North Carolina bans gay marriage

[InHouston]

Did they not read the Declaration of Independance?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.

[robertlouis]

Presumably if it's about the "sanctity of marriage" they'll need to ban divorce as well. Hypocrites. And none of their damn business either.

[hippifried]

"Sanctity of Marriage" my ass! The most conservative principle in America is "Stay out of my house!".

[Dino Velvet]

North Carolina would probably let the Kardashians marry.

[robertlouis]

North Carolina would probably let the Kardashians marry.

.....each other, presumably.

[Dino Velvet]

.....each other, presumably.

Actually North Carolina probably wouldn't marry them. Deep South. Each other or chosen hetero partner.

[trish]

I thought in North Carolina you can marry your cousin, provided you're of opposite gender and you're over 13 years old.

[robertlouis]

I thought in North Carolina you can marry your cousin, provided you're of opposite gender and you're over 13 years old.

Well you can marry your cousin.

Unless they happen to be gay, of course.

[InHouston]

I think the stigma of gay marriage will eventually be eliminated in this country like slavery and accusing people of being witches. It just takes time for the ignorant people to get used to the idea. Even Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but knew it was wrong, and knew America would have to deal with that issue long after he died. I've known and worked with many gay people throughout my career, and they are usually the most personable and intelligent, and witty people I have ever had the pleasure to work with.

[Prospero]

The US increasingly appears to be a nation at war with itself. A sort of social civil war.

[Stavros]

The question would be, should the law be changed to allow brothers to marry their sisters, or indeed their brothers; ditto sisters; fathers to marry their daughters/sons and so on.

After all -why should the law stand in the way of people who love each other and want to get married?

[trish]

OMG it's true! Same sex marriage will lead to man-goat marriages! It's a slippery slope!

[buttslinger]

Don't knock it til you tried it......

[Ben]

OMG it's true! Same sex marriage will lead to man-goat marriages! It's a slippery slope!

Ha ha ha! :) :lol:

[Ben]

North Carolina Voters Ban Gay Marriage - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rct9TsSK5rc&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

On a happier note:

'Gay Conversion Therapy' Ban In California - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWxAaliHVzo&feature=plcp)

[robertlouis]

Colbert speaks out.

[Prospero]

Hey - there is a lot to be said for goat and man relationships. Even better sheep. Just ask Jericho.

[Stavros]

OMG it's true! Same sex marriage will lead to man-goat marriages! It's a slippery slope!


Here:
Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4748292.stm

Indian Man marries dog
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569248/Indian-man-marries-dog.html

(Better than eating it, I suppose0

Love knows no boundaries...

[robertlouis]

OMG it's true! Same sex marriage will lead to man-goat marriages! It's a slippery slope!

Never, ever try to shag a goat on a slippery slope. It will all end in tears.

Jericho will confirm.

[onmyknees]

I thought in North Carolina you can marry your cousin, provided you're of opposite gender and you're over 13 years old.


Traffic in sterotypes much?....... what disparaging remarks can we make about the other 31 States who have voted against it ???..............as did btw the liberal fucking enclave, California. Such is the last refuge of a liberal....demonize, dismiss, divide. We see that playbook implemented on a national scale. And as of Monday this week....was their position any different than Barry's? LMAO Maybe if we had a re-do tomorrow...it might pass. Barry seemed to change on a dime.
And BTW...your ignorant cracker jokes notwithstanding...........blacks in North Carolina voted against it overwhelmingly. (Shhhhhhhhhhh...we don't like to discuss that )
There probably will be a day when 50 States legalize same sex marriage, but it won't be because of the slime merchants in here.
And In Houston can make this about civil rights if it makes him feel good, but civil rights don't require a licence.

I'm not anti gay marriage....I lived in Boston and it was no skin off my ass, (other than it made Barney Rubble wet his pants with joy).... but what I am against is ignorant vilification of people who don't hold the same view as you on social issues. You all have lots of convincing to do if you're going to succeed in all 50 States. It's obviously easier to deamonize people you don't agree with rather than convince them. So far I'd say that hasn't worked, but carry on ...you're good at it !

[trish]

Wow, hit a nerve did I? And you accuse me of having no sense of humor! But really, I didn't mean to disrespect your family. Oops! Almost forgot: LMAO@U

[hippifried]

I thought in North Carolina you can marry your cousin, provided you're of opposite gender and you're over 13 years old.
Oh no no no... North is the liberal cosmopolitan Carolina. You're thinking of the South, where they still think Robert E Lee has a shot at winning the war.

[BluegrassCat]

And In Houston can make this about civil rights if it makes him feel good, but civil rights don't require a licence.


LMFAO! Knees doesn't know what civil rights are! Ignorant bigot is ignorant, lol!

[onmyknees]

Your Historic Hero of deep conviction and principle........You've been duped by him yet again.


Tim Stanley

What was the gay marriage endorsement really all about? Ignore the timelines about Joe Biden being a loudmouth (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us/politics/biden-said-to-apologize-to-obama-over-gay-marriage-issue.html) and follow the money instead. On Monday, the day before the North Carolina vote, the Hollywood Reporter reported (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/president-obama-gay-marriage-pressure-biden-hollywood-321525) that the marriage question was hurting Obama among west coast donors. “It's safe to say that the longer Obama waits on the issue, the more frustrated the [movie] community will grow with him. Perhaps it won't cost him their votes, but it might slow the flow of cash and public rally appearances. That concern doesn't end with Hollywood … One in six of Obama's so-called bundlers – people who raise money in great stacks for the president's campaign – is gay, giving the issue great importance in his fiscal game.”
So on Monday, Obama was losing dollars on the Hollywood fundraising circuit. On Wednesday, he endorsed gay marriage. On Thursday, he flew to Hollywood for a fundraiser (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9258692/George-Clooney-hosts-15m-fundraiser-for-Barack-Obama.html), where 150 donors paid $40,000 each to meet the Prez at the home of George Clooney. Coincidence?
Wait, there’s more! Within minutes of the ABC interview that broke the endorsement, the Pres Tweeted “Same-sex couples should be able to get married.” (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/obamas_goes_viral_wins_twitter/singleton/) Later, he issued a photo of himself making the statement with the word (you guessed it) “history” flashed everywhere. Within 90 minutes, Obama’s re-election campaign had pulled in $1 million in donations, while it quickly rolled out a new attack ad calling Romney “backwards” on gay rights (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/10/after-gay-marriage-announcement-obama-campaign-pegs-romney-as-backward.html). The Hollywood Reporter again: “On June 6, the president will be at the SLS hotel in Beverly Hills for an LGBT fundraiser featuring a performance by Pink. (A sellout now is virtually guaranteed.) Obama will be at another LBGT fundraiser Monday in New York, featuring a performance by Ricky Martin.”
That’s what Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage was all about – not history, not equality, but prising open George Clooney’s wallet. Note that Obama still insists that this issue should be decided at a state level and he has refused to sign a “nondiscrimination executive order.” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-still-has-not-signed-nondiscrimination-executive-order_644332.html) Given the impotence of his endorsement, it really comes down to one man sharing his personal opinion about a moral matter with the rest of nation. And then making a lot of money out of it.
Of course, Obama has a very high opinion of his personal opinion and probably regards it as “priceless” in every sense. Listing the groups who prompted him to rethink same sex unions, he told ABC that he counted among them (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/my-behalf_644310.html) “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage.”
The key words here are “Who are out there fighting on my behalf.” They’re not. Technically, US soldiers fight under Obama’s orders, but they’re not out there dying for him personally. As Michael Barone points out (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-troops-fighting-my-behalf/532781), he could have accurately said, “under my command,” but that would have confused the campaign claim that Barack Obama is a peacemaker. No, the message Obama’s language conveys here is that the army is fighting for him and dying so that he does not have to. It’s the worldview of an 18th century Enlightened Despot. L’état, c'est moi and all that.
What will irk many about Obama’s gay marriage endorsement wasn’t its content but the impression it gave that his opinion on this emotive issue matters – and that now they know it, all Americans should fall in line. He put himself in opposition to the 61 percent of North Carolina’s voters who oppose gay marriage, half the nation that tells pollsters they agree with them, the Roman Catholic Church, and a few thousand years of human history. But the press critique of this grand arrogance will doubtless evaporate in the sunlight of Obama’s personality. For we are all going on a journey with him. A historic journey. To the future. And beyond.

[Prospero]

King of the cut and paste returns with a vengeance - and the quite bewildering hypocrisy to denounce others for the tricks he plays on an almost daily basis - demonising those with whom he disagrees. Glad to see that he considers those he keeps company with here to be "slime merchants." OMK you are such fun.

[broncofan]

Do you really think Obama saying "fighting on my behalf" has any significance? Honestly, I think if anything he was saying that he felt bad ordering people into battle and at the same time discriminating against those who make the sacrifices. That is the ultimate inability to frame a quotation in context.

Secondly, I do not want to demonize the Roman Catholic Church, but what referendum do they have on our social policy? As far as I know, they have no vote, their specific views are not even allowed to dictate policy respecting non-believers. So, what is the significance of Barack Obama parting company with the official view of the church. Didn't Roe v. Wade do that already?

Finally, are you aware of the fact that many conservatives supported the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws? I generally don't like the hypocrisy argument, but this one cuts exactly opposite your interest in being on the site. I am not sure how you would be able to have procreative sex with a transsexual. I haven't figured that one out. But yes, there were conservative forces that tried to argue that states in their legislative power and pursuant to their 10th amendment right to pass laws in areas not legislated by the federal government, could make sodomy illegal. Where do you stand on that?

[robertlouis]

Do you really think Obama saying "fighting on my behalf" has any significance? Honestly, I think if anything he was saying that he felt bad ordering people into battle and at the same time discriminating against those who make the sacrifices. That is the ultimate inability to frame a quotation in context.

Secondly, I do not want to demonize the Roman Catholic Church, but what referendum do they have on our social policy? As far as I know, they have no vote, their specific views are not even allowed to dictate policy respecting non-believers. So, what is the significance of Barack Obama parting company with the official view of the church. Didn't Roe v. Wade do that already?

Finally, are you aware of the fact that many conservatives supported the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws? I generally don't like the hypocrisy argument, but this one cuts exactly opposite your interest in being on the site. I am not sure how you would be able to have procreative sex with a transsexual. I haven't figured that one out. But yes, there were conservative forces that tried to argue that states in their legislative power and pursuant to their 10th amendment right to pass laws in areas not legislated by the federal government, could make sodomy illegal. Where do you stand on that?

Don't hold your breath. OMK has a lengthy record of ignoring questions and challenges which would draw his true views out into the open and demonstrate them in all of their laughable inconsistency and incongruity.

He pontificates on a ts site, constantly championing the rights and views of those who would close down HA given half a chance, "pray the gay away", legislate retrogressively on all the progress made on gay rights etc etc, while at the same time claiming to be a lover of the girls.

What a loathsome, dumb and, in the end, pathetic hypocrite.

[trish]

Poor OMK thinks its disgusting for someone to marry their cousin...an insult to mention it. It’s an age old practice. Royalty and aristocrats did all the time to preserve title, seal deals and stabilize political power. There’s are no injunctions against it in the Bible. I'm sure the children and grandchildren of Adam and Eve practiced it. It’s a practice that was common in the Ozark. What’s odd is that people who are liberal about this taboo are so persnickety when it comes to same sex marriage. What’s up with that? But OMK doesn’t even approve of the rural Appalachian practice of marrying one’s cousin. How can one expect him to have liberal views on gay marriage? How can he have any respect for girls whose pictures he desperately jerks off too? We manage to tolerate this loser day after day and all we get for it is his hatred. :)

[robertlouis]

Poor OMK thinks its disgusting for someone to marry their cousin...an insult to mention it. It’s an age old practice. Royalty and aristocrats did all the time to preserve title, seal deals and stabilize political power. There’s are no injunctions against it in the Bible. I'm sure the children and grandchildren of Adam and Eve practiced it. It’s a practice that was common in the Ozark. What’s odd is that people who are liberal about this taboo are so persnickety when it comes to same sex marriage. What’s up with that? But OMK doesn’t even approve of the rural Appalachian practice of marrying one’s cousin. How can one expect him to have liberal views on gay marriage? How can he have any respect for girls whose pictures he desperately jerks off too? We manage to tolerate this loser day after day and all we get for it is his hatred. :)

To be fair to him, Trish (why am I doing this????), it's less that he's against it himself, and more that he thinks that there should be more understanding of those who feel that they have to oppose major social change on the grounds of faith. After all, many doubtless well-intentioned people in the south found good and often religion-based reasons to support the continuance of slavery and sundered the union in its cause.

Oh, the irony is deliberate.