NC passes gay marriage amendment...

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
693
#1
...even though they already had a law on the books blocking gay marriage, it's now been amended to the state constitution.

No article, just this link to the results page on WRAL.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
838
#2
I voted against...and of course voted Romney and McCrory. I'm not the least bit surprised the Amendment passed...I even knew of plenty Democrats that voted for it. Regardless of party affiliation...there are alot of religious people in this state that want to reaffirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Also glad Bob "WHO'RRRRR YOUUUUU?!?!" Etheridge lost the Dem primary. Guy would've been an embarrassment.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
513
#3
So does that mean that its cool or not?

I have a very religious friend living in NC and his FB posts about this issue have been incredibly retarded. I wanted to smash the jeebus lover but I thought it would be better to get my facts straight first.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
838
#4
So does that mean that its cool or not?

I have a very religious friend living in NC and his FB posts about this issue have been incredibly retarded. I wanted to smash the jeebus lover but I thought it would be better to get my facts straight first.
It means that they've joined another 29 states in reaffirming that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and makes it harder for that to ever be changed.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
293
#5
Congratulations to Lindsey Graham and his..... oh wait wrong Carolina. Some day Lindsey.....some day.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
693
#6
Yeah, some of the facebook comments supporting this travesty are really enraging. Lots of "Praise the Lord" "God is good", etc. type shit because this passed.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
838
#7
Obama campaign: POTUS is "disappointed' that the gay marriage ban passed in N.C.
Oh yeah....I'm sure he is disappointed. He's gotta be all like, "Dayum...gay people should have the right to marry! It's not fair!!!" and not like "Dayum...I'm probably going to lose that state in the election this time around!" :icon_cool
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
568
#8
You know what the cool thing about amendments is? They can be repealed.

When the old people who voted for it die, and the Mexicans who voted for it go back to Mexico or become Americanized, they'll repeal it.

Like it or not, this is a proper way to go about it, by following the state's constitution. And the good news is, since it's only a state, the faygs can go to another state and marry all they want.
 

CougarHunter

Lying causes cat piss smell.
Mar 2, 2006
566
#9
I think they go for that sort of thing up in Assachusetts. Try there.
 

South Jersey

I told you so ... too
Sep 14, 2004
576
#10
  • Righ to work state
  • Gay marriage ban
  • low taxes
  • they hate barry

Now if they could just do something about that Thirteenth Amendment! :trollol:
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
763
#11
North Carolina's on a roll. Hopefully they will repeal inter-racial and inter-religious marriages next. No need to stop at just one.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
438
#12
You know what the cool thing about amendments is? They can be repealed.

When the old people who voted for it die, and the Mexicans who voted for it go back to Mexico or become Americanized, they'll repeal it.

Like it or not, this is a proper way to go about it, by following the state's constitution. And the good news is, since it's only a state, the faygs can go to another state and marry all they want.
Ballot referendums are not the way to do it, but if they are used it should be at least a 2/3 majority to amend a state's constitution. Otherwise it's mob rule, something the founders were very explicit about.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
393
#13
I've mentioned my solution before to this nonsensical issue

All current legal marriages are now legally known as civil unions
the gov't will now only recognize civil unions

you can have your marriage ceremony in whatever type of religious setting you want and then you can go to the court house and file your civil union contract which has nothing to do with the ceremony or party you had, you can even file your civil union papers before you even get married in the eyes of Xenu or whatever fairy tale character you want

this way the "institution of marriage" is protected for those that care about that sort of thing - although I think as soon as the churches (who are the ones so worried about protecting marriage) recognized divorces, they damaged the institution of marriage themselves. Let's see you take an oath under whatever god you believe in, in whatever church that worships that god, in front of all your friends and family, etc... and then as soon as it is inconvenient to be married, you get divorced. What ever happened to that oath to your god of choice you took till death do us part ???

Oh its 2012 aside from economic issues (her health insurance plan is better than mine and it will save me a lot of money to get on her policy) there is no need to get married. The happiest married couples I have ever known were those that were in a marriage of connivence - most of them even liked each other. Two incomes are better than one, consolidate expenses, a steady lay & a steady date, companionship, reproduction, etc... - You don't have to be in a legal contract for any of those purposes.
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
763
#14
What he said: if marriage is sooo important, why not make divorce illegal?
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
458
#15
I've mentioned my solution before to this nonsensical issue

All current legal marriages are now legally known as civil unions
the gov't will now only recognize civil unions

you can have your marriage ceremony in whatever type of religious setting you want and then you can go to the court house and file your civil union contract which has nothing to do with the ceremony or party you had, you can even file your civil union papers before you even get married in the eyes of Xenu or whatever fairy tale character you want

this way the "institution of marriage" is protected for those that care about that sort of thing - although I think as soon as the churches (who are the ones so worried about protecting marriage) recognized divorces, they damaged the institution of marriage themselves. Let's see you take an oath under whatever god you believe in, in whatever church that worships that god, in front of all your friends and family, etc... and then as soon as it is inconvenient to be married, you get divorced. What ever happened to that oath to your god of choice you took till death do us part ???

Oh its 2012 aside from economic issues (her health insurance plan is better than mine and it will save me a lot of money to get on her policy) there is no need to get married. The happiest married couples I have ever known were those that were in a marriage of connivence - most of them even liked each other. Two incomes are better than one, consolidate expenses, a steady lay & a steady date, companionship, reproduction, etc... - You don't have to be in a legal contract for any of those purposes.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken this Amendment they just passed not only bans gay-marriage but also outlaws civil unions and gay couples from sharing benefits. THAT'S what is so shitty about this particular vote.
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
763
#16
Actually, if I'm not mistaken this Amendment they just passed not only bans gay-marriage but also outlaws civil unions and gay couples from sharing benefits. THAT'S what is so shitty about this particular vote.
Yep. Brought to you by a state of terrorist abortion clinic bomber harborers.
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
458
#17
Yep. Brought to you by a state of terrorist abortion clinic bomber harborers.
I try to stay out of the whole marriage v civil union argument because to me I see it as splitting hairs over a dictionary definition. I don't care what you call it, as long as gay couples are afforded the same benefits that my wife and I are I don't care. Taking away the right to life insurance benefits, see your spouse/partner in the hospital, etc. to me is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
763
#18
I try to stay out of the whole marriage v civil union argument because to me I see it as splitting hairs over a dictionary definition. I don't care what you call it, as long as gay couples are afforded the same benefits that my wife and I are I don't care. Taking away the right to life insurance benefits, see your spouse/partner in the hospital, etc. to me is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

Bbbbbbbuuttttt marrying farm animals!!!!!!
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
898
#20
You know what the cool thing about amendments is? They can be repealed.

When the old people who voted for it die, and the Mexicans who voted for it go back to Mexico or become Americanized, they'll repeal it.

Like it or not, this is a proper way to go about it, by following the state's constitution. And the good news is, since it's only a state, the faygs can go to another state and marry all they want.
Yeah, it should be perfectly okay to vote away equal rights. That's not protected by the constitution or anything. Your take on this issue is retarded.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
578
#21
This amendment is such bullshit. If the point is to "protect" marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why did they need to also outlaw ALL civil unions?
 

Stig

Making America So Great You Won't Believe It.
Jul 26, 2005
623
#22
The South is fucking retarded.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
898
#23
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
458
#24
This amendment is such bullshit. If the point is to "protect" marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why did they need to also outlaw ALL civil unions?
Because Prime Directive 21?
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
398
#25
Ballot referendums are not the way to do it, but if they are used it should be at least a 2/3 majority to amend a state's constitution. Otherwise it's mob rule, something the founders were very explicit about.
It depends on how you look at it. If gay marriage isn't protected by the US Constitution, then it's simply self-governing under the 10th Amendment (not mob rule). These days I tend to lean towards civil unions as a minimum being protected under the Constitution (gay couples should get the same tax breaks, etc as everyone else). I actually don't think the federal government should have any involvement in marriage.