north carolina const. amendmnt on gay marraige

chadwick

Cosmo wrote:

Some people believe so deeply in the 'Sanctity of Marriage'... they get married 3 or 4 times.
...
I wish there was a way to figure out how many people who believe in the sanctity of marriage and have one or more divorces under their belt.
My best gues would be, 'A lot'.

:clap:
pretty fantastic statement. simple, direct and to the point. and a fact.

gimmesometruth27

chadwick wrote:

i can't believe the gay marriage ban thread got shut down

:nono:

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

chadwick wrote:

i can't believe the gay marriage ban thread got shut down

:nono:

At least we all survived that thread. At least I think we did.

Prince Of Dorkness

brianlux wrote:

At least we all survived that thread. At least I think we did.

:evil: :? You can't prove a thing.

MotoDC

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can't believe people like this get elected :fp:

James Lankford, GOP Rep, Opposes Laws Against Gay Employee Discrimination

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 14559.html

Freshman Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told ThinkProgress in a recent interview that he was against laws designed to protect employees from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation, because of his belief that being gay is a "choice."

"Race and sexual preferences are two different things. One is a behavior-related and preference-related and one is something inherently -- skin color, something obvious, that kind of stuff. You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, 'Gay or straight?'" Lankford said. "I think it’s a choice issue. Are tendencies and such? Yes. But I think it’s a choice issue."

President Barack Obama's recent endorsement of same-sex marriage rights spurred a legislative push on such safeguards last week. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported that a bipartisan group of senators renewed calls for hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a piece of legislation that would expand employee anti-discrimination language to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Lankford isn't the only freshman Republican to express opposition to this type of bill. Last week, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said such protections were unnecessary because discrimination based on sexual orientation simply didn't happen.

"That don’t happen out here in the United States of America," he told ThinkProgress.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't already federally prohibited? It's certainly an explicit policy at my place of work; guess I just assumed that meant it was federal law as well, though my firm is big on diversity so maybe that was a silly assumption for me to make.

Prince Of Dorkness

MotoDC wrote:

Discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't already federally prohibited? It's certainly an explicit policy at my place of work; guess I just assumed that meant it was federal law as well, though my firm is big on diversity so maybe that was a silly assumption for me to make.

Um... It's expressly legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states.

http://sites.hrc.org/sites/passendanow/index.asp

And you can be evicted from your home for being gay in 38 states.

And people wonder why I'm so angry all the time.

brianlux

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Um... It's expressly legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states.

Disgusting.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

http://sites.hrc.org/sites/passendanow/index.asp

And you can be evicted from your home for being gay in 38 states.

And people wonder why I'm so angry all the time.

I get it.

JonnyPistachio

http://us.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/do ... ?hpt=hp_t2

"Those of us who favor same-sex marriage are rightly grateful to Obama for having come off the fence. But we should also thank religious conservatives for having put the president on the fence in the first place. Were it not for their opposition to same-sex marriage, it might have taken much longer for Americans to take up the cause."

BamaPJFan

inmytree wrote:

I live in NC and I'm proud to say I'm not from NC....

lots of dumbasses and rednecks....

anyhoo, I'm not surprised by the outcome...

Why don't you leave North Carolina then? It's a beautiful state, located in the best region of the country, with great people. It's one of my favorite states. Perhaps you should return to the state from which you came. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you back.

Do you not realize that each state that has put gay marriage up for a vote by the people, has voted to ban gay marriage, or has voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman? Not one single ballot measure in over thirty states has voted in favor of gay marriage. Not even California. Are you saying that California is a state filled with 'dumbasses and rednecks' as you so eloquently put it? Do you not realize that large amounts of black people and Latinos are opposed to gay marriage? Are those black folks and Latinos/Hispanics 'dumbasses and rednecks'?

gimmesometruth27

BamaPJFan wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I live in NC and I'm proud to say I'm not from NC....

lots of dumbasses and rednecks....

anyhoo, I'm not surprised by the outcome...

Why don't you leave North Carolina then? It's a beautiful state, located in the best region of the country, with great people. It's one of my favorite states. Perhaps you should return to the state from which you came. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you back.

Do you not realize that each state that has put gay marriage up for a vote by the people, has voted to ban gay marriage, or has voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman? Not one single ballot measure in over thirty states has voted in favor of gay marriage. Not even California. Are you saying that California is a state filled with 'dumbasses and rednecks' as you so eloquently put it? Do you not realize that large amounts of black people and Latinos are opposed to gay marriage? Are those black folks and Latinos/Hispanics 'dumbasses and rednecks'?

this is why it is going to take a supreme court decision because states have never ever voted to grant rights to a minority population...

BamaPJFan

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I live in NC and I'm proud to say I'm not from NC....

lots of dumbasses and rednecks....

anyhoo, I'm not surprised by the outcome...

Why don't you leave North Carolina then? It's a beautiful state, located in the best region of the country, with great people. It's one of my favorite states. Perhaps you should return to the state from which you came. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you back.

Do you not realize that each state that has put gay marriage up for a vote by the people, has voted to ban gay marriage, or has voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman? Not one single ballot measure in over thirty states has voted in favor of gay marriage. Not even California. Are you saying that California is a state filled with 'dumbasses and rednecks' as you so eloquently put it? Do you not realize that large amounts of black people and Latinos are opposed to gay marriage? Are those black folks and Latinos/Hispanics 'dumbasses and rednecks'?

this is why it is going to take a supreme court decision because states have never ever voted to grant rights to a minority population...

Yep, the courts and state legislatures (in some jurisdictions) have and will continue to override what the citizenry has voted to put in place.

What's interesting is that Obama chickened out last week and said that this should be a state's rights issue. What????????????? But, Obama spoke out against the North Carolina ballot measure in the same breath, so he's quite obviously not respectful of a state's decision if its citizens vote to ban gay marriage or uphold traditional marriage.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't already federally prohibited? It's certainly an explicit policy at my place of work; guess I just assumed that meant it was federal law as well, though my firm is big on diversity so maybe that was a silly assumption for me to make.

Um... It's expressly legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states.

http://sites.hrc.org/sites/passendanow/index.asp

And you can be evicted from your home for being gay in 38 states.

And people wonder why I'm so angry all the time.

you are angry all the time? I hadn't noticed

what a ridiculous thing. discriminating based on biology...

I really wish people would wake up and see all others as the human beings they are...QUIT SEEING GROUPS ALREADY...it is much easier to support legislation when it is a group that is affected...groups don't have faces, groups don't have feelings, groups aren't real people...fuckers like this are ruining the right side of the aisle.

gimmesometruth27

BamaPJFan wrote:

What's interesting is that Obama chickened out last week and said that this should be a state's rights issue. What????????????? But, Obama spoke out against the North Carolina ballot measure in the same breath, so he's quite obviously not respectful of a state's decision if its citizens vote to ban gay marriage or uphold traditional marriage.

state votes should not matter when it is a human rights issue. gay marriage is a civil rights matter. in the 60s, the civil rights act would never ever have passed in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, etc if it were not for the civil rights act that lbj got passed. what good is a federal government that can not guarantee basic human rights in every state in the union? this is one of the reasons we have a federal government in the first place....

BamaPJFan

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

What's interesting is that Obama chickened out last week and said that this should be a state's rights issue. What????????????? But, Obama spoke out against the North Carolina ballot measure in the same breath, so he's quite obviously not respectful of a state's decision if its citizens vote to ban gay marriage or uphold traditional marriage.

state votes should not matter when it is a human rights issue. gay marriage is a civil rights matter. in the 60s, the civil rights act would never ever have passed in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, etc if it were not for the civil rights act that lbj got passed. what good is a federal government that can not guarantee basic human rights in every state in the union? this is one of the reasons we have a federal government in the first place....

The Civil Rights Acts during the mid-60s would not have passed in many (or most) non-Southern states as well. This was a very unpopular issue at the time throughout the country. So unpopular that George Wallace's message of segregation took hold in many areas of the North (particularly Michigan and Massachusetts) over issues such as public schools and busing students. Anyway, I digress.

You need to explain your statement above to Obama. He apparently doesn't understand this since he claims on record that he favors allowing the individual states to decide this issue.

gimmesometruth27

BamaPJFan wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

What's interesting is that Obama chickened out last week and said that this should be a state's rights issue. What????????????? But, Obama spoke out against the North Carolina ballot measure in the same breath, so he's quite obviously not respectful of a state's decision if its citizens vote to ban gay marriage or uphold traditional marriage.

state votes should not matter when it is a human rights issue. gay marriage is a civil rights matter. in the 60s, the civil rights act would never ever have passed in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, etc if it were not for the civil rights act that lbj got passed. what good is a federal government that can not guarantee basic human rights in every state in the union? this is one of the reasons we have a federal government in the first place....

The Civil Rights Acts during the mid-60s would not have passed in many (or most) non-Southern states as well. This was a very unpopular issue at the time throughout the country. So unpopular that George Wallace's message of segregation took hold in many areas of the North (particularly Michigan and Massachusetts) over issues such as public schools and busing students. Anyway, I digress.

You need to explain your statement above to Obama. He apparently doesn't understand this since he claims on record that he favors allowing the individual states to decide this issue.

and george wallace got shot for preaching such a message too.

obama said that in the past. he changed his position. it happens.

he knows that you can't have some states allow it and some not.

BamaPJFan

The Civil Rights Acts during the mid-60s would not have passed in many (or most) non-Southern states as well. This was a very unpopular issue at the time throughout the country. So unpopular that George Wallace's message of segregation took hold in many areas of the North (particularly Michigan and Massachusetts) over issues such as public schools and busing students. Anyway, I digress.

You need to explain your statement above to Obama. He apparently doesn't understand this since he claims on record that he favors allowing the individual states to decide this issue.[/quote]
and george wallace got shot for preaching such a message too.

obama said that in the past. he changed his position. it happens.

he knows that you can't have some states allow it and some not.[/quote]

A lot of folks would like to shoot the current president, but he has the finest security in the world. Thank goodness.

So, Obama is a wishy-washy flip-flopper? John Kerry anybody? He was against it before he was for it? Or, was he for it before he was against it? I can't keep up with his constant flip-flops. If your last sentence is true then Obama needs to take a do-over and say that he didn't really mean that it should be left up to the states like he told Robin Roberts last week. He's created a huge dilemma for himself heading into November. Not that he hadn't already with other issues, but this just made things even tougher and more complicated for his re-election bid.

Prince Of Dorkness

BamaPJFan wrote:

Do you not realize that each state that has put gay marriage up for a vote by the people, has voted to ban gay marriage, or has voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman?

And do YOU realize that the last time North Carolina voted to amend their constitution, it was to make interracial marriage illegal? :fp:

The rights of a minority should never be put up for a vote. It's unconstitutional. No, there is no constitutional right to marry but there IS a constitutional right to equal treatment. So if one couple can marry... all couples should be able to marry.

Quite honestly, I don't care if homophobic people voted away my rights. I really don't. They should never have been up for a vote and I'm not taking part in any silly votes to get them back. We're going to the Supreme Court again and again until they get it right.

pandora

Now another state, Washington, got a temporary ban with a petition and will
vote again in November ...


Opponents block Washington state gay marriage.
Washington's gay marriage law was blocked from taking effect Wednesday as opponents filed more than 200,000 signatures seeking a public vote on the issue in November.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ethru.html

JonnyPistachio

Interesting story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailyp ... nyc-couple

Federal Court Finds DOMA Unconstitutional In Case Of NYC Couple
BY CELESTE KATZ

"Here's the new decision from the U.S. District Court/Southern District Of New York that finds the Defense Of Marriage Act unconstitutional -- the fifth such ruling on the matter -- as pertains to Edith "Edie" Windsor and the late Thea Spyer, a NYC couple who lived together for 44 years and had wed in Canada in 2007."

pandora

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Interesting story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailyp ... nyc-couple

Federal Court Finds DOMA Unconstitutional In Case Of NYC Couple
BY CELESTE KATZ

"Here's the new decision from the U.S. District Court/Southern District Of New York that finds the Defense Of Marriage Act unconstitutional -- the fifth such ruling on the matter -- as pertains to Edith "Edie" Windsor and the late Thea Spyer, a NYC couple who lived together for 44 years and had wed in Canada in 2007."

and make way for RFMA...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act