Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

North Carolina votes down same sex marriage...

Posted by   + Show Post

 

Updated at 8:17 a.m. ET: North Carolina voters Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution which limits marriage to traditional one man-one woman marriages.

With all of the state's 100 counties reporting, the amendment won in a landslide, with 61 percent of the vote.

Supporters of traditional marriage were encouraged by the outcome in North Carolina and portrayed it as part of a trend in their favor.

“Our position that marriage is between a man and a woman is gaining support, not losing support,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

“Earlier this week the Gallup poll showed that support for same-sex marriage is down. Actual vote percentages in favor of traditional marriage are rising. In 2008 in California, the Prop 8 constitutional amendment on traditional marriage passed with 52 percent of the vote. Then in 2009 in Maine, 53 percent of voters stood for traditional marriage and rejected same-sex marriage legislation. In 2010, 56 percent of Iowa voters rejected three Supreme Court judges who had imposed gay marriage in that state. And now more than 60 percent of North Carolina voters have passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There is a clear trend line, and it is moving in our direction.”

Full article: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604355-north-carolina-approves-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-by-wide-margin

 

Any thoughts?

 

by on May. 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Replies (121-125):
bluerooffarm
by Silver Member on May. 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM

 Again, thank you.  I had never thought about it that way.  I had always thought of marriage as a covenant between 2 people and God to live their lives together for the rest of their natural lives.  Since the way I view God and the way other's view God are often different, I wasn't comfortable not including gays in this definition.  Kind of a "let God sort it out" kind of thing. 

It's a very interesting idea that you present.  I'm glad I didn't just dismiss it.  I'll have to think on it some more though.

Quoting asfriend:

You're welcome.

Most of those issues can be addressed through the legal contracts that I mentioned. It would simply be an extension of what we are already doing as more and more hetrocouples are remaining (sadly IMO) unmarried. The legal hurdles would be far less and much easier climbed than the route they are taking.

PS ( in my opinion, the homosexual LOBBY is not simply looking for equality in the way you mention, and the way that the majority wants, which is just equal access. the LOBBY wants to be MARRIED, just because they think anything else is a loss.)

PSS -Look at it this way, in the 1950's there were water fountains in convenient places for white people, less convenient places for black people. Black people ( and reasonable white people) said, umm we would like to have water fountains in convenient places too, we would like to drink from yours. We would like to be equal. Blacks simply wanted to drink from the same fountain they didn't want to be white (married).

If black's had asked for the term "white" to be changed so that they could drink from the same fountain, we would still have seperate fountains.

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 Thank you for answering.  Very interesting.

Can i ask how you would provide for homosexuals in a relationship to have joined insurance or allow them decisions on medical procedures?  Or should they not be allowed to have those because they are not married?

Quoting asfriend:

As a hetrosexual I can marry someone of the opposite sex, I can not marry someone of the same sex.

A homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, they can not marry someone of the same sex.

I can, however, make legal contracts, with members of either sex.

A homosexual cna make legal contracts with member of either sex.

Allowing homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex gives them a right, I then do not have. (and opens the door wider for fraud and manipulation of our already beleagured system.)

Words mean things.  Marriage is a word that means a specific thing.

I would be against discrimination of anyone based SOLEY on their homosexual standing, however they can not be married (to each other.)


 

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I asked this already, but I'd really like to understand this viewpoint, so....

Can you explain what "special right" you believe is being given to same sex couples when the state recognizes their right to marry? Seriously, I don't understand that position.

Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting lga1965:

 

Quoting asfriend:

i live in nc and voted "for" of course, it was already against the law, this was just a step to thwart activist judges who think they are above the law. over 60% voted for, over 90% of the states it is illegal. if you are for gays having special rights simply because they were born with a defective gene, you should check yourself you are seriously outside the mainstream

 

 

 

 

 

asfriend
by on May. 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM
1 mom liked this

Thank ya ma'am.

I am certainly open to any reasonable counteroffers. sunglasses mini 

I admit that there may be ideas that I haven't considered.

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 Again, thank you.  I had never thought about it that way.  I had always thought of marriage as a covenant between 2 people and God to live their lives together for the rest of their natural lives.  Since the way I view God and the way other's view God are often different, I wasn't comfortable not including gays in this definition.  Kind of a "let God sort it out" kind of thing. 

It's a very interesting idea that you present.  I'm glad I didn't just dismiss it.  I'll have to think on it some more though.

Quoting asfriend:

You're welcome.

Most of those issues can be addressed through the legal contracts that I mentioned. It would simply be an extension of what we are already doing as more and more hetrocouples are remaining (sadly IMO) unmarried. The legal hurdles would be far less and much easier climbed than the route they are taking.

PS ( in my opinion, the homosexual LOBBY is not simply looking for equality in the way you mention, and the way that the majority wants, which is just equal access. the LOBBY wants to be MARRIED, just because they think anything else is a loss.)

PSS -Look at it this way, in the 1950's there were water fountains in convenient places for white people, less convenient places for black people. Black people ( and reasonable white people) said, umm we would like to have water fountains in convenient places too, we would like to drink from yours. We would like to be equal. Blacks simply wanted to drink from the same fountain they didn't want to be white (married).

If black's had asked for the term "white" to be changed so that they could drink from the same fountain, we would still have seperate fountains.

 

 

 

PamR
by Platinum Member on May. 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM

The Last Time North Carolina Amended Its Constitution To Regulate Marriage, It Was To Ban Interracial Marriage


Yesterday’s North Carolina Amendment 1 vote made extra sure that marriage equality was banned in the state constitution. It also now makes it official that all 11 original Confederate states (13 if you count Missouri and Kentucky, as the South did) have adopted a constitutional amendment discriminating against this particular minority . . . sigh.


Interesting.

Momniscient
by on May. 11, 2012 at 12:30 AM

It is interesting.

Quoting PamR:

The Last Time North Carolina Amended Its Constitution To Regulate Marriage, It Was To Ban Interracial Marriage


Yesterday’s North Carolina Amendment 1 vote made extra sure that marriage equality was banned in the state constitution. It also now makes it official that all 11 original Confederate states (13 if you count Missouri and Kentucky, as the South did) have adopted a constitutional amendment discriminating against this particular minority . . . sigh.


Interesting.



bluerooffarm
by Silver Member on May. 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM

 

Quoting PamR:

The Last Time North Carolina Amended Its Constitution To Regulate Marriage, It Was To Ban Interracial Marriage

 

Yesterday’s North Carolina Amendment 1 vote made extra sure that marriage equality was banned in the state constitution. It also now makes it official that all 11 original Confederate states (13 if you count Missouri and Kentucky, as the South did) have adopted a constitutional amendment discriminating against this particular minority . . . sigh.


Interesting.

 While I agree it is interesting, the voters of this generation can only be held accountable for what they did this week, not what their ancestors did in 1875.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN