If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   North Carolina to gays: Equal rights - not yours   (2012.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 1189
    More: Asinine, North Carolina, same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, cohabitations, LGBT rights, civil unions  
•       •       •

11107 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2012 at 10:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-09 02:18:35 AM

Lligeret: Sucks for the LGBT community but don't worry it will be legal in the U.S. as a whole in the next 4 years if Obama is re-elected, 8 years if he loses the white house at most, whether a Republican is in the white house for years 5-8 or not, simply due to demographics, combination of old die hards dropping dead or there will be no more straight Republicans.


If Romney wins, we're screwed for a lot longer because there's a good chance that 2-3 Supreme Court justices retire/die in the next 4 years. And with the batshiat crazy way the GOP is right now, I wouldn't be surprised if they go for a constitutional amendment if they get control.
 
2012-05-09 02:18:58 AM

mr lawson: Bull..farking...shiat....
go read some history


Might I suggest some fine works about the life of Mohandas Gandhi?

The_Sponge: An important part of the Bill of Rights begs to differ.


And yet the founding fathers weren't exactly known for owning guns themselves. Funny that.
 
2012-05-09 02:19:10 AM

cmb53208: rynthetyn: cmb53208: Person: Once Obama is reelected he will come out in support of gay marriage. He'd be stupid to do so beforehand, because he'd lose the black church vote.

And that's a big reason why this ban passed: black churches. If you want to see some good ol' anti-intellectualism, misogyny, and homophobia; forget the white churches and go to a black Pentecostal church, preferably one where the pastor is driving a $35,000 car while his parishioners sell plasma twice a week to afford bus passes.

Seriously, stop with the race-baiting, there are more than enough white bigots in North Carolina to pass the amendment.

There is no race baiting, many black churches have been at the forefront of keeping gay marriage illegal. As an example, some of the biggest opposition to Maryland's gay marriage law was black churches in Baltimore. It's not race baiting, it's simply the truth


Honest question: Wouldn't it also be Catholic Mexicans?
 
2012-05-09 02:19:35 AM

The_Sponge:
And yet he still claims that he personally believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. So either:

1) You guys think he's a bigot.

2) He's bullshiatting the public regarding his stance as a means of protecting his poll numbers.

So which is it?


I think that if the President opposes Marriage Equality, he is a bigot. I think that if he is bullshiatting the public, he is a coward and manipulating the people. I've said as much, openly, repeatedly.

However, I think that his opponent is even more bigoted, and a worse manipulator and therefore will probably vote for the lesser of two bigots, and the lesser of a manipulator.

I'm a liberal and Obama is not left enough. If the choice is lefter than crazytown or downtown crazytown, I'm voting left of crazytown.
 
2012-05-09 02:20:15 AM

WhyteRaven74: AverageAmericanGuy: Are you talking about in your head or in reality?

Reality. If laws existed to preserve values, we'd still have Jim Crow laws, laws against interracial marriage etc.


Yet we did have those laws, which proves false your assertion that laws are not imposed to protect tradition. Laws are certainly intended to uphold the traditional common values of the lawmakers.
 
2012-05-09 02:20:22 AM

lohphat: Once again, conservatives entire existence is based upon fear.



Of for fark's sake. You honestly think that conservatives have some monopoly on taking freedoms away, and liberals are so pure when it comes to not taking freedoms away?

You want the truth? Both political parties are guilty of taking freedoms away. So vote whoever the hell you want to vote for.

And since you mentioned fear, I'll just point out that many liberals love to use fear....."this is for the children" or "old people will die".
 
2012-05-09 02:20:32 AM

KatjaMouse: I think what those hicks (hillbillies are up in the mountains, y'all) fail to realize is that this bill is going to affect straight, unmarried couples too. If an SO's parents want to invoke this law to keep you out of their hospital room, well. Sucks to be you. This can also lead to some abuses in custody cases.


The right wing farkheads who voted for this amendment are unlikely to give a damn about the custody cases, and probably not the unmarried couples if they're shacked up. Remember, these are the same people who put "barefoot and pregnant" in the Publican agenda.
 
2012-05-09 02:20:55 AM
I voted for Walter Dalton for Gov.,Also,I voted against the dumb shiat,I drove 45 min. to vote. My dad voted no. He is 72 years old.
 
2012-05-09 02:21:03 AM
I can't judge them. My state banned non-whites by the state constitution until about 1927 or so.

Sorry.
 
2012-05-09 02:21:46 AM

mr lawson: lohphat: Guns have nothing to do with your freedom

Bull..farking...shiat....
go read some history


Uh huh.

We have a well regulated militia. It's called the armed forces and they will take your ass out if you present a threat to the government.
 
2012-05-09 02:22:58 AM

WhyteRaven74: The_Sponge: An important part of the Bill of Rights begs to differ.

And yet the founding fathers weren't exactly known for owning guns themselves. Funny that.



So what? I know plenty of people who are pro Second Amendment and don't own a single firearm....that doesn't mean they don't know that a right isn't important.

Just like I have never been to a protest, but I still realize how important the First Amendment is.
 
2012-05-09 02:23:20 AM

Novart: cmb53208: rynthetyn: cmb53208: Person: Once Obama is reelected he will come out in support of gay marriage. He'd be stupid to do so beforehand, because he'd lose the black church vote.

And that's a big reason why this ban passed: black churches. If you want to see some good ol' anti-intellectualism, misogyny, and homophobia; forget the white churches and go to a black Pentecostal church, preferably one where the pastor is driving a $35,000 car while his parishioners sell plasma twice a week to afford bus passes.

Seriously, stop with the race-baiting, there are more than enough white bigots in North Carolina to pass the amendment.

There is no race baiting, many black churches have been at the forefront of keeping gay marriage illegal. As an example, some of the biggest opposition to Maryland's gay marriage law was black churches in Baltimore. It's not race baiting, it's simply the truth

Honest question: Wouldn't it also be Catholic Mexicans?


Yes
 
2012-05-09 02:23:26 AM

The_Sponge: rynthetyn: Pro tip: Barack Obama was officially opposed to Amendment One. And Prop 8 in California, and every other bigoted law banning marriage equality.


And yet he still claims that he personally believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. So either:

1) You guys think he's a bigot.

2) He's bullshiatting the public regarding his stance as a means of protecting his poll numbers.

So which is it?


What's sad is that you can't see the difference in hating gays and then passing laws to discriminate against them or just saying I hate gays and leaving it at that. And what the fark is with your hard-on for Obama. Every post of yours mentions him. I'd call that pretty gay myself.
 
2012-05-09 02:23:34 AM

The_Sponge: lohphat: Once again, conservatives entire existence is based upon fear.

Of for fark's sake. You honestly think that conservatives have some monopoly on taking freedoms away, and liberals are so pure when it comes to not taking freedoms away?

You want the truth? Both political parties are guilty of taking freedoms away. So vote whoever the hell you want to vote for.

And since you mentioned fear, I'll just point out that many liberals love to use fear....."this is for the children" or "old people will die".


The Democratic platform does not support wholesale denial of civil rights.

False equivalence.
 
2012-05-09 02:23:50 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Yet we did have those laws, which proves false your assertion that laws are not imposed to protect tradition.


We had those laws until the courts struck them down. Also they weren't found in all states. For example Illinois never had a law that said anything about interracial marriage. It's also the first state that got rid of all laws that could be taken as making homosexuality illegal. And it did this in 1963.
 
2012-05-09 02:23:58 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: WhyteRaven74: Little.Alex: What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved,

The law does not exist to preserve tradition.

Sure it does. It protects the values and enforces behavior that the community (or lawmakers) feel are important. It limits the behaviors the community disfavors.

That said, it's a pretty shiatty community that would vote for something like this.



Why? What's so terrible about people voting to protect a fundamental part of their culture, from a minority who want to redefine society?

If I lived in NC, I would have voted for the ban. Not because I give a Rat's Ass about the sanctity of marriage (easy divorce laws have already degraded that) or about Christianity (which has already lost the battle against inexpensive birth control) - but because I'm sick and tired of minorities running this country into the Ground.

Before I left the US; I was a self employed contractor in DC for almost 10 years. And all through that period, I had to pay someone to be Black for me. The Feds won't allow whites to bid on small business set aside contracts, so I would form a little $300 Nevada S-corp, then give my company to a black guy and pay him between $40,000 and $60,000 to be black for me. (and just add his no-show salary to the cost of the contract) It's the only way a white can contract in Washington.

So when I hear another group wants to give orders and make demands on the rest of us: I don't need to hear anything else. I'm against it.

And the Socialist Left is vulgar and insulting to Christians anyway, especially here on FARK. So what many people from traditional backgrounds hear from the Left is "Fark you, we hate you, we spit on you.... now here's what you can do for us."

Lefties treat others with contempt and arrogance, then demand respect and special privileges. You saw today how persuasive that is, you'll see again in November.

cdn02.cdn.justjared.com

I salute you North Carolina!
 
2012-05-09 02:24:24 AM

lohphat: We have a well regulated militia. It's called the armed forces



Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance.
 
2012-05-09 02:24:24 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Does anybody know of any countries that fill the following three requirements:

- English as its main language.
- Warm climate (preferably tropical, maybe desert).
- Gay-friendly, including full legal protection with marriage rights.

I'm sick of being treated like a fourth-class citizen in both of my home countries.


Try a French overseas département, because Président-elect Hollande would like to upgrade the PACS to full-blown marriage. Difficulty: parlez-vous français?

If Portuguese is a language you'd like to learn, then there's Brazil. Marriages aren't legal there yet, but it's believed that they'll be made available nationally this year or next. Difficulty: high crime rate. If you prefer Spanish, Colombia has to legalize gay marriage by next year, per a court ruling (although it may be called a civil union when it's created).

Relatively warm: Spain, Portugal and Argentina. Full marriage rights.

Mexico City also offers full marriage rights, and the Mexican Supreme Court says that Mexico City marriages must be recognized nationally.

But if you insist upon warm and English-speaking, and desert is alright with you, then South Africa is currently your best bet.
 
2012-05-09 02:24:54 AM
This could just be the weed talking, but Fark should have a way to scroll down a thread by jumping only to posts that contain an image. That would have really come in handy in this thread. Especially when you don't feel like reading all the text from 600+ posts. But again, this could just be the weed talking.
 
2012-05-09 02:24:56 AM

The_Sponge: lohphat: Land of the free and equal protection under the law my ass. Conservatives are just as bad a threat to freedom as the Taliban.


And liberals have never been a threat to freedom, eh? Tell that to gun owners in California.


fatgirlkitchen.typepad.com

2/10
 
2012-05-09 02:25:04 AM

The_Sponge: So what? I know plenty of people who are pro Second Amendment and don't own a single firearm....that doesn't mean they don't know that a right isn't important.


It would be nice if you were as interested in the first and ninth amendments as you are the second.
 
2012-05-09 02:25:39 AM

The_Sponge: lohphat: We have a well regulated militia. It's called the armed forces

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance.


And yours for thinking that guns make you free.
 
2012-05-09 02:25:44 AM

draa: What's sad is that you can't see the difference in hating gays and then passing laws to discriminate against them or just saying I hate gays and leaving it at that. And what the fark is with your hard-on for Obama. Every post of yours mentions him. I'd call that pretty gay myself.



What's sad is that I brought up a valid point, and it pissed you off.

Every post? Child please.
 
2012-05-09 02:26:13 AM

The_Sponge: Fart_Machine: Orange and San Diego County are pretty conservative. Not to mention that the largely Hispanic population are predominantly socially conservative Catholics although they vote Democratic in the general elections.


Yes, but if you take the state as a whole, it is still "blue".


I hate to tell you this, but not everyone who votes Democratic is a liberal.
 
2012-05-09 02:26:28 AM

Little.Alex: Why? What's so terrible about people voting to protect a fundamental part of their culture, from a minority who want to redefine society?


Because that is not what the law exists for. Thomas Jefferson could have told you this. Jon Adams ditto. Ditto Abraham Lincoln, JFK and Nixon.
 
2012-05-09 02:27:28 AM

The_Sponge: What's sad is that I brought up a valid point, and it pissed you off.


You are the one who assumes that people should put their biases into law.
 
2012-05-09 02:27:43 AM

lohphat: The_Sponge: lohphat: We have a well regulated militia. It's called the armed forces

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance.

And yours for thinking that guns make you free.



Do you want to keep losing this argument, or should I stop being awesome?
 
2012-05-09 02:28:27 AM

BravadoGT: WhyteRaven74: BravadoGT: The only way the Fed gets their toe in the water, practically--is if they extend sexuality preference to the list of "suspect classes" protected by equal protection under the 5th Amendment. Then they could overturn laws like NC's as uncon.

Or they could say such laws violate the 14th amendment, seeing as marriage is already an established right, see Loving v Virginia, not allowing gays to marry is denying equal application of the law, see 14th amendment.

Yeah, that won't work, because there is an easy out that would certainly be exploited. Technically, under the law, there is equal application--gay men are have the same right to marry women as straight men, and gay women have the same right to marry men as straight women. You're asking for an expansion of the law (i.e. sanctioning an act that has previously not been legally practiced or authorized). Bottom line--you're not going to get Constitutional protection from the Supremes on homosexuality unless/until they actually acknowledge it and specifically extend Constitutional protection to cover it (e.g. through widening Equal Protection).


That was the losing argument in Loving v. Virginia, dude: They tried to say that a black man had the same right to marry a white woman as a white man had to marry a black woman, and that therefore they were A.OK.
 
2012-05-09 02:28:30 AM

Fart_Machine: I hate to tell you this, but not everyone who votes Democratic is a liberal.



True, but doesn't California have a reputation as a liberal state?
 
2012-05-09 02:28:42 AM

lohphat: mr lawson: lohphat: Guns have nothing to do with your freedom

Bull..farking...shiat....
go read some history

Uh huh.

We have a well regulated militia. It's called the armed forces and they will take your ass out if you present a threat to the government.


OODA
 
2012-05-09 02:29:13 AM
The states have always been the ones to decide who is allowed to marry. There are no federal marriage licenses. Why do you suppose the writers of the constitution didn't put it there?

Good job NC. Continue to exercise your powers.
 
2012-05-09 02:30:00 AM

The_Sponge: Do you want to keep losing this argument, or should I stop being awesome?


How exactly do guns make one free?
 
2012-05-09 02:30:24 AM
WhyteRaven74 - you must be in a band somewhere? You look like a high school friend - who was also a troll
 
2012-05-09 02:30:30 AM
This kills me. It's a losing issue, and the Republican Party is killing itself alienating every voting block it can to pander to the evangelicals rather than trying to fight on conservative issues that matter. It's like people in politics always want the long bomb and ignore the jumper from 8 feet and refuse to lay-up on a par-5 on their second shot.

Between this, fighting hopeless battles on abortion, and alienating the largest growing demographic, I'm wondering if the GOP is long for this world.

Time to brush up on what happened in the intervening years between the Whigs and Republicans.
 
2012-05-09 02:30:39 AM

WaffleStomper: The states have always been the ones to decide who is allowed to marry.


The case of Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.
 
2012-05-09 02:31:27 AM

WaffleStomper: The states have always been the ones to decide who is allowed to marry. There are no federal marriage licenses. Why do you suppose the writers of the constitution didn't put it there?

Good job NC. Continue to exercise your powers.


Marriage is a civil contract. By denying access to civil law it is a violation of due process and equal protection under the law.

Why would you support taking freedom away from Americans?
 
2012-05-09 02:32:02 AM

crazytrain: - who was also a troll


It must suck to be so full of anger and fear that you lash out at anyone who is different as being inferior.

Ricardo Klement: Time to brush up on what happened in the intervening years between the Whigs and Republicans.


Not a whole lot really.
 
2012-05-09 02:32:37 AM
well, it is what 0bama believes and supports.

too bad the voters in North Carolina agree with 0bama.
 
2012-05-09 02:33:10 AM

The_Sponge: lohphat: The_Sponge: lohphat: We have a well regulated militia. It's called the armed forces

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance.

And yours for thinking that guns make you free.


Do you want to keep losing this argument, or should I stop being awesome an ignorant troll?

 
2012-05-09 02:33:24 AM

WhyteRaven74: AverageAmericanGuy: Yet we did have those laws, which proves false your assertion that laws are not imposed to protect tradition.

We had those laws until the courts struck them down. Also they weren't found in all states. For example Illinois never had a law that said anything about interracial marriage. It's also the first state that got rid of all laws that could be taken as making homosexuality illegal. And it did this in 1963.


We also had Prohibition and a host of other laws that today we find onerous but at one time were the zeitgeist of the day. Mores change and laws change with them. That doesn't mean that they didn't exist or didn't attempt to preserve certain values. It just means that values and traditions change.

Even now we have the Constitution of the United States and its amendments which represent the most fundamental mores and beliefs of the nation.
 
2012-05-09 02:33:25 AM

The_Sponge: Fart_Machine: I hate to tell you this, but not everyone who votes Democratic is a liberal.


True, but doesn't California have a reputation as a liberal state?


Because those who don't live here think everything is like the Bay Area.
 
2012-05-09 02:33:31 AM

Little.Alex: And the Socialist Left is vulgar and insulting to Christians anyway, especially here on FARK. So what many people from traditional backgrounds hear from the Left is "Fark you, we hate you, we spit on you.... now here's what you can do for us."


Every time I see that I have to laugh. Some of us on Socialist Left were on the right not long ago. It's damn funny that you don't realize that old time conservatives, or people who would vote conservative, are fleeing the Republican party in droves right now. It's people like you, and the Sponge, that are doing the Democrats the most good. Of course George W Bush didn't help either but you farkers are in for a rough time politically in the next few decades. Hate doesn't win and neither does stupidity.
 
2012-05-09 02:33:45 AM

WhyteRaven74: Little.Alex: Why? What's so terrible about people voting to protect a fundamental part of their culture, from a minority who want to redefine society?

Because that is not what the law exists for. Thomas Jefferson could have told you this. Jon Adams ditto. Ditto Abraham Lincoln, JFK and Nixon.



So you assert. But apparently that's exactly what this law is for. And all of the men you named would have voted for the ban.
 
2012-05-09 02:35:02 AM

Fart_Machine: Because those who don't live here think everything is like the Bay Area.



What about the state legislature? Don't they reflect the state's political climate?

/Lived in CA for 4 years.
 
2012-05-09 02:36:33 AM
This law hurts more straight people than gays, sorry retards.
 
2012-05-09 02:37:22 AM

lohphat: an ignorant troll?



Oh really? I wasn't the airhead who claimed that the U.S. Armed Forces covered the definition of the militia when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Do you want to keep losing this argument, or should I stop being awesome?
 
2012-05-09 02:37:26 AM

Little.Alex: AverageAmericanGuy: WhyteRaven74: Little.Alex: What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved,

The law does not exist to preserve tradition.

Sure it does. It protects the values and enforces behavior that the community (or lawmakers) feel are important. It limits the behaviors the community disfavors.

That said, it's a pretty shiatty community that would vote for something like this.


Why? What's so terrible about people voting to protect a fundamental part of their culture, from a minority who want to redefine society?

If I lived in NC, I would have voted for the ban. Not because I give a Rat's Ass about the sanctity of marriage (easy divorce laws have already degraded that) or about Christianity (which has already lost the battle against inexpensive birth control) - but because I'm sick and tired of minorities running this country into the Ground.

Before I left the US; I was a self employed contractor in DC for almost 10 years. And all through that period, I had to pay someone to be Black for me. The Feds won't allow whites to bid on small business set aside contracts, so I would form a little $300 Nevada S-corp, then give my company to a black guy and pay him between $40,000 and $60,000 to be black for me. (and just add his no-show salary to the cost of the contract) It's the only way a white can contract in Washington.

So when I hear another group wants to give orders and make demands on the rest of us: I don't need to hear anything else. I'm against it.

And the Socialist Left is vulgar and insulting to Christians anyway, especially here on FARK. So what many people from traditional backgrounds hear from the Left is "Fark you, we hate you, we spit on you.... now here's what you can do for us."

Lefties treat others with contempt and arrogance, then demand respect and special privileges. You saw today how persuasive that is, you'll see again in November.

[cdn02.cdn.justjared.com image 300x300]
...


Vile little farker.

Equal treatment is "special rights"? Being treated as a citizen of the country you live in is "special rights"? Being able to love who you want in peace is "special rights"? "Minorities running the country into the ground"? Racist, homophobic, and an all-around evil little worm. I'm glad you left the US, the less filth like you here the better.
 
2012-05-09 02:38:02 AM

Little.Alex: WhyteRaven74: Little.Alex: Why? What's so terrible about people voting to protect a fundamental part of their culture, from a minority who want to redefine society?

Because that is not what the law exists for. Thomas Jefferson could have told you this. Jon Adams ditto. Ditto Abraham Lincoln, JFK and Nixon.


So you assert. But apparently that's exactly what this law is for. And all of the men you named would have voted for the ban.


Nixon definately would not have voted for it, and JFK would have reluctantly voted for it. The pressure from Rome would have sealed that vote.
 
2012-05-09 02:38:44 AM

Doran: bobbette: I bet if interracial marriage was put on the ballot most of the backwards-ass Southern states with constitutional same-sex marriage bans would outlaw it as well.

I don't think we should let them know them "coloured" people are even getting married. They might ban it.

It's telling that the land of freedom is almost the only Western country that hasn't legalized gay marriage.


Most western countries have not legalized gay marriage. Most of them have marriage equivalent civil unions that are nationally recognized though, so that you do have right. Hopefully in 30 years we will have full marriage rights in the entire western world (although I am not holding my breath on that one).

However, right now I am just hoping I don't lose the rights I have now. Luckily I live in Illinois, where we pretty much have all the rights we can possibly have in this country. We don't have "marriage" yet, but the civil unions we do have are all encompassing (as far as any state can make it), and all enacting gay marriage would do is change the word "civil union" to "marriage". I have full adoption rights and I don't have to worry about housing or employment discrimination either. Illinois has its problems, but it is a pretty good place to live overall.
 
2012-05-09 02:39:06 AM

draa: Little.Alex: And the Socialist Left is vulgar and insulting to Christians anyway, especially here on FARK. So what many people from traditional backgrounds hear from the Left is "Fark you, we hate you, we spit on you.... now here's what you can do for us."

Every time I see that I have to laugh. Some of us on Socialist Left were on the right not long ago. It's damn funny that you don't realize that old time conservatives, or people who would vote conservative, are fleeing the Republican party in droves right now. It's people like you, and the Sponge, that are doing the Democrats the most good. Of course George W Bush didn't help either but you farkers are in for a rough time politically in the next few decades. Hate doesn't win and neither does stupidity.



Stupidity does too win! Barrack Obama got elected, and he's nothing but an affirmative action retard.

BTW: nobody is "fleeing the Republican party in droves" That's just a lie you made up because you're ghey. Educated people look at the disaster of European Socialism, and they are fleeing the Democrat party in droves.
 
Displayed 50 of 1189 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report