May 9, 201214 yr As some know NC voted yesterday to make gay marriage unconstitutional in the state. I've read many articles today and have watched some interviews. More than once the argument against gay marriage centered around the Bible and procreation. The argument was that the Bible said that procreation is by married couples and that couple consisted of a man and a woman. If procreation is the driving force why not ban pre-marital sex? Birth out of wedlock?
May 9, 201214 yr If only they'd banned it sooner John Edwards wouldn't have cheated on his dying wife. The Edwards' marriage was an unfortunate casualty of that states' reluctance to protect traditional marriage. Thank God marriage is safe now. /Sorry for being a smart aleck.
May 9, 201214 yr Why not ban marriage for infertile couples? I would think that if one is fertile and the other isn't, then that would be a perfectly good waste of fertility. (:eyeonyou:, in case anyone thinks that I am serious)
May 9, 201214 yr As a few know in one of the forums on this topic, I wrote a 25 pg. paper regarding the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act that gives states the rights to pass these statutes. This is wholly unconstitutional. The California cases will make its way to the Supreme Court and overturn it.
May 9, 201214 yr The people of NC have spoken loudly and so it shall be. The amendment will close the door on this issue. NC becomes the 30th state to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The vote was a landslide.
May 9, 201214 yr The people of NC have spoken loudly and so it shall be. The amendment will close the door on this issue. NC becomes the 30th state to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The vote was a landslide. Not sure what's sadder....That 30 states have passed unconstitutional bigoted laws banning this or that the tone of your post is almost giddy that this was done.
May 9, 201214 yr Link with lots of information... North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage, Amendment 1 (May 2012) - Ballotpedia Interesting issues such as having the vote during the primary season or during the general election. Many 'conservative' groups opposed it. One impact for NC or any state that 'outlaws' any legal relationship could cause headaches for companies that provide 'partner benefits'. Lots of big companies that do that are located at Research Triangle Park in between Raleigh and Durham.
May 10, 201214 yr Link with lots of information... North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage, Amendment 1 (May 2012) - Ballotpedia Interesting issues such as having the vote during the primary season or during the general election. Many 'conservative' groups opposed it. One impact for NC or any state that 'outlaws' any legal relationship could cause headaches for companies that provide 'partner benefits'. Lots of big companies that do that are located at Research Triangle Park in between Raleigh and Durham. Question....wouldn't health insurance issue be regulated by the state in which the company were headquartered?
May 10, 201214 yr Question....wouldn't health insurance issue be regulated by the state in which the company were headquartered? Not that I believe. States regulate insurance for their residence. So a large company that has employees in 50 states has to work with 50 different sets of laws. I suspect that is why the large companies like the idea of nationalized healthcare. Either they get out of it all together or they only have to work with one set of rules. Here you have a state saying that it is illegal to recognize a relationship that looks or acts like 'gay marriage' or even 'civil unions'. So does that put a company at risk that does recognize the union? If so, how? What is penalty for violating the constitution. Especially if the violator is a corporation. I see lots of legal fees in someones future. I think you know I am fairly agnostic on this subject. I wish the government would get out of the marriage game all together. Everything should be just be a civil union if even that in the eyes of the government.
May 10, 201214 yr Not sure what's sadder....That 30 states have passed unconstitutional bigoted laws banning this or that the tone of your post is almost giddy that this was done. Just so glad we live in a democracy where the voice of the people counts and can be heard. I hope you don't have an issue with that, do you?
May 10, 201214 yr Just so glad we live in a democracy where the voice of the people counts and can be heard. I hope you don't have an issue with that, do you? I do when the voice of the people trample on human rights.
May 10, 201214 yr "Let it be written, let it be done". But, like I said somewhere else let them have benefits for their special person. Its funny none of my debaters have brought up that I have said that many times.
May 10, 201214 yr "Let it be written, let it be done". But, like I said somewhere else let them have benefits for their special person. Its funny none of my debaters have brought up that I have said that many times. Not even sure what this means. NVM, I understand now that I am writing.
May 10, 201214 yr "Let it be written, let it be done". But, like I said somewhere else let them have benefits for their special person. Its funny none of my debaters have brought up that I have said that many times. It's just another form of separate but equal. I think that everyone would be ok w/ religious organizations not recognizing marriage. However, outlawing a fundamental right???? I'm not ok w/ it. I'm also not ok w/ hiding behind the majority rule. (I'm not saying this is the same level of severity at all, but...) the majority had no problem in the late 1700's through 1863 keeping a certain group in chains, so to speak. The majority also kept blacks and women from voting until the 1920's. The majority even outlawed the sale of BEER and BOURBON for God's sake. The majority too often votes w/ passion, not w/ any sense of justice and right.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.