North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[PanzerJaeger]

The religious Right has won another victory.

Voters in North Carolina have approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, according to the Associated Press.

It will become the 30th state to define marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. With more than half the precincts reporting, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 60% for to 40% against.

Same-sex marriage has been illegal in the state since a law enacted in 1996. The amendment will enshrine the ban in the state constitution. It can now only be amended by another vote by the people.

The amendment declares that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognised in this state".

Supporters of Amendment 1 declared a victory for "God's institution" of marriage. "With God's grace we have won at overwhelming victory," Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Votes For Marriage NC, told supporters.

I am really beginning to despise Christians. I know that I shouldn't. I know that applying such a broad brush draws more on emotion than logic, but I cannot help it. They are the single largest driving force behind hatred, ignorance, and discrimination in this country. There was no chance of a gay marriage bill being passed in North Carolina and the content of this ammendment was essentially already law in the state, but the hatemongers, led by forces as prominent as Billy Graham and as distant as the Vatican, wanted to send a message - they wanted to make it known that gays will always be marginalized in their state.

The hypocrisy is mind blowing. These are the same people who throw a hissy fit every time 'Christmas' is interchanged with 'Holiday'. These are the people who declared a War on Religion when Obama had the audacity to require nominally religious businesses to adhere to the same standards that every other business in the country has to. These are the same people that bleat and whine about 'religious freedom' every chance they get. And yet, they are united in imposing their religious beliefs on the country, denying others the ability to enjoy our supposedly free society in the same way they demand for themselves.

I'm sick of it. Christianity receives far too much deference in this country. If gay people's lifestyles are going to be put on public trial, Christians should face the same treatment. Quite frankly, it is asinine to structure your life around the rants and musings of a small group of backwater rubes wondering around the desert thousands of years ago. Why isn't the hypocrisy, idiocy, and outright insanity that runs rampant in the bible challenged more openly? Why, in 2012, is a book of fairy tales about a god with what appears to be multiple personality disorder still affecting public policy? Religion is incompatible with logic, incompatible with science, and incompatible with modern society. Religion should be on the defense.

I believe it is because rational, intelligent people do not speak out against it for fear of offending Christian sensibilities. In our tolerant society, people are welcome to believe any idiotic drivel they like, and such beliefs are not to be questioned in polite company. Secularism is defined by nonjudgmental accommodation and religion is off limits. The only problem is that religious people do not live by the same standards. They are worried about multiculturalism in Europe, but the same permissive attitude over here allows our own religious element to pursue their vile agenda. A war is being fought against reason, and only one side is fighting.

Here is an example of what the Christians in North Carolina were hearing last Sunday:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Agreed! PJ, I am feeling very angry right now, just as I am sure you are. But remember that this is not a war with only side fighting. This is only one battle which rational, freedom loving, tolerant people have lost.

Remember that earlier this year we routed the legalized bigotry from Maryland. Proposition 8 still looks to be on track to fall, and today's youth are more tolerant of gays and lesbians than previous generations.

The long term future is still looking bright for LGBT citizens and allies because we are still fighting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's just a matter of time on gay marriage

I don't agree with your depiction of religion though. Peoples attempts at rational systems of morality fail miserably. Humanity isn't logical or scientific, those are just tools. The too-religious need to value those tools more and and the ideological-atheists need to quit relying on them so much. We all need a bicameral system with a scientific chamber and a non-scientific chamber. It's no good attacking or trying to tear down, you have to replace.

Gay marriage is simply a generational thing and fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[CountArach]

The worst part of this? It wasn't even in reaction to anything. It was already illegal but just to make a point these people said "let's make it double illegal!"

[HoreTore]

I agree wholeheartedly with PJ. Every word.

[Fragony]

It's a crying shame. Religious right should stop meddling with other people's affairs.

[rory_20_uk]

Every dominant religion appears to behave in the same way in enforcing their views on everyone else. Their belief that they are saving others by transiently oppressing them appears to be a pay off that is accepted.

If the Church could concentrate its efforts on catching paedophiles rather than worsening the lives of others that woulc be nice.

[Papewaio]

I've never understood why church goers have so much against gay people getting married. Heck if they think they are going to go to hell for being homosexual why not let them have a preview and let them get married.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've never understood why church goers have so much against gay people getting married. Heck if they think they are going to go to hell for being homosexual why not let them have a preview and let them get married.

I could try explaining it to you, but you wouldn't be interested.

It's not about hating Gay people or Gayness for most Christians.

[Vladimir]

I could try explaining it to you, but you wouldn't be interested.

It's not about hating Gay people or Gayness for most Christians.

Agreed. Look at all the hateful comments from people denouncing hatred. It looks like we're all the same.

[Xiahou]

The worst part of this? It wasn't even in reaction to anything. It was already illegal but just to make a point these people said "let's make it double illegal!"

Such laws have a history of being overturned by activist judges. The views of the electorate and the actions of the legislature can, and have been all cast aside by sympathetic judges. This amendment was insurance against that.

As Sasaki said, it's likely just a matter of time before views shift enough to allow same sex marriage laws to be passed- as has already happened in New Hampshire. Pushing the issue in the courts has forced opponents to take steps to protect their views from judicial activism. As a result, in the states that have passed constitutional amendments it will be much more difficult to allow for it when/if opinion shifts.

[rory_20_uk]

If this was a tiny minority, laws wouldn't be passed to prevent marriage.

Marriage pre-dates Christianity, Islam and probably almost all current religions. They should not assume they have ownership of it. They have their views, which thankfully are not shared by all.

[Whacker]

Sorry guys, I voted. Looks like it wasn't enough.

[HoreTore]

I could try explaining it to you, but you wouldn't be interested.

It's not about hating Gay people or Gayness for most Christians.

No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.

In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".

[Fragony]

No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.

In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".

That works both ways though, it kinda stopped but when gay marriage was first allowed here a lot of gay couples made a mockery of the institution itself. Now that it's normal they act normal.

[Vladimir]

No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.

In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".

Which side are you referring to? The same comment can be applied to both sides. Changing "behave" to "believe" makes it even more true.

That's not anything against you. I'm just glad the world is such a safe, secure, and prosperous world that gay marriage is one of the most pressing issues of the day.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If this was a tiny minority, laws wouldn't be passed to prevent marriage.

Marriage pre-dates Christianity, Islam and probably almost all current religions. They should not assume they have ownership of it. They have their views, which thankfully are not shared by all.

At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.

I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.

This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.

No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.

In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".

How is it any less of an imposition to change the definition of marriage to something some people don't agree with?

Lets not pretend this is a question of "freedom", this is about which social paradigm is dominant and which will be suppressed. Currently we have a highly individualistic paradigm in the ascendancy which values individual choice over corporate well being or communal structures.

That does not make it necessarily the right paradigm, just the one preferred by a general majority - though not a local majority in every case, as we see here.

[Fragony]

At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.

I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.

This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.



How is it any less of an imposition to change the definition of marriage to something some people don't agree with?

Lets not pretend this is a question of "freedom", this is about which social paradigm is dominant and which will be suppressed. Currently we have a highly individualistic paradigm in the ascendancy which values individual choice over corporate well being or communal structures.

That does not make it necessarily the right paradigm, just the one preferred by a general majority - though not a local majority in every case, as we see here.

Perfectly valid point. I don't agree with not allowing gays to marry (anymore) but I can understand the argumentation

[HoreTore]

That works both ways though, it kinda stopped but when gay marriage was first allowed here a lot of gay couples made a mockery of the institution itself. Now that it's normal they act normal.

John Stuart Mill talks about the religious fanatic who does not want to respect other peoples faith, because they do not respect his. After all, if they did, they would stop being infidels and convert to his faith...

The belief that choosing to live a certain way is limiting the liberty of others is illogical and ridiculous. Saying that allowing gay marriage restricts the liberty of those who do not believe in it is nonsense.

[rvg]

John Stuart Mill talks about the religious fanatic who does not want to respect other peoples faith, because they do not respect his. After all, if they did, they would stop being infidels and convert to his faith...

The belief that choosing to live a certain way is limiting the liberty of others is illogical and ridiculous. Saying that allowing gay marriage restricts the liberty of those who do not believe in it is nonsense.

It's not about religion. Like PVC mentioned, throughout human history marriage was defined as a union between aq man and a woman. While the same-sex relationships are nothing new, a legally recognized same-sex union is a completely new phenomenon that warrants its own definition and regulations. There's absolutely no good reason to shoehorn homosexual unions into traditional marriage.

[Fragony]

John Stuart Mill talks about the religious fanatic who does not want to respect other peoples faith, because they do not respect his. After all, if they did, they would stop being infidels and convert to his faith...

The belief that choosing to live a certain way is limiting the liberty of others is illogical and ridiculous. Saying that allowing gay marriage restricts the liberty of those who do not believe in it is nonsense.

You are arguing with the wrong person, I am not opposed to it. But it doesn't hurt all that much to consider the arguments of who are, they aren't against it because they are monsters, they are against it because they see things differently. PVC is correct in that even in society's where homosexuality was accepted marriage was still between a man and a woman exclusively.

[HoreTore]

It's not about religion. Like PVC mentioned, throughout human history marriage was defined as a union between aq man and a woman. While the same-sex relationships are nothing new, a legally recognized same-sex union is a completely new phenomenon that warrants its own definition and regulations. There's absolutely no good reason to shoehorn homosexual unions into traditional marriage.

Who is talking solely about religion? As I said, this is about enforcing your views and way of life on others. The only reason religion is brought up is because most of the oppositon to this comes from christians. Some people do not like the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, thus they want to ban it. It's no different from someone who doesn't like chocolate and wants to ban chocolate.

And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?

[rvg]

And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?

Civil unions come to mind.

[HoreTore]

You are arguing with the wrong person, I am not opposed to it. But it doesn't hurt all that much to consider the arguments of who are, they aren't against it because they are monsters, they are against it because they see things differently. PVC is correct in that even in society's where homosexuality was accepted marriage was still between a man and a woman exclusively.

I know you're not. But quoting multiple posts is a hassle on an iPad, so I left out vladimir and pvc.

They are not monsters, no, they are simply against other peoples freedom, something quite a few humans are. They see things differently, no problem. The problem comes when they want their view to control the actions of others. Gay marriage will not affect them in any way whatsoever, and so they have no valid grounds to deny it to others.

[HoreTore]

Civil unions come to mind.

A gay marriage needs a rule about civil unions in addition the laws of marriage?

[Fragony]

Who is talking solely about religion? As I said, this is about enforcing your views and way of life on others. The only reason religion is brought up is because most of the oppositon to this comes from christians. Some people do not like the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, thus they want to ban it. It's no different from someone who doesn't like chocolate and wants to ban chocolate.

And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?

If it was the exact same thing you would just call it marriage, but you as well call it gay marriage. Should it be allowed, yeah. Do I have to see it as the real thing, well I don't, I
think it's a farce.

[rvg]

A gay marriage needs a rule about civil unions in addition the laws of marriage?

The gay marriage as a definition is an oxymoron. Homosexual relationships should be covered by the civil union legislation.

[HoreTore]

If it was the exact same thing you would just call it marriage, but you as well call it gay marriage. Should it be allowed, yeah. Do I have to see it as the real thing, well I don't, I
think it's a farce.

I may call one a "red house" and another a "green house", but that does not change the fact that I'm talking about two houses.

[HoreTore]

The gay marriage as a definition is an oxymoron. Homosexual relationships should be covered by the civil union legislation.

And that brings us again to the question: how then will the civil union law be different from the marriage law?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am really beginning to despise Christians.

Well thank you.