk about power plays, that’s what this whole thing is.

  • lineholder

    And those who would deliberately and intentionally attempt to override the votes of the people of the state know it too.

  • rbdwiggins

    But it appears that the pro-gay marriage disinformation campaign has failed.

    On another positive note: Clearly, Hope and Change has wained statewide.

  • Jack_Savage

    Around 60% for, 40% against, with the most liberal counties fully reporting.
    On another note, 20% of the vote for Democrat nominee for President went for “none of the above”, which I did not expect.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Good to see people in NC standing up for what’s right. I’m celebrating with you through the Internet!

  • Jack_Savage

    …perhaps we can look at law in another way. Perhaps we can look at it as loving boundaries, particularly the Ten Commandments. Laws are made by people, and if people affirm, those things they create can also.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I already called the 2nd amen (see below). LOL. Granted, we need all the amen’s we can get.

  • Jack_Savage

    “Marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman with the blessing of God.”

    What do you say, or do, when someone says, “I’m a Christian, and no it’s not.” and the church they belong to marries a same sex couple.

    What happens then?

  • Jack_Savage

    Dan Savage.

  • JSobieski

    If marriage ceases to be a legal status and becomes strictly a religious status.

    There are same sex marriage ceremonies performed in “Christian” churches now

  • Jack_Savage

    Is that you don’t impose your lack of religion on us using the power and the authority of judges.

    Again and again, the people of this nation have been asked “What is the definition of marriage?”. Again and again, they have answered. You just don’t like the answer.

  • checkmate2012

    I see it continuing. I just feel sorry for CA when the voters said no to same sex marriage and some judge overturned the will of the voters…that’s just wrong when the people speak. No judge should overrule the voters. Good day in North Carolina! Keep it up and turn red in Nov :)

  • lineholder

    Have you looked at the totals? Apparently, we have about 200K people in our state (so far) who voted for Amendment 1 who didn’t bother to vote for either D or R Presidential candidates, and only about 15K of those who did vote (so far) didn’t bother to vote for or against Amendment 1.

  • izoneguy

    Heh, heh…..

    Maybe they can hold the Socialist – err I mean Democratic convention in France…..

  • Jack_Savage

    Amendment One seems to have helped turnout, and maybe the reason the 200K did not vote for R or D Presidential candidates is that the race for both is over. I am surprised that 15K did not vote on Amendment One, though, and really, really surprised at the 20% of Dems who actually voted against Obama.

  • texasref

    The democracy you yearn for is the country down the street.

  • checkmate2012

    Is it 20% for e) none of the above because they don’t know whom to vote for or is it e)anyone but Obama.

    Hard to tell just like when you see poll surveys with 20% not sure. Really?!!? Some are so uniformed that they can’t even make a decision. Wow! Good news for R’s in the end.

  • texasref

    because it’s YOUR answer. And you don’t like the answer I gave you because it’s MY answer. I wouldn’t expect you to agree with my religious beliefs, nor you mine. Government has to deal with this in a way that allows you to follow your beliefs without infringing on mine, and vice versa.

    I am confident that the Supreme Court will find in June 2013 that the negative impact on your life if the government recognizes gay marriage is much less than the negative impact on my life if it does not. For example, you get to go on being married and/or you have the opportunity to marry the person you love regardless of how the government approaches this. But only if the government recognizes gay marriage will I be able to do the same.

  • Jack_Savage

    …what then?

  • lineholder

    I’m still waiting to see that “counties reporting” map to go totally green before I consider this vote as being completed.

  • lineholder

    http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80678/en/md_data.html?cid=425000010&

    My county. All the votes finally in. The vote “for” Amendment 1 tallied up by 68 votes…out of 116,652 votes. That’s how this county is. For those of us who do vote, it often splits 50/50 on things.

  • Jack_Savage

    I’ll bet the yard sign guy made a killing over there….

  • lineholder

    no text

  • Jack_Savage

    Here’s a good example of how not to win hearts and minds:

    http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/amendment-one

    I can’t overstate how much this pisses people off. The “you’re a homophobe” campaign really doesn’t seem to be helping the cause, and having Dan Savage as your spokesperson may not be working all that well either.

    Just some friendly advice.

  • texasref

    I would be interested to read it.

  • texasref

    Don’t forget I’m a conservative libertarian.

  • texasref

    I’m sorry you had to put up with it.

    My god, if we could put half the effort into a constitutional convention for the human life amendment, we’d have the blacks, the conservatives, and the independents all on board…it would so pass.

  • lineholder

    2.7 million Dems registered in the state, and only 25% of them turned out to vote for Obama? Only 1/3 voted at all?

    That’s a far cry from what they had in 2008. So I daresay Dems will be turning on the heat and gearing up every narrative they can think of in the next few months.

  • Jack_Savage

    And I will be perfectly honest with you right now.

    Like it or not, Dan Savage speaks for you, and your movement, and your cause. He is the face I see when I go to the polling booth. He is the person I am protecting my kids from. He is person I wanted to piss off today when I voted. When his anti-bullying bull crap comes to my kids’ school, I will file suit to have it stopped. I hope he has a really, really crappy week, because he is a total jackass. A gay jackass who is a national figure, has been endorsed by Barack Obama, wants to tell me the Bible is bullsh*t and that I am an uneducated hick who doesn’t know his elbow from his ass. For good measure, he bullies high school kids. I sent that recent video to everyone I knew, and I know a lot of people.

    Then he expects me to get over it, forget about the hate and the slurs and vote for gay marriage.

    Well guess what? He doesn’t have what I have, and that is the right to vote in NC. And guess what? Unless the Supreme Court comes to your rescue, gay marriage is now a distant dream.

    Again, I cannot overstate how pissed off people are right now who, at one point, might have actually listened to what you have to say. That includes me. That time is over, and I mean OVER.

    And that is the deal.

  • lineholder

    The country I live in is my own. It’s my nation, my country, and her people are my people, even when I don’t always agree with them. We all have our part to play within our society. I have mine, and you have yours. We are just inclined to make our choices on very different rationales, that’s all.

  • lineholder

    I don’t think they believed me.

    It isn’t just you. A lot of people in our state are right at that verge of being so totally ticked off that they could give anyone and everyone who even remotely tries to tell them what they should think, feel, do, be, etc. a great big giant middle finger followed by a giant raspberry and a huge “tell me again” kind of smile.

  • Bill S

    Calling those opposing gay marriage “bigoted” is not a good way to keep your posting privileges here, bub. Don’t do it again.

  • acat

    I’d like to see how it compares to Barna’s numbers, and what the methodology was.

    Mew

  • acat

    .. how did J. Sobieski put it? “Laws are a lagging indicator”.

    The changes in the law lag the changes in the culture. Right now marriage is taking a beating (although it looks like North Carolinians are still pretty for it) so .. to really turn it around and make this into something other than a rearguard action, more energy is needed on the home and local fronts, and .. not less focus, but less energy is needed on the D.C. front, eh?

    Mew

  • mikeymike143

    :)

  • Dave_A

    Since the amendment is being offered in an election with no one to gin up votes *FOR* – a primary, and since this was likely assumed to be a foregone conclusion when the movement to get it on the ballot started (eg, NC is so far back in the primary calender, that the race was almost sure to be over)….

  • lineholder

    where Amendment 1 is concerned…keep it local rather than even considering taking it to a federal level. We’ve been trying to do that on quite a few things in the last two years, and people from outside our state keep “intervening”.

    Repubs won the vote for both house and senate in NC fair and square in 2010. Then they tried to put some laws into effect that were supported by a plurality of people in our state, like vote ID and defunding Planned Parenthood.

    On voter ID, Perdue vetoed it, and Repubs couldn’t get enough votes to override the veto. Some local counties thought about putting their own version of voter ID in place, and the national NAACP sent threats down to officials at the county level against even trying to do this, even though it is what people in that county supported. Minority rights and all that, okay?

    On Planned Parenthood, Perdue vetoed the law, the house and senate voted to override the veto, then a national group of women’s rights activists (minority rights again!) came swooping in. A liberal judge put an injunction against it, even though the people of the state supported it.

    Then today, we vote on Amendment 1. And even before the vote is completed, there are people here on RS saying that they will “fight tooth and nail” and that there will be a “smack down” against it.

    Plus, we’ve had shenanigans from the Unions all over the country, playing games with state and local politics to deal with, because of the DNC convention.

    We’d rather by far keep it local, acat, okay? But with all this “intervention” going on…..

    People here are just to the point of resenting it and getting ticked off, that’s all.

  • aesthete

    “Loving” isn’t one of them.

    Laws are always about punishing an offender in an institutionalized way. Institutions, punishment, and law enforcement in general aren’t particularly cuddly concepts.

    Would you describe our economic regulations as “loving”?

  • acat

    you can’t win on this field until you’ve won on the field of public opinion. Until you’ve already got the ball rolling.

    To kipling’s point, around here somewhere, the social changes of Wilberforce’s time came about before enforcement of the laws; just as the corruption and rot in society was addressed *in society* before it was addressed *in politics*.

    The Womens Christian Temperance Movement is a model for this – they didn’t change the face of the country through politics, eh?

    Yes, this amendment passed, and that’s a good .. but as long as people are more interested in yelling at their congresscritters than talking to the young people in their areas, it’s not lasting change.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    The vote FOR Amendment 1 is greater than 100% of the registration of all Repubs in this state. If the numbers shown by the Presidential Repub vote are any indication, about 50% of registered R voters participated in this primary. That may or may not include Indies. Also keep in mind that the number of people in my state who self-identify as being Conservative amounts to less than 50% of the registered Republicans voters.

    What I’m saying is that this was a choice made by the people living in NC that spans across the political spectrum. It isn’t limited to any single sector. And it is something that has come about because the people supporting this Amendment have been proactive in communicating with other citizens in this state. So part of what you’re talking about above is already taking place.

    But it will become a moot point IF we can’t get groups of people from outside our state to respect our right to vote as we choose for the laws we want to see put into place within our state. It will be a moot point if they play our judicial system. It will be a moot point if they find other social methods of stifling what we have chosen here.

    That’s the very real risk this state has been facing of late, and I don’t see Amendment 1 as being any different.

  • kipling

    The quote is also my own by the way.

    The standard is God and the Word of God. Does the church at times fall short? Yes. Like all institutions containing a fallen humanity, it makes mistakes. Does the church need to reform in some areas? Yes. No argument here. Does any of that diminish the standard of God? No.

    Your numbers on the divorce rate of “Christians” is flawed. I already pointed that out in another post.

  • kipling

    nt

  • kipling

    For further information please see the following link and the research studies mentioned therein.

    http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=34656

  • izoneguy

    To smash windows and fight the cops in North Carolina???

  • streiff

    it is hard to take it all that seriously.

    Anecdotally, it makes sense. Whether it is actually true or not is unknown.

  • rightlane1111

    the more they use it and the more they use it…the more addictive it becomes.

    Of course people have smoked pot. Given. However…many more people smoke it to “emotionally” KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD” than they did before. What does that say about a person when they “habitually” use a substance to escape.

    Tobacco, being one of the most insidious, addictive substances on the market today is terrible. However, cigarettes, having been one of the “punks” that smoked it many years ago, does not give one that flight from reality. Now, the real question arises…and that is one of honesty…from the people who have continued to use it and gone onto other drugs…”why did they use it”. The answer…”I didn’t want to deal what what I had to deal with…so I escaped”

    So…Kyle…is there not enough “ESCAPE” brainwashing going on in society today, i.e., not taking responsibility…without adding pot to the mixture to put the mindset ON STEROIDS.

    Everyone enjoys a glass of wine…a drink after coming home from work…but Kyle…what public analyses does not convey is that our jails are full of people who use “escape” drugs and the crimes that were committed started with some type of “dulling” of the psyche. Relatively speaking, meaning comparing the number of people in the population…and stricter laws…WE STILL have more people committing crimes against society than we did before…more people as a percentage of population in jail because of some drug and if you ask them what it started with…it was pot.

    Doubt me…go visit a jail…if just 2% of inmates are jailed without any drugs being involved…then what does that tell you?

  • kipling

    The Barna Group points out that most non-Christians cohabitate prior to marriage or instead of marriage. So while the Christian divorce rate for “self-described” Christians is similar to non-Christians, a large number of non-Christians are simply not getting married.

    The Barna Groups does a lot better job of explaining it in the notes on their surveys.

  • Joshua Persons

    The cited sources:
    —-
    1 Bradley R.E. Wright, “Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites ?and Other Lies You’ve Been Told,” (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2010), p. 133.

    2 W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Williamson, “The Cultural Contradictions of Mainline Family Ideology and Practice,” in American Religions and the Family, edited by Don S. Browning and David A. Clairmont (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007) p. 50.

    3. C.A. Johnson, S. M. Stanley, N.D. Glenn, P.A. Amato, S.L. Nock, H.J. Markman and M .R. Dion “Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 Baseline Statewide Survey on Marriage and Divorce” (Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Human Services 2002) p. 25, 26.
    ——-

    I’m interested in digging into this, but not sure I have the time this month. Does anyone have free time to track these down?

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    it is statistically unwarranted to correlate PIT conditions–as the BP article’s sources variously attempt to define in terms of a commitment scale–with status–as divorced–without factoring time, which the article at least did not mention.

    That is, the self-definition of religious commitment is, for many people, varies according to time, with the potential for beginnings and endings, ebbs and flows (cf. “good Catholic/bad Catholic” vs. “love the Lord/carnal Christian/backslidden” vs. “long-time member/church-hopper” vs. “born again/dead in trespasses and sins”). Divorce, however, defines a much more permanent status. The weakness of the summaries as presented is their tendency to state “only x% above commitment level z are divorced, compared to the significantly higher y% below commitment level z” without accounting for movement relative to z. That could begin to give a clue to correlation by differentiating whether, e.g. a highly-engaged Christian became so after–and thererfore possibly due to other realities uncovered by–the trauma of divorce, or whether his high engagement level so disrupted his erstwhile stable family life that it imploded.

    If the former example is more prevalent, the BP-referenced numbers could actually be understating the difference between divorce rates in the two samples; if the latter, overstating–and a call for the highly-engaged Christian community to ask “what is wrong with this picture–not the numbers, but perhaps the diet our members are actually receiving?”

    It is clear to me that there is actually anecdotal evidence for both conditions dependent on even higher–shall we say, theological–factors. But without consistent metrics, the numbers should be taken with much salt.

  • kipling

    Time does not necessarily equal depth.

  • demsaresatanic

    yet I am not prepared to throw up my hands and give up. To put traditional marriage on equal legal footing with the others is to do that.

  • aesthete

    I’m not opposed to government marriage — I think it’s had a whole lot of unnecessary nonsense attached to it (different tax schemes and some state-level welfare provisos for married couples, for instance), but in principle I think it’s a good idea for government to handle marriage a little differently from other contracts for various reasons (most of them involving childrearing).

    If you or someone else can show me a movement that is fighting for the elimination of no-fault divorce, and ways to make this a possibility, I like that as an option. Otherwise, I like the notion of “private” marriage, because it allows for the possibility of stronger, more enforceable contracts and involvement of interested parties (like church officials). It might even lead to the development of norms that would lead to the reinstitution of divorce as a serious breach in societal norms.

  • JSobieski

    People tend not to have wills.
    Ever try to assert a power of attorney for an elderly relative?
    Parental rights.
    Tax calculations.

    I don’t disagree with you, but there are a lot of legal shorthands that would need get blown up. Lawyers will make out pretty well.

  • aesthete

    which is another reason why “civil unions for all” would be a second-best option. It would, IMO, be workable — but not ideal (and yes, lawyers would make out like bandits while it got worked out).

  • JSobieski

    It is a secret amendment to the Constitution.

    One thing I have been thinking about is whether the two-person limitation will survive should same sex marriage become legal in most places.

    One down side about civil unions is that because it isn’t marriage, I think people will be more likely to push the envelope with non-romantic relationships (getting dad’s social security benefits).

    I do think that in my lifetime, kids will marry their parents for purely monetary reasons like SS, tax avoidance, etc. It will be a mess.

  • demsaresatanic

    this is the first link that came up,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/nyregion/16divorce.html
    and demonstrates that the Catholic Church is still fighting. Whether or not it is fighting to roll back existing no-fault laws would probably be answered by further research.

    In my view equating natural marriage with homosexual union does far more to trivialize the traditional one than does the elimination of fault, and you have yet to explain, so far as I can tell, the connection you draw between no-fault and homosexual marriage. That one law does damage to the institution is not an argument for a second law that does more damage.

  • aesthete

    and it’s my belief that fighting for marriage with strong protections in voluntary society is more effective strategy ATM than wasting time on the bastardized representation of same in government.

    My idea of “civil unions for all” would encompass any situation with two roommates regardless of whether they have sex or not. In essence, it just puts marriage back in the private sector.

  • avgjo

    Slippery slope is not always a fallacy. It is only a fallacy if there is actually no causal relationship between steps.

    I don’t think it takes much insight to see the relationship between ‘gay’ marriage and what PTTP forewarned. Homosexuality has historically been considered a deviant act. They have waged a successful campaign to first have it decriminalized, and then stricken from classification as a mental/emotional disorder and now accepted as a legitimate lifestyle. Other groups are already pushing for this. There are serious ‘scholars’ at respected universities pushing the idea that bestiality (‘zoophilia’ – don’t you love the euphemisms these miscreants conjure up?) should not be criminalized. There are people in the psychological community trying to decriminalize pedophilia (they call themselves ‘B4U-ACT’ and refer to these deviants as ‘minor-attracted’ people – again, don’t you love the acronyms and euphemisms these freaks come up with?). This is in line with the way the militant homosexual movement pushed their agenda. First decriminalize it. Get it classified as an illness. Then declassify it as such – they’re just misunderstood dontcha know? And then push for legitimacy as a ‘lifestyle’. finally, push for special protections, such as ‘hate crimes’ protections.

    These people, as well as the groups PTTP mentioned, have in common that their entire identity revolves around sexual proclivities. They can call it a ‘culture’, they can claim they’re born that way (no scientific evidence for this, of course,), they can call people that are repulsed by their behavior ‘bigots’ or ‘hateful’, but that doesn’t change the fact that they simply want to fully indulge themselves in their basest appetites and passions, and make the rest of us applaud them for it.

    I wonder if a psychologist/headshrinker would call that ‘narcissistic’.

  • acat

    It makes the attack options for liberals trickier, it lets churches add requirements for a “church marriage” to strengthen the institution/sacrament, and it pretty much pisses off every side.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    You know, it’s almost ironic, but I once heard Elton John say that homosexuals are going about this in entirely the wrong way. He said that they should work to establish civil unions, than petition government for the same rights granted to marriages via civil unions rather than even remotely attempting to get into the religious realm, which is what he considered marriage to be a part of.

    His idea was a good one. Yours is even better.

  • ww2nd95

    I don’t think people are born that way, but I don’t think I would call it a choice either. I mean you’re either attracted to men or women, and of course some people are attracted to both. I’m attracted to women. I’m not attracted to men. I don’t see that as something I chose to do, I think it just is what it is.

    As far as the slippery slope goes, I still believe my argument stands. PTTP is trying to say if we allow gay marriage, then it could open up this can of worms and could possibly lead to those different scenarios he is trying to get alabamered to decide where his line in the sand is drawn. I see all of them as unrealistic as I said before. We’re not going to see laws enacted to allow brother to merry sister or polygamy. I think it’s a bad argument, because there is no way anything of that sort would ever get passed in any congress.

    Before the Civil Rights act of 64 was drawn up, I’m sure there were all kinds of these questions about where it would end and “where’s your line in the sand” kinds of questions. Now I’m not comparing the Civil Rights Act to gay marriage, I’m simply using an example of a controversial law at that time to make a point that there will always be bills or laws that are passed, that could possibly end up being more negative then positive, we have plenty of them. I just do not see this as anything that’s going to lead to laws as bad as PTTP is talking about.

    Where my concern really comes from is I don’t see this particular amendment in NC, helping Republicans politically. As I do feel the country as a whole, is trending toward accepting gay marriage, and no matter how many laws we pass to stop it, if the majority of people want it, eventually it’s going to happen.

    I’m not opposed to gay marriage, I’m not for it either. What I’m opposed to, is the Republicans doing themselves more harm then good in this very important election, passing laws such as this, that could drive a wedge between conservatives and the indys that Mitt Romney needs to beat Obama.

  • avgjo

    1. How do you account for homosexuals not being born as they are but at the same time not choosing it? What beyond their control compels them to live as they do?

    2. Actually, with all due respect, your argument against further deviant acts being legalized is a bad argument. Just because you see it as unrealistic doesn’t make it so. I would imagine back in the day when no-fault divorce was being debated, there were people like you saying ‘it’s unrealistic to say that homosexuals will one day be married’ blah, blah,blah. This is the insidiousness of incrementalism. Too many people are gullible enough to think that the ‘small’ gains by whichever party will not lead to radical results in the future. I imagine that, if PTTP and my concerns are realized (and without a complete shutdown of the homofascist movement, they will be), there will be many weak-minded ‘conservatives’ calling traditionalists like us ‘bigoted’ or ‘hateful’ for railing against bestiality perverts, polygamists and pedophiles. This is the danger of adopting the language of the left, which includes words like ‘bigot’ and ‘hate’.

    3. There is no evidence for your assertion that the country is trending toward the acceptance of homosexual marriage, aside from a few polls from questionable sources. Everywhere, EVERYWHERE it has been put to a vote by non-ruling class people, it has failed.

    4. Those independents that everyone is so worried about are so weak-minded, they don’t have any principles. It is folly to worry about swaying them,, because there is no consistency to them, there is no consistent way to appeal to them. The key is get your base out. Amendments like NC’s and the support thereof is a great way to motivate your base.

  • demsaresatanic

    fundamental as marriage being between men and women is so weak in spirit that it does not deserve to survive, and will not survive for long.