Willie Anglin
Active Member
Proudly voting for A1 today.
Marriage Amendment vote today in NC
- Thread starter Willie Anglin
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
I hope this doesn't pass.
There are those in the south that voted against desegregation, against the woman's right to vote, against abolishing slavery, etc, so I guess I shouldn't see this as anything new. This amendment shouldn't surprise me...though I am disturbed.
Times change, and equal rights for gays and lesbians is just another step towards progress.
I proudly believe that the minority of people in this country that do not support gay rights do so because they simply haven't been enlightened (yet). Maybe they don't have a gay or lesbian family member, someone that they can relate to, get to understand, and love for who they are and for who God made them to be. Maybe they feel being gay is a choice. Maybe they just cling to a few portions of a more than 2000 year old book that serves their agenda, while discarding much of the rest that doesn't.
I scratch my head at the intolerance; intolerance that deprives someone else of something that we all get "for free", and that if granted to the other wouldn't hurt any of us in the least. That's just mean spirited and evil in my book.
TJR
There are those in the south that voted against desegregation, against the woman's right to vote, against abolishing slavery, etc, so I guess I shouldn't see this as anything new. This amendment shouldn't surprise me...though I am disturbed.
Times change, and equal rights for gays and lesbians is just another step towards progress.
I proudly believe that the minority of people in this country that do not support gay rights do so because they simply haven't been enlightened (yet). Maybe they don't have a gay or lesbian family member, someone that they can relate to, get to understand, and love for who they are and for who God made them to be. Maybe they feel being gay is a choice. Maybe they just cling to a few portions of a more than 2000 year old book that serves their agenda, while discarding much of the rest that doesn't.
I scratch my head at the intolerance; intolerance that deprives someone else of something that we all get "for free", and that if granted to the other wouldn't hurt any of us in the least. That's just mean spirited and evil in my book.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert Caffyn
Well-Known Member
Same gender relations have been prevalent since ancient times. There is are even references to it in the Holy Bible. The fact that loyal American citizens are being denied the same rights and privileges as their kin is deplorable. This harkens back to segregation and old idealism. Do I think its right to make sure they enjoy all the freedom's this country has to offer? YES. Do I accept same sex partners. YES. Marriage? Why not! If its the only way these citizens can be guaranteed equal rights, than YES. Bob :banghead:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
The governor of NC seems to be reasonable and recognizes that this amendment hurts NC, its people, and their rights...
Watch the video...
Watch the video...
As a political scientist, I interpret civil unions as necessary and denial of them is unconstitutional. As a Christian and a political scientist, I don't think the government has any authority to tell a church which unions it should or should not ordain so gay marriage is a non-political issue. Liberals want separation of church and state unless it's state inside the church.
C'mon TJR, you know that was a completely unfair assessment. This issue was brought up before the liberal crusaders in California and gay marriage is still a no-go. How's your state doing on the gay rights front? Rocks, glass houses?
C'mon TJR, you know that was a completely unfair assessment. This issue was brought up before the liberal crusaders in California and gay marriage is still a no-go. How's your state doing on the gay rights front? Rocks, glass houses?
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Hugh,
I agree that the government cannot tell a church what type of marriages it must perform.
I stand behind the basis of what I said. This issue is about denying rights. The main problem is that our various governments, agencies, institutions and organizations have tied certain rights and benefits to marriage... Essentially promoting marriage. Our government caused this problem through that action.
Get the government out of the marriage business.
I see the amendment passed. How long before it gets struck down?
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Anglin
Active Member
61 to 39% passed, not good as I wanted but pretty much a slam dunk. I am happy a the institution of marriage has took another step in ensuring it stays the same as it has since the beginning of our country. Divorce is hurting this country and the erosion of marriage hurts a society and country.
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
True..
It is related to as perversion, though.
Robert Caffyn
Well-Known Member
Didn't say good or bad, just that its in there. Bob
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Prchrman, so what's next? NC pass an amendment banning divorce?
61 to 39% a slam dunk? I guess your definition of a slam dunk is far different than mine, and clearly not much of a mandate.
I am all for a church defining a marriage to be whatever it wants.
The traditional marriage in NC is no more or no less eroded today as it was yesterday. Those that want a traditional marriage can still get one. Those that want to stay in a traditional marriage still can.
Not that long ago there were both laws and/or church teachings against marrying outside of one's faith, religion and even race. I suspect there are those that believe when that all changed it somehow eroded marriage as well.
I continue scratching my head at the mentality that pervades this country, that mentality being somehow that if someone else GETS SOMETHING then must be somehow I must be LOSING SOMETHING.
Giving gays the legal right to marry changes nothing for traditional marriage...absolutely NOTHING, and anyone that says it does, anyone that says it will shake the foundation of that very institution must not believe that foundation and that institution is very solid.
Kind of like the religious folks that plug their ears rather than discuss their religion, as if someone's different ideas will corrupt them, convert them, or otherwise tarnish their faith.
Oh, and I also stand by the following picture... Cousin marriage is legal in NC. Be proud NC, be very proud. I guess marrying your uncle's daughter doesn't seem to erode marriage in any way....
[Broken External Image]:
TJR
61 to 39% a slam dunk? I guess your definition of a slam dunk is far different than mine, and clearly not much of a mandate.
I am all for a church defining a marriage to be whatever it wants.
The traditional marriage in NC is no more or no less eroded today as it was yesterday. Those that want a traditional marriage can still get one. Those that want to stay in a traditional marriage still can.
Not that long ago there were both laws and/or church teachings against marrying outside of one's faith, religion and even race. I suspect there are those that believe when that all changed it somehow eroded marriage as well.
I continue scratching my head at the mentality that pervades this country, that mentality being somehow that if someone else GETS SOMETHING then must be somehow I must be LOSING SOMETHING.
Giving gays the legal right to marry changes nothing for traditional marriage...absolutely NOTHING, and anyone that says it does, anyone that says it will shake the foundation of that very institution must not believe that foundation and that institution is very solid.
Kind of like the religious folks that plug their ears rather than discuss their religion, as if someone's different ideas will corrupt them, convert them, or otherwise tarnish their faith.
Oh, and I also stand by the following picture... Cousin marriage is legal in NC. Be proud NC, be very proud. I guess marrying your uncle's daughter doesn't seem to erode marriage in any way....
[Broken External Image]:
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Oh, and Obama goes on the record supporting gay marriage, so watch the NC amendment first in the NC supreme court, then, if needed, in the SCOTUS.
Because that amounts to a whole lot.:bwahaha:
I still think your swipe at southern states was unnecessary. It's as if you believe your enlightened northeastern home state and neighbors have somehow acted any differently. Even the liberal testing ground of Cali shot this one down. The stereotype is old and tired.
:btddhorse:
Look up the most gay city in the U.S. from last year. It's solidly in the south (the real south) if you need a hint.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jacob Dryer
Well-Known Member
Not mine but this sums up my view..
Getting mad about gay marriage because it's against your religion is like getting mad at someone's who's eating a cookie because you're on a diet. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.
Getting mad about gay marriage because it's against your religion is like getting mad at someone's who's eating a cookie because you're on a diet. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Hugh,
PA essentially stalled/squashed a ban amendment before it could ever go to vote. NY, a neighboring state has gay marriage. I stand by what I said, if it was felt as a slight against southern states, oh well...not my intent.
NC was clearly not enlightened. nuff said.
PA essentially stalled/squashed a ban amendment before it could ever go to vote. NY, a neighboring state has gay marriage. I stand by what I said, if it was felt as a slight against southern states, oh well...not my intent.
NC was clearly not enlightened. nuff said.
Bo Loo
Well-Known Member
My only questions are what exactly is this protecting any one from? What harm to anyone is this preventing?
I see nothing and none.
I see nothing and none.
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
My first question to my son, should he choose to get married, would not be: Is it a girl or guy, but is it a "Yankee".
When I was in TN and there was a yearly vote to make liquor lawful in the county, the bootleggers and preachers would team up to vote it down. The marriage vote in NC was the same. Groups of individuals teaming up to vote.
What right to I have to complain about another State's legal vote on any law?
Bo you ask a interesting question. One that I believe is the underlying problem with any vote effecting gay rights. No one can really predict the overall financial effects of a of gay rights on the economy or future laws that will expand marriage rights. Questions of marriage of convenience, common law marriages of any two people living together, survivors financial rights, insurance litigation, health care benefits, ect, ect.
As an example: Two women living together. One has a son. No legal documents supporting any type of civil commitment. One, without the son, a police officer is shot and killed. Lump sum of funding available $200,000 plus and additional lump for the education of a surviving child. Is the surviving lady entitled to the lump sum funding and retirement benefits, and is her son entitled to the additional money. Common law marriage is already an legal right.
When I was in TN and there was a yearly vote to make liquor lawful in the county, the bootleggers and preachers would team up to vote it down. The marriage vote in NC was the same. Groups of individuals teaming up to vote.
What right to I have to complain about another State's legal vote on any law?
Bo you ask a interesting question. One that I believe is the underlying problem with any vote effecting gay rights. No one can really predict the overall financial effects of a of gay rights on the economy or future laws that will expand marriage rights. Questions of marriage of convenience, common law marriages of any two people living together, survivors financial rights, insurance litigation, health care benefits, ect, ect.
As an example: Two women living together. One has a son. No legal documents supporting any type of civil commitment. One, without the son, a police officer is shot and killed. Lump sum of funding available $200,000 plus and additional lump for the education of a surviving child. Is the surviving lady entitled to the lump sum funding and retirement benefits, and is her son entitled to the additional money. Common law marriage is already an legal right.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Redfish asked:
We all have that right. We live in the UNITED States...there is no 100% sovereignty among states, they all have a higher authority and that authority is "We the people..."
TJR
We all have that right. We live in the UNITED States...there is no 100% sovereignty among states, they all have a higher authority and that authority is "We the people..."
TJR
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that a simple thing like a will naming the surviving woman and/or son as beneficiary/beneficiaries would take care of issues like these (in most states). A marriage/civil union would only be necessary for the above example for things like next-of-kin hospital visitation or other things like that. If you have the foresight to have a legal, current will on file, you can name pretty much anyone/anything you want as beneficiary. And with power-of-attorney documents, you can name pretty much anyone to make decisions on your behalf (financial, medical, etc.) if you're not able to do so yourself.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
TrainTrac, I'm also no lawyer, but I think the will would be insufficient here. The $200k + $200k cited in Redfish's example aren't part of the deceased parent's estate yet--they're benefits paid to survivors from some program (might be union related, might be insurance related, might be other--I'm not sure the source is all that relevant to the discussion). If the deceased cop has a spouse and/or child, the benefits are paid--if they don't have one and/or the other, this benefit isn't paid. And if they're not paid, then the estate has nothing to distribute via a will. Such benefits are typically legally tied to the existence of a marriage/civil union.
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
TJR
I live in the US. "I" determined that "I "don't have a right to, nor need, complain about laws passed by the people of another State. My Right. You have the Right to complain about anything you like. Including, what I determine to be my Rights.
TrainTrac
This is close to a actual case. The money indicated were federal funds directed to surviving spouses and children. The victim had not named the woman in her will, nor informed the organization that she was married/involved. The surviving woman tried to claim the funds and the victims pension funds that would normally be given to only a spouse. Insurance money went to the beneficiary. In the instance of no spouse no pension funds would have been available nor would and federal support funds. I never heard what happen to the claim. It may still be in court. My point.
I live in the US. "I" determined that "I "don't have a right to, nor need, complain about laws passed by the people of another State. My Right. You have the Right to complain about anything you like. Including, what I determine to be my Rights.
TrainTrac
This is close to a actual case. The money indicated were federal funds directed to surviving spouses and children. The victim had not named the woman in her will, nor informed the organization that she was married/involved. The surviving woman tried to claim the funds and the victims pension funds that would normally be given to only a spouse. Insurance money went to the beneficiary. In the instance of no spouse no pension funds would have been available nor would and federal support funds. I never heard what happen to the claim. It may still be in court. My point.
