a sad day in NC

[waitasec]

North Carolina voters have passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, CNN projects, putting a ban that already existed in state law into the state's charter.
With more than 1.5 million votes counted from Tuesday's referendum, supporters of the ban led opponents by a margin of 61% to 39%, according to figures from the State Board of Elections. Its backers prepared to celebrate by serving wedding cake to their supporters in a Raleigh ballroom.

mean mean mean.

The amendment also would strengthen the state's position against same-sex civil unions, often considered a precursor to the marriage issue. Several municipalities in North Carolina provide benefits to same-sex couples, and Duke University law professor Kathryn Bradley said those rights could be lost with passage of the amendment.

North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban, CNN projects - CNN.com

 

[Tarheeler]

Yep. I'm really disappointed with the majority of my fellow Tarheelers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I don't understand your state's compassion.
Why not inflict the scourge of marriage on gays too?

 

[blackout]

We are a twisted and uncompassionate people.

I really am not proud to be an american.

 

[blackout]

So many americans are little more than an embarassment to humanity.

And Huge, proud blocks of them.
So proud.
The heartless have their wedding cake,
and rub what's left in your face
after eating it.
Like a bunch of pigs.

 

[Pegg]

does this mean democracy isnt working?

 

[Revoltingest]

does this mean democracy isnt working?

That's a hard question to answer without familiarity with the NC state constitution.
It would limit or direct citizen's ability to vote in such a law.

 

[waitasec]

does this mean democracy isnt working?

i'd say theocracy is working just fine.

 

[Tarheeler]

That's a hard question to answer without familiarity with the NC state constitution.
It would limit or direct citizen's ability to vote in such a law.

Ah, but we didn't vote on a law. Same-sex marriage has been banned in NC by state law for over a decade.

We voted on a constitutional amendment that enshrines the abilty of the majority to deny equality to a minority. And I don't see that as a proper function of a democracy that operates on the premise of equality and the rule of law.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm not happy with this, but the real issue as I see it is states rights.

Should we have one law of the land? What if we forced all colleges to allow gun carry?

This is just a hypothetical question, but would it not be better to let all the bigots live in one state?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Mob rule wins again.

 

[Vinayaka]

We voted on a constitutional amendment that enshrines the abilty of the majority to deny equality to a minority.

I find this part of 'democracy' very scary. It's allowed for ethnic cleansing elsewhere. What's next, a ban on Judaism, Toyota cars, Hindus, Jews, religious books other than the bible? Taken to an extreme, democracy can be lethal. If there's 3 people in a room, and 2 or them vote to kill the third guy, this is democracy?

In a classroom setting, if PE teachers put it to a vote as to what fun activity is to be had, whichever gender just happens to be in a majority gets to choose.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not happy with this, but the real issue as I see it is states rights.

Should we have one law of the land? What if we forced all colleges to allow gun carry?

This is just a hypothetical question, but would it not be better to let all the bigots live in one state?

I'm not an extreme state's rights advocate, but I tend to see your point on this one, Rick. Shame on North Carolina! But it does seem to be their right. At least unless and until the Constitution is amended or reinterpreted.

One of the benefits of strong states is that each state can be a laboratory for testing new ideas. However, I cannot see how we can have that benefit without also having the occasional abhorrent idea tested, too.

It is more than disturbing that such a fundamental right as marriage is denied to homosexuals by any state. But every trend analysis that I am aware of predicts on the basis of polling that homosexual marriage rights will be recognized in all 50 states within the next two or three decades. So, this is most likely a temporary set-back.

 

[waitasec]

I'm not an extreme state's rights advocate, but I tend to see your point on this one, Rick. Shame on North Carolina! But it does seem to be their right. At least unless and until the Constitution is amended or reinterpreted.

One of the benefits of strong states is that each state can be a laboratory for testing new ideas. However, I cannot see how we can have that benefit without also having the occasional abhorrent idea tested, too.

Still, it is more than disturbing that such a fundamental right as marriage is denied to homosexuals by any state.

i agree.
i don't understand why/how equality needs to be reinterpreted.

 

[Sunstone]

i agree.
i don't understand why/how equality needs to be reinterpreted.

"Reinterpreted" or "interpreted". Same thing in this case.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

It is basically a biblical issue. The irony, at least I hope, is when Jesus comes to collect his folks, all the bigots will be up front waiting to go with him, and Jesus will be like, "Excuse me, excuse me, not you, no not you" Then like Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings, Jesus Slams down his staff and parts the bigots like the Red Sea, and all the people in the back of the crowd, you know all the sinners and gay people and such like, will walk through the split crowd to receive their reward for being so tormented from the bigots.

Just saying

 

[Road Warrior]

does this mean democracy isnt working?

Yes, but we're a Constitutional democracy. This is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. It will be overturned by SCOTUS.

 

[Tarheeler]

i agree.
i don't understand why/how equality needs to be reinterpreted.

Because, at least in the US, equality was never equal.

First, only white men who owned property could be equal.
Then it was expanded, and all white men could be equal. Well, unless you were Irish or Catholic.
And then blacks could be equal, but not really.
And then we kinda added women.
Then we let Irish and Catholics be really equal, but still not the blacks.

Equality is constantly evolving. We just need to make sure it's going foward rather than backward.

I don't know if saying that equality needs to be reinterpreted is quite the right term, but equality, or maybe better put as who it applies to and how it is legislated, has to be constantly examined and expanded. Because, as my fellow North Carolinians just proved, we still have groups that aren't seen as equal.

 

[waitasec]

Because, at least in the US, equality was never equal.

First, only white men who owned property could be equal.
Then it was expanded, and all white men could be equal. Well, unless you were Irish or Catholic.
And then blacks could be equal, but not really.
And then we kinda added women.
Then we let Irish and Catholics be really equal, but still not the blacks.

Equality is constantly evolving. We just need to make sure it's going foward rather than backward.

I don't know if saying that equality needs to be reinterpreted is quite the right term, but equality, or maybe better put as who it applies to and how it is legislated, has to be constantly examined and expanded. Because, as my fellow North Carolinians just proved, we still have groups that aren't seen as equal.

well said.

 

[Willamena]

does this mean democracy isnt working?

Just the opposite.