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 405
    More: Asinine, North Carolina, same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, cohabitations, LGBT rights, civil unions  
•       •       •

11101 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2012 at 10:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-08 11:02:54 PM
26 votes:
To the People of North Carolina:

In these problematic times, I'm glad that you can focus on what is really important - Banning Gay Marriage. You have set aside the trivial problems of your state, such as your 9.7% unemployment rate (ranking you 47th in the nation for employment), homeless problems, or your education situation. It's great to see that tackling the threat of two consenting adults that love each other is on the front burner of your state. It shows dedication to the real problems of the 21st Century and I hope that other states can follow your example.

Sincerely,
Aar1012
2012-05-08 11:00:48 PM
19 votes:
Backwards ass hicks.
2012-05-08 11:01:30 PM
12 votes:
Wrong side of history again, NC.
2012-05-08 11:03:22 PM
11 votes:
Conservatism is a mental disorder.
2012-05-08 11:02:43 PM
10 votes:
Can I still knock up my mistress while my wife dies of cancer?
2012-05-08 11:53:12 PM
9 votes:
Reposted for relevance...


Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
2012-05-08 11:14:04 PM
8 votes:
I'd be more disappointed in North Carolina, if I wasn't reminded in the article that they're the 32nd state to codify such bigotry.

What we should really be ashamed of is that, in this country, the "land of the free and home of the brave," there are still people here that aren't free, and they're kept that way by cowards fearful of change.
2012-05-08 11:02:47 PM
8 votes:
For shame, NC. You should be embarrassed of yourselves. There's no reason to deny other human beings basic rights. Something is farked up in America.
2012-05-08 11:12:47 PM
7 votes:
Your company has a policy permitting benefits for partners. North Carolina just made that illegal. Why would you do business in North Carolina?
2012-05-08 11:06:42 PM
7 votes:
As a native of Asheville this makes me very sad, though not altogether surprised. I'm going to go drink a six-pack of craft beer and talk my parents off the ledge.

To any and everyone who voted for this atrocity : F*ck you.
2012-05-08 11:01:46 PM
7 votes:
Why are there so many god-damn hillbillies and goosesteppers in this country, and how much gasoline would it require to burn them all into the ground?
2012-05-08 11:51:50 PM
6 votes:
farm2.static.flickr.com

Could someone point out the gay ones? Maybe we could dig them up and put them in their own separate little gay area at Arlington. So they don't sully the memories of the real men laying there.
2012-05-08 11:40:23 PM
6 votes:
i149.photobucket.com
2012-05-08 11:18:33 PM
6 votes:
Can a conservative look in me the eye...hell can ANYONE look in me the eye and tell me how this is good for the nation? How this will create jobs or fix the economy or help the state?
2012-05-08 11:17:41 PM
6 votes:

zipdog: I'm a straight man and I can't marry a man either. I fail to see how we have unequal rights.


That's because you're not particularly intelligent.
2012-05-08 11:08:35 PM
6 votes:
Yet adultery is still legal despite being one of the Top Ten Commandments from God himself.
2012-05-08 11:07:18 PM
6 votes:
but...Christ didn't mention homosexuality. Not once. in fact, he didn't even imply homosexuality was wrong. Jesus seemed utterly indifferent to gay sex.
2012-05-08 11:04:17 PM
6 votes:
I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, that the majority votes down equal rights for minorities.

I wonder if people 30+ years from now will look at the gay marriage "debate" as we now look at the Civil Rights Movement. I also wonder if the issue of interracial marriage was on the ballot today what percentage of the public would outlaw it. (My guess: 25-30% on average, higher in the South.)
2012-05-08 11:04:04 PM
6 votes:
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.
2012-05-08 11:04:03 PM
6 votes:
But while supporters of the amendment emphasized so-called traditional family values, opponents to the measure sought to make the campaign about anything but same-sex marriage, which was already banned under a 1996 state statute. Instead, the anti-amendment contingent argued that, in precluding legal recognition for civil unions and domestic partnerships, Amendment One would carry negative implications on both gay and straight unmarried couples.

1.bp.blogspot.com
"The more you tighten your grip, Conservatives, the more states will slip through your fingers."

Specifically, the more fundamentalist and extreme they go, the easier it makes it to overturn legally under due process and equal protection.
2012-05-09 03:31:38 AM
5 votes:
The reason we have a Constitution in the first place is to protect the individual from mob rule. We don't need an Amendment to protect popular speech, for example.

We are not a direct democracy, we are a constitutional republic and for damned good reasons. Primarily to keep the mouth breathers from banning everything and anyone they don't like. Freedom is scary for them, yet they are the ones waving flag the most.
2012-05-09 12:07:14 AM
5 votes:

IHadMeAVision: I grew up going to a United Methodist church, and was taught during confirmation classes that it's okay to be gay, so the photo in the article seemed very... not Methodist. Until I remembered the schism that damned near occurred over that one issue, if it hasn't since, been like 12 years since I got confirmed and naturally quit waking up early on Sundays.


You know, I don't care if a church is against performing marriages. I have no problem with ministries that don't want to perform services that they don't believe in.

The issue isn't that a church is against or refuses to perform a gay or even an interfaith marriage, but that they are demanding that EVERY OTHER ministry follow suit. And that atheists and Buddhists and Wiccans and even the agnostics and Unitarians and less Orthodox Jews on top of that.

Do what you want in the confines of your own ministry. Don't ordain women. Don't marry gay couples. Don't marry mixed race couples. Don't marry folks who aren't of your faith. I don't care about that. In your own ministry, drive on. That's what freedom of religion is about.

THIS violates that though, because it prevents other ministries and faiths from performing the same ceremonies. It is a violation of the principle of freedom of religion, and at the same time violates the principle of equality under the law.

This really needs to be challenged, on the grounds of religious freedom and equality under the law. Plain and simple. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Do what you want in your churches, and I will support that. Messing around with OTHER PEOPLE'S faiths, is the dividing line. Atheists, Unitarians, Buddhists, and even those pesky Methodists, should not be bound by the teachings of other faiths. It's like demanding that every North Carolinian HAS to have a bris, no matter their faith, no matter their beliefs, no matter if they aren't even religious.

Marriage equality is an issue that scares folks, but only because folks outside their own churches are doing it, and folks hate that other faiths and folks without faith might decide differently. You want to limit marriage? Do it in your own churches, but stay the Hells out of other ministries' business...
2012-05-08 11:58:26 PM
5 votes:
The only way to solve this issue, is to take marriage out of the equation. Outlaw states from having anything to do with marriage. States can only recognize civil unions which can be with any combination of sexes above the age of consent and grants certain rights and privileges. Put marriage in the churches which can do whatever they want with it and deny or allow it in a purely religious cerminony that has no bearing on whatever rights are bestowed on couples.
2012-05-08 11:39:48 PM
5 votes:
I tried, Fark. So did Mrs. Puzz. There were just too many. We held the gates for as long as we could.

Fabulously we stood, jazz hand to jazz hand, and marched until we were pushed back. It just seemed like the conservative influence was coming at us from all sides. There were too many of them. So many old white folks at the polls today; I knew we would lose. Though vote I did, and for the first time in my adult life. This meant it. To my friends.

I tried, Fark.
2012-05-08 11:33:29 PM
5 votes:

Frank N Stein: As someone who supports gay marriage, here is my advice to the gay community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades. Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks. And that over the top feminine shiat is just annoying.

And yes, I do realize that not every gay person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay folks out there.


Your concern is noted, now fark off.
2012-05-08 11:25:29 PM
5 votes:

stonent: It's called states rights... Look it up.


No state may subvert the rights recognized by the US Constitution.
2012-05-08 11:19:01 PM
5 votes:

seadoo2006: "The whole point is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults," she said.


Comments like that wouldn't really help the state's case if someone were to petition the federal courts for a review of the amendment.

ImpendingCynic: States offered civil unions instead, and that should have been accepted with a smile, so that a few years later they could say "hey, we already have everything but the "M" word, so just let us have that."


Civil unions are an attempt to reinstitute separate but equal, a concept which was thrown out with the morning garbage back in the 50s.
2012-05-08 11:15:02 PM
5 votes:
Thanks Republican Party, you champion of small government. We're all glad you aren't about unnecessarily forcing your bureaucracy into people's everyday lives.
2012-05-08 11:09:46 PM
5 votes:
Sigh, I'll post it again:
i180.photobucket.com
"Don't make me come down there again!"

/when Sherman reached the sea, his army turned north
//the second march ended at Durham, April 26, 1865
///I could've sworn I've seen an image macro with Sherman and that quotation (or a similar quotation)...
2012-05-08 11:08:00 PM
5 votes:
FTR, this passed due to the votes in the rural areas. Those of us in the big cities actually voted against it for the most part.

That being said, lots of states far more progressive have similar laws. This is not strictly a dem/repub issue either.

Sad day, that much is certain.
2012-05-08 11:07:27 PM
5 votes:
Come on, secede already. We won't even fight to get you back this time. Just take your backward-ass selves, raise the confederate flag, chant "states rights", and get the fark away from those of us who live in the 21st century.
2012-05-08 11:02:24 PM
5 votes:
This is disgusting.

F**k you "All men are created equal"
2012-05-09 10:39:25 AM
4 votes:

praymantis: OK so answer my question why is the government involved in this?


Happily. The rights involved in marriage include common property rights, probate-free inheritance, tax rights, hospital visitation rights, military pension rights, the right of married veterans to be buried together in military cemeteries, the right to adopt with joint legal custody, etc.

Those are all rights that are enforced by the government. You can make a will to pass all your property on to your lover, but if you're not married, that will goes to probate, even if you say in the first line "this is a probate-free inheritance." Family members can dispute the validity of the will, void the executrix, etc. Not so with a spouse inheriting joint property with the right of survivorship.

Additionally, the government can enforce those rights on third parties. You can sign a contract with your friend to visit them in the ICU if they're ever injured, but that contract's between the two of you. No hospital has to honor it, and why would they - they're not a party to the contract, they didn't sign anything. But a marriage certificate? That'll get you in.

See, why you're confused, is that you think a "marriage" is just about love or a ceremony or something. No, that's the wedding part, and churches are free to discriminate however they want there: Catholics can refuse to wed divorcees, Jews can refuse to wed gentiles, etc. Marriage, however, is about property rights and legal rights that are binding on third parties, and at that point, the government has to be involved.
2012-05-09 12:46:48 AM
4 votes:

Frank N Stein: Fine by me. Continue intentionally estrange yourself from the mainstream, and keep being confrontational to anyone who disagrees with you. See how that works out.


No, dude. Bigots are not bigots because gays wear silly clothes. They don't like LGBTQ people. The only way to pacify bigots, ultimately, is to not be LGBTQ. Since that is impossible, LGBTQ people choose instead to live their lives as they please and to not attempt to pacify the bigots, which is an entirely fruitless endeavour since the problem is not the outfits, but sexuality and/or gender presentation that diverges from heterosexual norms. The solution to bigotry is not to erase the things that makes us different from one another. It's to embrace the things that make us different from one another and the diversity of human experience.

We're not really having a confrontation, here. You're blaming gay people's outfits and parades (which are not more risqué than hetero parades), and implicitly, gay people, for bigotry directed against them. I'm just pointing out that your sh*t's all retarded.
2012-05-09 12:20:13 AM
4 votes:

Killer Cars: FTA:

In fact, state house Speaker Thom Tillis (R), a supporter of the amendment, even told a student group at North Carolina State University in March that he predicts that the measure will be repealed within 20 years.

Now that is some effective legislating, fellow citizens. What in the god damn f*ck??


It's a scorched earth policy.

They know full gay rights are inevitable just looking at the demographic information we have now.

They think by putting these immoral bills on record they will somehow slow the process of gays achieving full equal rights. They may be right. Of course, younger people finding the modern GOP to be to too regressive and immoral to support on this issue alone might end up causing that to happen sooner rather than later.

One of the weirdest things about the entire saga of George Wallace back in the bad ole days standing in front of that schoolhouse blocking integration physically was that in an effort to slow or stop integration what he ultimately did caused integration to happen more rapidly and more comprehensively than it looked like it was going to.

The Law of Unintended Consequences.

It is a tricksy biatch.
2012-05-08 11:56:11 PM
4 votes:

dosboot: bdub77: Thank God we protected the Caucasian race.

/asshats
//voted against it

Most blacks are against homosexual marriage. But continue to blame white people, libtard.


North Carolina Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment 1 Reportedly Written To Protect 'Caucasian Race' (pops)

I'm not surprised a dumbass like you missed the story.
2012-05-08 11:47:48 PM
4 votes:
Until you push a bill to make divorce a crime, you don't really give a shiat about the sanctity of marriage and are just trying to be an asshole.
2012-05-08 11:36:09 PM
4 votes:

DamnYankees: It also bans domestic partnerships and civil unions. It'll be struck down as unconstitutional.


It's a terribly written amendment, it also, according to the AG, bans domestic people living together from forming contracts that "simulate marriage"... so all that conservative talk about how they just want to protect marriage is total bullshiat, they want to make sure gays get kicked out of the house they own together when one dies, that they can't pass on estate rights, that they can't give eachother power of attorney or medical decision making... it's just absolute bull. I look forward to some reasonable court looking at this and ruling that it unfairly restricts the rights of people to associate as they wish and form contracts.
2012-05-08 11:23:18 PM
4 votes:

Aar1012: Can a conservative look in me the eye...hell can ANYONE look in me the eye and tell me how this is good for the nation? How this will create jobs or fix the economy or help the state?


Conservatives don't give a sh*t about creating jobs, and they're not concerned about the good of the nation. They're only concerned about themselves.
2012-05-08 11:20:06 PM
4 votes:

zipdog: I'm a straight man and I can't marry a man either. I fail to see how we have unequal rights.


Well yes, that would be a consequence of being a moron.
2012-05-08 11:17:58 PM
4 votes:
And once again, the Republicoonts and their TEAliban flunkies continue their quest to oppress everyone who isn't an obscenely rich, geriatric, male WASP. Fundamentalist Evangelism is a far greater threat to the US than Sharia could ever be.

To everyone who voted for or supported this amendment: EABOD and DIAF you subhuman, un-American, anti-American assholes.

/yeah, I mad.
//And anyone who truly believes that all men are created equal should be too.
2012-05-08 11:16:39 PM
4 votes:
Constitutional amendments based on doctrine from one religion. But since it's the Bible Belt and it's "their" religion, it's ok, apparently. All the pro-amendment people quoted the Bible as justification, yet there's no word on banning divorce and marriage is supposed to be for life according to the Bible.

I'm a Conservative Republican and I voted No in an attempt to keep this crap out of our state constitution. You can't have freedom of religion of your laws are based on a specific religion's views.

It was poorly worded, too. It's going to come back to bite more than just "them queers" and the Schadenfreude will be sweet some of the supporters end up on the wrong end of the amendment. It doesn't actually have any affect on gay marriage, since that was already illegal. But it does make the distinction that 1 man 1 woman marriage is the "only domestic partnership." Unmarried couples with kids may have just had some of their rights go down the toilet.
2012-05-08 11:16:06 PM
4 votes:

BravadoGT: 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.

How principled of him. Good thing he's put the cynical politics of the past behind him.


Which is worse?
A) Obama backs off gay rights until his second term, then comes and provides substantial support.
B) Obama comes out strong for gay marriage in the election cycle, narrowly loses, and President Romney does nothing to help.
2012-05-08 11:11:08 PM
4 votes:
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.
2012-05-08 11:10:34 PM
4 votes:
Once again, this wasn't about equal rights. There was no up side for LGBT individuals here. This was about hate misinformation and using the government to hurt people you don't like.
2012-05-08 11:10:25 PM
4 votes:
This is the face of these laws. Link it's real people and their lives you are screwing with.
2012-05-08 11:09:53 PM
4 votes:
I can't believe gay marriage is even an issue. Let 'em marry, who gives a damn. We, as a country, have a lot more important battles to fight.
2012-05-08 11:07:09 PM
4 votes:
image.yogile.com.s3.amazonaws.com
2012-05-08 11:06:11 PM
4 votes:
This issue yet again comes to the forefront at election time. Until we fix our infrastructure, take care of our debt, get out of the useless wars we are in, get folks back to work, create a school system that works, etc etc this issue means almost next to nothing either way.
2012-05-08 11:03:32 PM
4 votes:

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: For shame, NC. You should be embarrassed of yourselves. There's no reason to deny other human beings basic rights. Something is farked up in America.


Don't blame me! I voted against it.
2012-05-08 11:00:55 PM
4 votes:
Well...........fark them?

Nobody likes you anyways.

/Duke sucks
//but can't get married.
2012-05-10 07:30:46 AM
3 votes:
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
2012-05-09 10:41:38 AM
3 votes:

NotSubby: Theaetetus: praymantis: Is getting married a civil right?

One of the most fundamental rights, according to the Supreme Court.

As a libertarian I would say the government should NOT be in the civil union/marriage business that is what churches do

With all due respect, I think instead of "libertarian" you meant "someone who is grossly misinformed."

Churches do not issue marriage certificates. They perform weddings, and in many states, they sign marriage certificates as witnesses, but they cannot and do not issue the certificate.

In fact, there is a legal doctrine called "de facto marriage" which specifically covers instances where a couple goes to a church, has a wedding and believes they are married, but never goes to the town clerk to get a marriage certificate. The doctrine allows for some small measure of protection, but acknowledges that such couples are not married.

How do you come to the conclusion that because he said "government should NOT be in the civil union/marriage business" he's uninformed? Perhaps his opinion isn't the same as yours (regarding gov't involvement in interpersonal relationships) but that doesn't necessarily make him ignorant of the details.

I agree the government should get out of this business. I'm not a libertarian but it's ridiculous how so many people can complain about how bad it was the government involved itself in who one has sex with yet demand the right to let the government mandate... who they can have sex with while collecting marriage payola. Marriage (as designed by the state apparatus) is inherently unfair to someone and the demand for redress of this "civil right" will never end so long as the government doesn't treat us as individual right holders.


See, you're also grossly uninformed. You apparently think marriage is about the government involving itself in who people can have sex with. In other words, you apparently think that you aren't allowed to have sex without a marriage certificate.
That's pretty farkin' grossly uninformed.
2012-05-09 12:59:05 AM
3 votes:
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself and me"
"Judge not, lest you yourself be judged; there is no greater judge than I"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

Excellent job, Republicans and "Christians". Not only do you spit in the face of your Creator, you spit in the face of one of this country's fundamental tenants. For whatever reason, the idea that two people of the same sex can love each other and want to be married fills you with such overwhelming, frothing, misguided hatred and fear that you put aside EVERYTHING that's actually IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT in order to spitefully crush as many of the rights and freedoms of your fellow Americans as you possibly can.

Why? Why do you do this? Why does the thought of men loving men and women loving women fill you with such rage and hate? Why do you need to ignore the country collapsing around you, the plight of the poor and homeless, our soldiers in combat, OUR GODDAMNED FUTURE, to pour all your energy and time into farking over people's lives?

You're filth. Complete, utter, absolute filth. You're not Christians. You're not Americans. You're evil, spiteful, hateful little worms that need to feed off the misfortune of others. You take the words of your God and do the exact opposite, ignoring everything that doesn't fit your plans and ideas while championing hatred, bigotry, and evil. Whatever voices tell you to do this, they're not God's. You shiat all over the ideals and fundamentals on why this country was created because you can't stand the idea of people you dislike being equal to you. You don't want to lead this country, you want to destroy it a piece at a time for the sole purpose of spite.

Crawl back under the rocks and bridges you oozed out from under, you false Christians and enemies of America. Keep your petty hatred and fear to yourself far away from the rest of us. The world will be a much better place the day all of you are finally gone, and the sooner the better.

/yes, I'm mad
//"There's far too much trash in the universe"
2012-05-09 12:27:04 AM
3 votes:

crazytrain: You are the company you keep.


On behalf of all Fark members, I wish to thank you on flying your bigotry so proudly. It makes it easier for us to laugh at you.
2012-05-09 12:25:02 AM
3 votes:
in Canada we don't leave human rights up to a popular vote.

because....well because that would be absolutely stupid and pointless
and defeat the whole notion of equality.
2012-05-09 12:18:57 AM
3 votes:

Frank N Stein: Fine by me. Continue intentionally estrange yourself from the mainstream, and keep being confrontational to anyone who disagrees with you. See how that works out.

/Pro tip: Don't be surprised when stupid shiat like this happens in states.


So you want to blame this amendment on gay pride parades. Fine. No particular evidence to suggest that anything like that played a rule, but hey, whatever. What about the previous ban (gay marriage had already been illegal even before this amendment was passed, after all), though? What about all the bans in places that don't have highly visible gay communities? Or, for that matter, places that do have such communities but have no problems with gay marriage?

I mean, at what point should we start to accept this kind of bigotry as primarily attributable to the bigots themselves, as opposed to making leaps of logic with arguments like "those gays must surely be at least partially responsible for their own persecution" and variants thereof?
2012-05-09 12:06:47 AM
3 votes:

KidneyStone: TheShavingofOccam123: [farm2.static.flickr.com image 500x357]

Could someone point out the gay ones? Maybe we could dig them up and put them in their own separate little gay area at Arlington. So they don't sully the memories of the real men laying there.

This guy is in Section 60, over towards the Pentagon and near the Columbarium. Nice try on your part, lol

[assets.nydailynews.com image 485x367]


Thanks for posting that pic. I post Major Alan G. Rogers' pic in these threads.

upload.wikimedia.org

What a handsome, pretty man. He died on foot patrol in Iraq, killed by an IED. Couldn't marry his love or adopt or foster in lots of states in the US. I hope North Carolina is proud of themselves.

I'm glad to hear he's buried near the Pentagon. I hope the assholes there who got him killed then covered up his being gay get to stare at his smartly decorated grave every day.
2012-05-09 12:03:07 AM
3 votes:
"The gheys" were the debate, but reverting to a country of citizens that are "land owning males" was what it was about.
2012-05-09 12:02:40 AM
3 votes:
How did this even go to a popular vote?

You cannot have different civil rights for different people and remain within the Constitution.

"We the people" means everyone.
2012-05-08 11:52:00 PM
3 votes:

bobbette: 2. You know where we have those parades? Places where gays are accepted and gay marriage is legal.


More to the point, this is another instance of bigots actively seeking out and getting outraged by behaviour by gay people that they wouldn't give a second thought to if it was being done by heterosexuals. Even if gay people stopped doing the specific thing they happen to be complaining at that time, they'll just move on to something else.

"You want equal rights, gays? Well then stop kissing each other in public! Don't hold hands where decent straight people are watching! Don't put photographs of your same-sex partners up on your desk! Just follow these instructions and you'll have equal rights, I promise! And just completely ignore all of recorded history where you didn't have any rights even though you never did any of these things and in fact led marginalized and largely invisible existences!"
2012-05-08 11:51:11 PM
3 votes:

eraser8: Honestly, I can't figure out the mindset of a person who thinks, "yeah, I want to vote to take somebody else's rights away."


its easy - just assume that you are always right. the rest comes easy. works on the war on drugs, anti-smoking legislation, seat belt laws, gay marriage, DUI laws...all you have to do is assume that YOU know best and that everyone else is stupid.

you don't even have to be conservative. left wingers do it too. so do some libertarians.
2012-05-08 11:50:06 PM
3 votes:

ur14me: ///can choose to be gay


So when did you choose to be straight?
2012-05-08 11:48:06 PM
3 votes:
Honestly, I can't figure out the mindset of a person who thinks, "yeah, I want to vote to take somebody else's rights away."

I guess minding your own damn business is too farking hard.
2012-05-08 11:40:25 PM
3 votes:

Frank N Stein: As someone who supports gay marriage, here is my advice to the gay community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades. Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks. And that over the top feminine shiat is just annoying.

And yes, I do realize that not every gay person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay folks out there.


Have you ever been to a football game? In ten minutes of any football game - I can show you more farked up behavior that you will ever see at a gay pride parade.
2012-05-08 11:37:30 PM
3 votes:

Frank N Stein: As someone who supports gay marriage, here is my advice to the gay community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades. Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks. And that over the top feminine shiat is just annoying.

And yes, I do realize that not every gay person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay folks out there.


And as someone who truly supports gay marriage and supports people's FREEDOM, who the fark cares? Do you yell and scream at the millions of mindless idiots on Saint Patrick's Day that act like complete fools in the name of Irish people? Let people do whatever the hell they want. A pride parade isn't hurting me in any way, whatsoever, at all. Live and let live. Isn't that what America is all about?
2012-05-08 11:35:08 PM
3 votes:

Frank N Stein: As someone who supports gay marriage, here is my advice to the gay community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades. Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks. And that over the top feminine shiat is just annoying.

And yes, I do realize that not every gay person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay folks out there.


That's just stupid.

That's like saying that more people would've been supportive of interracial marriages if black people didn't act so "black".

People are just going to be bigots no matter what.
2012-05-08 11:30:38 PM
3 votes:

Shaggy_C: Dimensio: Rights are a property of individuals. The concept of rights being applied to a collective, such as a state, is nonsensical.

Tenth amendment is the tinfoil hat constitutionalists use to keep liberals out of their brainwaves.


People claim to support States' Rights until another state works against their state rights. For Example: The Fugitive Slave Act.
2012-05-08 11:27:45 PM
3 votes:
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.
2012-05-08 11:26:44 PM
3 votes:

ImpendingCynic: Do you have any idea how long it's going to take to tear down 32 states' anti-gay marriage laws, plus DOMA?


There are ways to get that done fairly quickly, should it come to that.
2012-05-08 11:25:43 PM
3 votes:

austin_millbarge: Conservatism is a mental disorder.


And a moral failing.

I know you're supposed to hate the sin and love the sinner but, seriously, fark these bigoted asshats with a pointy stick.
2012-05-08 11:20:05 PM
3 votes:

jizonny: Sometimes I think the Fark logo needs to be backed by a huge rainbow, because that's all who post here.

I guess tolerance only works when you want someone to accept your views? You shouldn't have to tolerate theirs? Is this not a majority rules country?

If I want someone to recognize the sweet love I make to the horse in the barn, should I be entitled to tax benefits and societal acceptance?


Nobody's going to buy that. Troll smarter, not harder.
2012-05-08 11:16:54 PM
3 votes:

Wasilla Hillbilly: As much as I enjoy States' Rights, this is the sort of thing I'm hoping eventually becomes overturned by a Federal law.


States' rights pretty much never works out for the better. Too many small, homogenous states that want to enact crazy, Sharia-style laws. Even though a majority of the population supports equal rights, the number of small states will pass legislation to quash it in their fiefdoms.

Of course it would be even easier if we got rid of the Senate and had more proportional representation. Bumfark, Arkansas and Frozensac, North Dakota population 4 shouldn't have equal say as all of the people of New York.
2012-05-08 11:16:38 PM
3 votes:
I'm a straight man and I can't marry a man either. I fail to see how we have unequal rights.
2012-05-08 11:15:30 PM
3 votes:
How ironic that the most popular writer that North Carolina produced in the last 20 years is David Sedaris.
2012-05-08 11:14:45 PM
3 votes:
RALEIGH, N.C. -- North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, becoming the latest state to effectively slam the door shut on same-sex marriages.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against. North Carolina is the 30th state to adopt such a ban on gay marriage.

Tami Fitzgerald, who heads the pro-amendment group Vote FOR Marriage NC, said she believes the initiative awoke a silent majority of more active voters in the future.

"I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that marriage is between one man and one woman," Fitzgerald said at a celebration Tuesday night where supporters could have their photo taken beside a seven-layer white wedding cake.

They later cut into the cake, with Fitzgerald taking the first slice.


"The whole point is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults," she said.


http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_20578526/north-carolina - approves-amendment-banning-gay-marriage

This truly gets me itching for an old-fashioned beat down ... these people are truly the most spiteful, hateful, bigoted, group of persons outside of the WBC ... ug, it makes me sick ...

i560.photobucket.com
2012-05-08 11:14:14 PM
3 votes:

Swoop1809: How long until we can get a federal review of one of these that makes gay marriage federally accepted?


Depends on how long we can wait out this current Supreme Court.
2012-05-08 11:13:59 PM
3 votes:
I'm saddened beyond words at most of my state...the state I used to love.

The worst part? I'm willing to bet most people who voted yes didn't realize there was already a statute stating that gay marriages in NC weren't valid (51-1.2) and saw this as a way to stop gay people from marrying.

Quite frankly, I think it'll affect my daughter (born out of wedlock) more than it will further affect any gay person in this state.
2012-05-08 11:11:58 PM
3 votes:
Now would be a perfect time for Obama to come out and state what everybody already knows; that he supports marriage equality.
2012-05-08 11:10:24 PM
3 votes:
Now if only the Democrats would pull their National Convention from North Carolina
2012-05-08 11:08:55 PM
3 votes:
It also bans domestic partnerships and civil unions. It'll be struck down as unconstitutional.
2012-05-08 11:06:57 PM
3 votes:

The_Great_Hambino: I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, that the majority votes down equal rights for minorities.

I wonder if people 30+ years from now will look at the gay marriage "debate" as we now look at the Civil Rights Movement. I also wonder if the issue of interracial marriage was on the ballot today what percentage of the public would outlaw it. (My guess: 25-30% on average, higher in the South.)


Future U.S. History Students: 'It's Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage'
2012-05-08 11:06:25 PM
3 votes:
Well, it was already illegal and the cons blew their wad on a primary instead of drumming up Romney turnout in the general
2012-05-08 11:05:50 PM
3 votes:
As it's worded I'm not sure the amendment would survive a review in the federal courts. And I wouldn't be surprised if one is forthcoming.
2012-05-08 11:04:55 PM
3 votes:
Aol.com, yeah, I know, said on their headline "NC votes to ban gay marriage." The fact that that was their headline shows most people didn't know what amendment 1 actually meant
2012-05-08 11:04:05 PM
3 votes:
They're just pissed about the attractive and successful property they lost back in 1865.

They'll get over it.

About the same time as the Palestinians leave Palestine.
2012-05-08 11:01:18 PM
3 votes:
Welcome to the club.

Sincerely,
California
2012-05-08 11:01:00 PM
3 votes:
I guess they're afraid to catch teh ghey.
2012-05-09 12:51:29 PM
2 votes:

Frank N Stein: As someone who supports gay marriage racial equality, here is my advice to the gay Black community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades marches.


i651.photobucket.com

Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude Holding sit-ins and confronting authority figures isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks.


i651.photobucket.com

And that over the top feminine uppity shiat is just annoying.

i651.photobucket.com

And yes, I do realize that not every gay Black person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay Black folks out there.


i651.photobucket.com

Apologist for the win!
2012-05-09 09:51:35 AM
2 votes:

praymantis: Part of the issue is the American people historically do not want something shoved down their throats.(No pun intended). It will all happen in time.


So that's why MLK was assassinated. People didn't want civil rights and equality "shoved done their throats."
2012-05-09 09:44:15 AM
2 votes:
My grandfather told me this, and it applies here:

"If a million people do a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing."
2012-05-09 06:05:22 AM
2 votes:

untaken_name: Then why is weed illegal? Oh, right, because you're wrong.


You can thank racism for pot being illegal. Racism and a head of the AMA who lied through his teeth to the Congress. It wasn't like it was that long ago that pot was made illegal.
2012-05-09 03:32:49 AM
2 votes:

al's hat: I think there are folks of some other major religions who would take issue with you defining marriage as a "Christian Sacrament".


Also several Christian denominations have no problem at all with gays marrying.
2012-05-09 03:05:57 AM
2 votes:
Easily predicting two things...

That this amendment would pass in spite of my voting against it

That liberals would quickly descend in to bigotry as they got a brand new excuse to pull out their 'Anti-South' prejudice.

I do hope those you running around here going on about 'red necks' 'hicks' 'hillbillies' 'bible thumpers' and so on and so forth are quite proud of yourselves because you're behaving precisely the same as the people who voted for this amendment. Oh by the way? That's not going to change anyone's mind and if anything it's going to alienate more people from your way of thinking on equal rights for homosexuals. So good job, keep it up, the homophobes need your support.

Now then for the rest of you, which I hope is most of you, what can you do to actually help unlike the above idiots? Well, if you're a liberal the first thing you're going to have to do is honestly admit to yourself that you have a problem. A big one. Amendments like this always pass with large numbers of registered Democrats and that includes people who are otherwise 'big government' liberals that you get along with on most issues. This is not a small number of people we're talking about here. The majority of the votes come from Republicans, but they alone can't do it.

You need to start working on people on your side. They're not going to listen to me, I'm a conservative, my reasoning for equal rights for homosexuals is not based on the same ideas liberals typically use. I will continue to work on the conservatives as best I can but it should be easier for you to convince other liberals than it is for me to convince other conservatives. You don't have to convince everyone. In the case of California all it would have taken was convincing about 5% of the people more towards the middle of the issue that you were right. They're out there and you can talk to them, like grown ups, and not with name calling and stupidity.
2012-05-09 02:16:23 AM
2 votes:

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


He can believe anything he wants, the issue is what law he supports. A person can be opposed to something personally and yet not want their personal view supported in law.
2012-05-09 01:53:17 AM
2 votes:

Little.Alex: What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman

Well, what I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting.... What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved,


So basically you want to impose your faith on the rest of us, separation of church and state be damned.
2012-05-09 01:51:20 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-05-09 01:45:53 AM
2 votes:
Henceforth, North Carolina shall be called "The Tarhead StateTM."
2012-05-09 01:28:23 AM
2 votes:
Another protector of the "sanctity" of marriage.
www.luminarium.org
2012-05-09 01:28:22 AM
2 votes:

Diogenes The Cynic: quatchi: Diogenes The Cynic: So, don't call it marriage, and everyone is happy. Marriage is specifically a religious institution.

No. Your way nobody wins and nobody is happy except possibly for you.

Calling the gay marriage battle in the fight for full civil rights for gay citizens "a battle you can't win" kinda disregards the number of places where gays already have won their civil rights.

You gotta pick your battles.

This is a good one to pick.

This zeitgeist shift is this generations "civil rights for blacks".

You don't forgo battles you must win.

Sun Tzu knew that as well.

Be Well.

Fighting for civil unionships would be more productive.


Just agreeing to use a different term loses the war before the battle begins.
2012-05-09 01:24:36 AM
2 votes:
The majority has voted to limit the rights of a minority... you embarrass us all, North Carolina (and the Republicans who spearheaded this abomination of an amendment).
2012-05-09 01:13:21 AM
2 votes:
Me to North Carolina: My tourist dollars - not yours

Diogenes The Cynic:
So, don't call it marriage, and everyone is happy. Marriage is specifically a religious institution./i>

Unless you count the 1,000+ legal benefits of such a union. And I'm pretty sure there's at least one happy atheist marriage out there. My mother and my late step-father were married in a civil ceremony. Anyone suggesting that they aren't married had best remain outside arm's reach.

My solution: We do come up with a separate name. Those of you who got married in a house of worship in a "wedding" are now "wedded." Congratulations.
2012-05-09 01:09:56 AM
2 votes:
A message to everyone whining about people admonishing North Carolina as a whole:

The fact that an amendment was even voted on to be put on the ballot is bad enough. That would mean a majority of representatives in the state voted to put it there. Then, the amendment passes 1.3 Millions votes to .83 million votes. With 2.164 millions votes cast that is a 60/40 split. A landslide in voting terms. Also, those ballots cast only represent 34% of all registered voters.

This means a majority of people who care to vote are for hate, bigotry, and taking away rights from others. The rest of your state didn't care. Only 13% of your registered voters cared to stop this amendment. That is pathetic and North Carolina deserves any negative things said about it in this regard.
2012-05-09 01:08:16 AM
2 votes:

hubiestubert: This really needs to be challenged, on the grounds of religious freedom and equality under the law. Plain and simple. Nothing more. Nothing less.


Maybe you should have thought of that before you kept voting GOP over the last decade.

That party's platform has been to deny equal rights to same-gendered adults.

Why. Have. YOU. Been. Supporting. Them??????????

RING RING! IT'S THE CLUE PHONE -- IT'S FOR *YOU*!
2012-05-09 01:06:26 AM
2 votes:
I know I'm going to get trolled for this, but honestly, I don't understand how the term bigot doesn't apply.

Merriam-Webster says bigot is: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

I read that "obstinately" as clinging despite evidence, rationality, fairness, existing law, etc.

How does voting for something that makes no sense, isn't legal, isn't fair, isn't rational, is pretty much not accepted by any scholar of the law as in line with the law, etc., etc., not an illogical act of devotion to one's prejudices?

Either you have a rational point of view (there are actually several different ones people have argued, ranging from full faith and credit to religious freedom to the rest) or you have a bigoted one.

Even those who argue about getting a lawyer, drawing up power of attorney, etc., that's part of the unintended consequences some of the anti-gay opponents of this silliness spoke about, it's worded so stupidly that if it's not a "marriage" between one man and one woman, it's not a relationship, and can be ignored by the government. It also says "marriage" is the only relationship the state accepts, so I hope none of the people opposing it were "married" in a form called anything other than marriage, such as getting it done out of the country in a civil government office...
2012-05-09 01:00:42 AM
2 votes:
I said it before and I'll say it again. This countries biggest mistake was not letting those dumbass hicks leave.
2012-05-09 12:59:37 AM
2 votes:

Diogenes The Cynic: So, don't call it marriage, and everyone is happy. Marriage is specifically a religious institution.


No. Your way nobody wins and nobody is happy except possibly for you.

Calling the gay marriage battle in the fight for full civil rights for gay citizens "a battle you can't win" kinda disregards the number of places where gays already have won their civil rights.

You gotta pick your battles.

This is a good one to pick.

This zeitgeist shift is this generations "civil rights for blacks".

You don't forgo battles you must win.

Sun Tzu knew that as well.

Be Well.
2012-05-09 12:52:37 AM
2 votes:

meanmutton: Know what? F the state. Their opinion doesn't matter.

If you're a same sex couple and you want to get married, get married. Go to your minister or Rabbi or what not and ask him/her to officiate your wedding. If he or she won't do it, there are plenty who will. Then, talk to a lawyer, get a durable power of attorney and a well set up. Know what? You're 100% every bit as married as I am.

If idiots and bigots don't want to consider you as married? F them. What you do in your own bedroom and how consenting adults choose to live their own life is none of their f-ing business.


I hate to break up the circlejerk here, but I bet not everyone who opposes homosexual marriage is some sort of troglodyte.

In this case, NC is in the wrong, but the same laws that prevent gays from having a union thats legally recognized also prevent a Mormon, or Muslim guy from having two wives. I have nothing against the Mormon, or Muslim, or gay, but I don't think the government should have the discretion to be able to define what a marriage is.

A civil union-ship, sure. But thats different. The connotation is that of legal recognition. But demanding societal recognition, which I secretly suspect this issue is actually about is out of line. Hate me all you want for being the one to say it, but I'd be easier to deregulate marriage than redefine it to include homosexuals.

So, don't call it marriage, and everyone is happy. Marriage is specifically a religious institution.

Also, to the guy above who said "go to your Rabbi." They can't perform a same sex marriage,because it isn't recognized by our religion.

/not a troll post
//slashies!
///seriously people, read The Art of War by Sun Tsu. Don't start a battle you can't win.
2012-05-09 12:47:09 AM
2 votes:

Shaggy_C: WhyteRaven74: No state may subvert the rights recognized by the US Constitution.

Marriage isn't mentioned in the US Constitution as a power delegated to any of the federal branches of government. Ergo, states alone have the right to issue marriage licenses.


Um....equal protection under law IS in the constitution.

Here's your Rice a Roni
Thanks for playing.

www.amoeba.com
2012-05-09 12:43:44 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-05-09 12:36:19 AM
2 votes:

BroVinny: Investing oneself is the shortest, quickest path to leaving oneself vulnerable. You care, so it hurt when this law passed. Your opponents care, and thus would have their own anguish had the democratic vote favored your side. Best not to have a team to root for.


I don't get hurt. I get angry. And I try to change things.

It's not about rooting for a team. It's whether or not you make any small difference in your time on this planet. Whether you contribute in any way to bettering humanity as a whole.

Eh, you make your choice and I'll make mine.
2012-05-09 12:35:18 AM
2 votes:
If there were a charity that helped buy plane/bus tickets for gays, Democrats, or people who finished high school, who wanted to get the hell out of shiatholes like NC and move to a civilized state, I'd write'em a check right now.
2012-05-09 12:34:44 AM
2 votes:
In ten years, many people who visited the ballot box in North Carolina today will look back on their votes with shame.

Hell, in ten years, most of the people who voted for this amendment will probably be dead.
2012-05-09 12:31:09 AM
2 votes:
Okay, let's vote on whether or not straight people can get married. We'll do it on a case-by-case basis. You want to get married, put it on the ballot.
2012-05-09 12:25:14 AM
2 votes:
You don't have to like homosexuality, you just have to tolerate it.

/I don't like inbred rednecks but I support their civil rights.
2012-05-09 12:23:47 AM
2 votes:

Weaver95: eraser8: Weaver95: there's a LOT of troll accounts that haven't been active in a long time that suddenly went active this year.

most curious.

Election year.

most of them seem to have been created around 2007.


sleeper alts.
2012-05-09 12:21:04 AM
2 votes:
Ok. The money and logistical support didn't just come out of nowhere. Find the groups and individuals who bankrolled this now.

It's the Mormons again probably. Nobody else does gay-bashing on this scale better.
2012-05-09 12:13:56 AM
2 votes:
www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net

When you remove religion, going against gays is pretty dumb.
2012-05-09 12:11:03 AM
2 votes:

BroVinny: I really don't care one whit whether gays can get married or not. If my paycheck or my rights are somehow impacted one way or another, then perhaps I'll care.


I don't get this. It's a moral question, a civil rights question. How can you be neutral? Even if it doesn't affect you personally, the way a democratic society operates reflects on you and your participation in it. You have a choice: to oppose injustice or to accept, even to contribute, to the status quo by being indifferent. Given that choice, how can you choose indifference?
2012-05-09 12:08:56 AM
2 votes:
there's a LOT of troll accounts that haven't been active in a long time that suddenly went active this year.

most curious.
2012-05-09 12:04:27 AM
2 votes:
Politicized churches should receive visits audits from the IRS.

/but I'm not holding my breath
2012-05-09 12:03:25 AM
2 votes:
What a gay couple might look like.www.trepaning.com
2012-05-09 12:03:04 AM
2 votes:

eraser8: Hoover was BORN in Iowa. He was elected president as a Californian.


And Reagan was born in Illinois.
2012-05-09 12:01:50 AM
2 votes:

Frank N Stein: 1. No need for rude rhetoric.


Then you should have kept your opinion to yourself to start with. You implied LGBTQ people are abnormal and suggested that LGBTQ culture be changed, and its acceptance and celebration of varying gender presentations be suppressed, in order to better fit your preferences and comfort level. That is beyond rude - it's intolerant and ignorant.

The response you should expect to such a post is "fark off".
2012-05-09 12:01:00 AM
2 votes:

TheBigJerk: I remember being (possibly mis)taught in high school that applying for foreign citizenships can get your existing citizenship revoked.


That's only in the case of acquiring a new citizenship. In the case of people born in other countries or married to those who have citizenship or qualify for citizenship because of birth in another country that doesn't apply. For example, I was born in what's now the Czech Republic. If I wanted to I could go to the Czech consulate here in Chicago and fill out some paperwork and get my Czech citizenship back and thus get an EU passport. This would in no way impact my status as an American citizen.

The issue with Bachmann is that holding dual citizenship makes you ineligible for a top secret clearance, and as a member of the House Intelligence Committee she needs to hold such a clearance.

eraser8: Hoover, Nixon and Reagan. Three of the worst presidents in all of US history.


Hoover wasn't so bad, he's just thought of badly and improperly still. Historians are far kinder to Hoover than pundits are. Nixon's problems were personal stuff, his paranoia. As president he did oversee the creation of the EPA, OSHA and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
2012-05-09 12:00:31 AM
2 votes:

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.


That's what "State's Rights" work out to in some people's minds.

Look at some of Ron Paul's fanbois.
2012-05-08 11:59:09 PM
2 votes:
Just to note, it's not ALL churches that support this. I drive by the Unitarian Universalist church on Wade Ave in Raleigh on my way to work every morning, and they were jam-packed with anti Amendment 1 signs.
2012-05-08 11:58:42 PM
2 votes:

TheShavingofOccam123: [farm2.static.flickr.com image 500x357]

Could someone point out the gay ones? Maybe we could dig them up and put them in their own separate little gay area at Arlington. So they don't sully the memories of the real men laying there.


This guy is in Section 60, over towards the Pentagon and near the Columbarium. Nice try on your part, lol

assets.nydailynews.com
2012-05-08 11:54:56 PM
2 votes:

crazytrain: The best part is when they had accused rapist and admitted adulterer Bill Clinton lecturing North Carolinians on marriage. LOL dumbass liberals.


As far as I know, Bill Cilinton's on his first marriage, while Rush and Newt are going on their 4th.
2012-05-08 11:54:21 PM
2 votes:

dosboot: bdub77: Thank God we protected the Caucasian race.

/asshats
//voted against it

Most blacks are against homosexual marriage. But continue to blame white people, libtard.


Oh good, I get to teach you a lesson, idiot. The wife of the guy who proposed the amendment had some very interesting comments on her reasoning for the amendment.

Link
2012-05-08 11:53:31 PM
2 votes:

dosboot: Most blacks are against homosexual marriage. But continue to blame white people, libtard.


There was a rather lovely statement by a black minister in NC against Amendment One, there's even youtube video of his statement if you care to see it.
2012-05-08 11:53:04 PM
2 votes:
They don't want us to unite:
All they want us to do is keep on fussing and fighting.
They don't want to see us live together;
All they want us to do is keep on killing one another

Gay rights, abortion, social services, drugs, taxes, corporate personage, and on and on and on and on.

We are all being pitted against each other to take our focus off the fact we are being played. Uprising in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Asia and America is a sign that people are seeing through this shiat. We need to stop fighting each other, and start working together to fight the powers that are keeping us down. It blows my mind to see election night dividing our country into red and blue. We will never make any progress in this system.

We've been trodding on the winepress, much too long. REBEL! We've been taken for granted, much too long. REBEL!
2012-05-08 11:52:55 PM
2 votes:

Robots are Strong: CognaciousThunk: Looks like the folks in NC prefer threesomes...

[wwwcache.wral.com image 512x339]

I just wanted to point out for those not from around these parts, this wasn't just some random church, this was an official polling place.



Sooooo...once again, why aren't we taxing these churches? If they want to play politics, then let them pay the price.
2012-05-08 11:52:05 PM
2 votes:
talkingpointsmemo.com

Well then, fark your God and fark you.
2012-05-08 11:52:02 PM
2 votes:

ur14me: "Banning equal rights for minorities!?!?"

This must mean I can expect "equal rights" for being a member of the Tiny-Peener People? Well, then I demand "equal rights", the same as Big-Peener People!

/since when are the gheys a "minority" (in the womanly, blackish, Mexican sense of the term)?
//can't choose your gender, skin color, country of origin, peener size, etc
///can choose to be gay
////bonus slashie: don't like it? Move somewhere that cares.


Go the FARK away, you ignorant fool.
2012-05-08 11:51:06 PM
2 votes:
As a straight man with a family in North Carolina, I would like to say that I and the majority of the people living in Wake county (which contains the capital city, Raleigh), did in fact vote against amendment one.

But as soon as you get outside of the island of education and money that surrounds the colleges, NC turns into backwoods bullshiat hickville. If you want to bring the armies south and raze the hillbillies, go for it. But leave Wake county alone.
2012-05-08 11:50:48 PM
2 votes:

ur14me: ///can choose to be gay


So, when did you choose to be straight?
2012-05-08 11:49:40 PM
2 votes:

ur14me: /since when are the gheys a "minority" (in the womanly, blackish, Mexican sense of the term)?


New most farking stupid comment of the thread.

/You win, dude.
2012-05-08 11:42:10 PM
2 votes:

gingerjet: ImpendingCynic: Do you have any idea how long it's going to take to tear down 32 states' anti-gay marriage laws, plus DOMA? Assuming more states don't do this in the process...

10 years - tops.

/no pun attended


America didn't strike down anti-sodomy laws until Canada was already legalizing gay marriage, so I figure America will legalize gay marriage around the time Canada legalizes marijuana.
2012-05-08 11:41:12 PM
2 votes:

Wayne 985: zarberg: Gay marriage was already not legal here, so I guess they spent millions and thousands of man hours to put it on double secret probation.

/after campaigning about creating jobs.

No joke: the wife of the bill's sponsor claimed the benefit to this law would be to encourage "Caucasians" to procreate and save their "race." In other words, if gays can't marry each other, they'll marry women, have kids, and keep jobs and authority for the white man.

/Not kidding.
//Fark had a couple threads on it.


I also heard a lot of stories (read: rumors/anecdotes, but believable ones) about many, many churches more or less ordering their congregation to vote for amendment one.

/I think there's many, many churches that need to have their tax exempt status looked into
2012-05-08 11:37:04 PM
2 votes:

ImpendingCynic: Biological Ali: ImpendingCynic: Do you have any idea how long it's going to take to tear down 32 states' anti-gay marriage laws, plus DOMA?

There are ways to get that done fairly quickly, should it come to that.

Yes, and for how many decades before were people trying to change the laws against interracial marriage?

I get the feeling I'm just a few steps away from getting thrown under the bus as a troll, but seriously, I'm not one. I completely support gay rights. I just think the movement might have moved a bit too fast for its own good. The only thing that's going to undo states and DOMA is a Supreme Court ruling, and I think the political climate right now is too hot for that, especially without a stronger hate-crime safety net.

How would things have turned out if Loving v. Virginia had come about in the 1950s?


Your whole theory is predicated on public support, except when Loving v. Virginia was passed public support for interracial marriage was significantly weaker than public support for gay marriage is now. It's not moving too fast. A better comparison would be if Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1976.
2012-05-08 11:36:13 PM
2 votes:

MagnesDrachen: Come on, secede already. We won't even fight to get you back this time. Just take your backward-ass selves, raise the confederate flag, chant "states rights", and get the fark away from those of us who live in the 21st century.


THIS
get the fark out of my union, you unamerican pricks.
2012-05-08 11:32:59 PM
2 votes:

Shaggy_C: WhyteRaven74: No state may subvert the rights recognized by the US Constitution.

Marriage isn't mentioned in the US Constitution as a power delegated to any of the federal branches of government. Ergo, states alone have the right to issue marriage licenses.


And the full faith and credit clause means that since some states have it as a legal institution, the remainder must recognize those marriages if people in the states that ban it go to a state where it's legal.

A legal argument to the prohibition against homosexual marriage is dubious at best and an outright denial of basic rights to citizens of the United States of America.
2012-05-08 11:30:44 PM
2 votes:
North Carolina is like Virginia, engaged in a perpetual tug of war between something resembling the modern world and a bunch of slack-jawed Confederate left-overs who have about five teeth between the lot of them. I lived in Winston for years and I'm glad to be shot of the whole state.
2012-05-08 11:24:49 PM
2 votes:

Paris1127: Sigh, I'll post it again:
[i180.photobucket.com image 400x486]
"Don't make me come down there again!"

/when Sherman reached the sea, his army turned north
//the second march ended at Durham, April 26, 1865
///I could've sworn I've seen an image macro with Sherman and that quotation (or a similar quotation)...


here ya go
suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com
2012-05-08 11:23:19 PM
2 votes:

stonent: It's called states rights... Look it up.


Rights are a property of individuals. The concept of rights being applied to a collective, such as a state, is nonsensical.
2012-05-08 11:22:23 PM
2 votes:

jizonny: Sometimes I think the Fark logo needs to be backed by a huge rainbow, because that's all who post here.

I guess tolerance only works when you want someone to accept your views? You shouldn't have to tolerate theirs? Is this not a majority rules country?

If I want someone to recognize the sweet love I make to the horse in the barn, should I be entitled to tax benefits and societal acceptance?


Wow, that was so bad and re-used, the horse you were farking got bored and left.

Don't worry, there's apparently a never-ending supply of chickens to fark.
2012-05-08 11:21:22 PM
2 votes:

xebeche_tzu: America to N.C.: you are all irrelevant inbred retards.


This North Carolinian to you: Read TFA.

North Carolina now becomes the 32nd state to have a same-sex marriage ban etched in their constitution.

And that includes...California, where you reside. Great example you're setting there, retard.
2012-05-08 11:21:09 PM
2 votes:

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 people thought in 2008 that he had a spine.
2012-05-08 11:18:36 PM
2 votes:

FormlessOne: I'd be more disappointed in North Carolina, if I wasn't reminded in the article that they're the 32nd state to codify such bigotry.

What we should really be ashamed of is that, in this country, the "land of the free and home of the brave," there are still people here that aren't free, and they're kept that way by cowards fearful of change.


I read an article today that national support for same-sex marriage is in the majority for the second year in a row. It'll take time, and there are fluctuations, but homophobic policies are on the way out. It's a downward trend on the whole, so take solace in that if nothing else.
2012-05-08 11:18:10 PM
2 votes:
Sometimes I think the Fark logo needs to be backed by a huge rainbow, because that's all who post here.

I guess tolerance only works when you want someone to accept your views? You shouldn't have to tolerate theirs? Is this not a majority rules country?

If I want someone to recognize the sweet love I make to the horse in the barn, should I be entitled to tax benefits and societal acceptance?
2012-05-08 11:17:58 PM
2 votes:
North Carolina has been saying the same thing to black people for years.
2012-05-08 11:16:43 PM
2 votes:
No one has ever given a flying fark what you retards think.

i242.photobucket.com

And no one ever will.
2012-05-08 11:16:13 PM
2 votes:

The_Great_Hambino: I wonder if people 30+ years from now will look at the gay marriage "debate" as we now look at the Civil Rights Movement.


Eh, I don't know if they're that similar. First, there was no equivalent to "if we allow gays to marry, we'll have polygamist marriages with men, children, and goats" in civil rights. And second, while gays do get harassed and abused, it hasn't had the same visual effect on TV as, say, freedom marchers being attacked with dogs and fire hoses.

Where I think the gay rights movement went wrong was pushing too hard for marriage. States offered civil unions instead, and that should have been accepted with a smile, so that a few years later they could say "hey, we already have everything but the "M" word, so just let us have that."

Don't get me wrong - I totally support gay rights - but I think they shot too high too fast and the resulting paranoia set the movement back by a generation.
2012-05-08 11:15:30 PM
2 votes:
www.wpclipart.com

Can we resurrect this guy to finish these assholes off?
2012-05-08 11:12:16 PM
2 votes:

Paris1127: "Don't make me come down there again!"


i151.photobucket.com

Dammit. I wasted time with the caption.
2012-05-08 11:11:58 PM
2 votes:
Listen gay folks. I have been married. Did it twice. These votes are kinda like helmet and seat-belt laws.

We really are doing this for your own good.

You'll thank us later.
2012-05-08 11:11:04 PM
2 votes:
This is a prime example of the ineffectiveness of democracy. Although I'm aware of the sticky issues revolving around deciding who can vote and who can't, shiat like this is exactly why the founding fathers were afraid of mob rule (even if, in there own historical context, might have taken issue with gay marriage as well)
2012-05-08 11:10:45 PM
2 votes:
So, are we allowed to start shooting the dominionists now?

Please?
2012-05-08 11:08:54 PM
2 votes:

WhyteRaven74: As it's worded I'm not sure the amendment would survive a review in the federal courts. And I wouldn't be surprised if one is forthcoming.


oh i'll bet the ACLU already has a challenge coming off the printer as we speak.
2012-05-08 11:06:41 PM
2 votes:
North Carolina was more progressive in 1875.
2012-05-08 11:06:35 PM
2 votes:
At least we can still marry our first cousin.
2012-05-08 11:05:08 PM
2 votes:
This is a damn shame. I'm off to marry my cousin.
2012-05-08 11:02:47 PM
2 votes:

CaptainCliche: Welcome to the club.

Sincerely,
California


Yup. :(

America...the land of the free...MY ASS.

/pissed
2012-05-11 11:37:18 PM
1 votes:

Surool: Keizer_Ghidorah: studebaker hoch: We need to bust out that Leviticus quote one more time.

Along with all the other ones that are happily ignored by "Christians"?

You mean the entire bible?


Pretty much. Funny how they ignore everything but one sentence that let's then justify being backwards hateful assholes.
2012-05-11 01:38:12 AM
1 votes:

studebaker hoch: We need to bust out that Leviticus quote one more time.


Along with all the other ones that are happily ignored by "Christians"?
2012-05-10 09:42:16 PM
1 votes:
Caught a minute of talk radio, think it was Lars Larson. He had a(n elderly, sounded that way anyways) female speaker on and they were talking about this. Lars started talking about how "society has the obligation to defend something we've held sacred for thousands of years" and then "if gays say they're doing this out of love, what about the fathers who want to marry their daughters out of love, to pass down property and goods without worrying about tax, and say a brother loves his sister so much he wants to give her his stuff without tax", and that's when I turned off the radio.

Seriously, is this the best the anti-side has got? You can't just accept the fact that two consenting adults who love each other want to have the same rights and freedoms as other consenting adults who love each other? You have to twist and distort your brains to the breaking point and beyond just to come up with reasons to be hateful, spiteful, evil sons of biatches? Is it that important to you to deny your fellow Americans and humans something you take for granted? If it is, fark you. Fark you and the horse you rode in on. If there is a God and a hell, I hope he has a special place in it for evil little toads like you.
2012-05-10 01:43:30 AM
1 votes:
There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?
2012-05-09 04:48:53 PM
1 votes:

The_Sponge: WTF?!

(in reference to my belief that North Carolina women who voted for this travesty of an amendment deserve marriages in which they're subjected to domestic violence)

Amendment One explicitly defines marriage as "between a man and a woman", thus preventing homosexuals from marrying, denying the recognition of out-of-state homosexual marriages, and potential impacting domestic partnerships and benefits down the road, among other issues.

If a straight woman voted for that, it couldn't have impacted her.
- she's not homosexual. At least, not since college.
- Homosexuals being able to marry wouldn't prevent her from being to marry.
- Homosexuals being able to marry wouldn't even reduce the odds for her; gay men probably weren't beating a path to her door in the first place.
- Her own marriage (current or future) wouldn't be cheapened, reduced, diluted, or weakened in the slightest; at least, no more so than it would be if any other two random people chose to marry.

Thus, a woman voting for this amendment was expressing her belief that other people shouldn't have the same privileges as she. She wishes others to be disenfranchised. Maybe it's a faith issue - perhaps this theoretical woman adheres to a religion that institutionally disenfranchises homosexuals. She has a belief, and she's representing that belief, even though that belief impacts others. Her belief is that others shouldn't be as happy as she is.

Accordingly, I have a belief, and my belief impacts others. I believe if a woman in North Carolina went out and intentionally cast a vote to disenfranchise another group of people, to no greater gain beyond having kept them from doing something she could already do, then she has earned a future in which she is forever tied to a devoted man who beats her within an inch of her life every night. Preferably with a belt, similar to a notable scene from The Godfather.

Her belief takes a chance at happiness away from a group of people. My belief sees her chance at happiness likewise taken away, though through more violent means. In both cases we're expressing beliefs that strictly affect other people and do not apply to ourselves - in that, we're the same.

Her belief is now enshrined in law. Mine's just a happy fantasy that appeals to my notion of fairness. fark that pro-Amendment One biatch and all the biatches like her. I hope they die childless.

/Clarification offered from a long-time Farker who has one account, a strong opinion, and a lot of anger.
2012-05-09 01:38:34 PM
1 votes:
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
2012-05-09 01:37:50 PM
1 votes:

doubled99: I don't know how she would. Nor do I have to provide a solution for her. I'm single, and no one cares if I don't have insurance. All people are created equal, right? If you get benefits from some bs pact to stay with another person forever and I don't, then I am being discriminated against.


So your opinion is that stay at home moms shouldn't have health insurance?
2012-05-09 12:56:34 PM
1 votes:

Publikwerks: Theaetetus: Well, not really, under DoMA's clause 2, which prescribes the effect of the full faith & credit clause regarding same-sex marriage, which arguably is constitutional.

So, nothing has changed. If DOMA is ruled constitutional, then you can ignore marriages form other states. If it is not, then you can't.
The NC amendment does nothing to change either.


Nope, stuff has changed. Here's the amendment:
Sec. 6. Marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.


Note that bit about "only domestic legal union that shall be... recognized"? That means that domestic violence statutes may not apply to unmarried cohabitants in North Carolina anymore.

Interestingly, it just occurred to me that this could actually end up costing North Carolina federal money under the VAWA, but I haven't looked too deeply into that yet.
2012-05-09 12:37:28 PM
1 votes:

Publikwerks: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this law changed anything?


That's not a question, therefore the question mark is inappropriate.

It would be great if there was some way to find the information you seek. Maybe someone will create such a service, someday.
2012-05-09 11:40:34 AM
1 votes:

praymantis: Theaetetus: praymantis: Could not agree more.

Welcome back. Ever going to respond to my answer to your question?

Oh respond to your answer: In my job I have enough condescending D Bag lawyers from New England to deal with so probably not.


Oh, then if you're going to ask questions and not respond when answered, you're a waste of time. I'll just ignore you, then.
2012-05-09 11:24:58 AM
1 votes:

Spaz-master: Well, this makes a Constitutional majority of states... guess what is coming next?


Last I checked, 30 wasn't 2/3rds of 50.
2012-05-09 11:15:25 AM
1 votes:

NotSubby: Theaetetus: If someone is single, then who exactly are they inheriting spousal property from? Who are they visiting in the ICU? Who are they getting buried with? Who would they file taxes with? The privileges single people miss out on are privileges they could not avail themselves of while being single.

Funny you mention taxes as that's an area that's patently unfair to single people because of marriage by government.

The rest of it can be settled with legal documents allowing each of those to happen.


As pointed out above, if you and I sign a contract that says I can visit you in the ICU, wtf does a hospital, not party to the contract, have to honor it? And how exactly do you and I sign a legal document that makes a military cemetery allow us to be buried together? What does this mythical document look like, other than a marriage certificate? No partnership agreement would do, nor a power of attorney, will, contract, or any other such document.

I understand you're raging about taxes. However, you're missing the rest of the forest while looking at a pine needle.
2012-05-09 11:09:42 AM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: If someone is single, then who exactly are they inheriting spousal property from? Who are they visiting in the ICU? Who are they getting buried with? Who would they file taxes with? The privileges single people miss out on are privileges they could not avail themselves of while being single.


Funny you mention taxes as that's an area that's patently unfair to single people because of marriage by government.

The rest of it can be settled with legal documents allowing each of those to happen. The main problem with the assets and inheritance is that the government gives married couples who do this a tax break, rather than having to pay at the same rate as a single person assigning an unrelated beneficiary would. I'm not ignorant of this issue. I'm saying it *is* the problem.
2012-05-09 11:02:27 AM
1 votes:
They manage to ban an illegal act. Well done NC. In the process they removed all the protections of abused women who will have to stay married if they want things like health insurance for their children and state protection.
2012-05-09 10:56:27 AM
1 votes:
Wrong much, NC?

p.twimg.com
2012-05-09 10:37:34 AM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: praymantis: Is getting married a civil right?

One of the most fundamental rights, according to the Supreme Court.

As a libertarian I would say the government should NOT be in the civil union/marriage business that is what churches do

With all due respect, I think instead of "libertarian" you meant "someone who is grossly misinformed."

Churches do not issue marriage certificates. They perform weddings, and in many states, they sign marriage certificates as witnesses, but they cannot and do not issue the certificate.

In fact, there is a legal doctrine called "de facto marriage" which specifically covers instances where a couple goes to a church, has a wedding and believes they are married, but never goes to the town clerk to get a marriage certificate. The doctrine allows for some small measure of protection, but acknowledges that such couples are not married.


How do you come to the conclusion that because he said "government should NOT be in the civil union/marriage business" he's uninformed? Perhaps his opinion isn't the same as yours (regarding gov't involvement in interpersonal relationships) but that doesn't necessarily make him ignorant of the details.

I agree the government should get out of this business. I'm not a libertarian but it's ridiculous how so many people can complain about how bad it was the government involved itself in who one has sex with yet demand the right to let the government mandate... who they can have sex with while collecting marriage payola. Marriage (as designed by the state apparatus) is inherently unfair to someone and the demand for redress of this "civil right" will never end so long as the government doesn't treat us as individual right holders.
2012-05-09 10:24:26 AM
1 votes:

praymantis: Is getting married a civil right?


One of the most fundamental rights, according to the Supreme Court.

As a libertarian I would say the government should NOT be in the civil union/marriage business that is what churches do

With all due respect, I think instead of "libertarian" you meant "someone who is grossly misinformed."

Churches do not issue marriage certificates. They perform weddings, and in many states, they sign marriage certificates as witnesses, but they cannot and do not issue the certificate.

In fact, there is a legal doctrine called "de facto marriage" which specifically covers instances where a couple goes to a church, has a wedding and believes they are married, but never goes to the town clerk to get a marriage certificate. The doctrine allows for some small measure of protection, but acknowledges that such couples are not married.
2012-05-09 10:13:05 AM
1 votes:

bdub77: Now this isn't a methodical analysis and the counties have varying population sizes, but the places with the highest unemployment had by far the worst outcome for the gay rights amendment.


Nice work. I'm no sociologist but it is almost as if employment is correlated with ignorance and ignorance is correlated with bigotry.

The link between employment and education is indisputable.

The link between education and ignorance is indisputable.

Is ignorance linked to fear and bigotry? Seeing as most bigots are as dumb as dirt. I think so and Master Yoda says fear leads to hate and hate leads to the to dark side.
2012-05-09 10:11:34 AM
1 votes:
I wasn't for or against it, doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But it's hilarious to see the gay's and gay supporters throwing out insults when they don't get their way. You hate bible thumpers (I'm an Atheist, but I don't care what others want to believe in), you hate "rednecks" (hell, I'll admit, I do to, but I call them rednecks all the time, not just when I don't get my way).

To be honest, since moving here 2 years ago, there are more interracial couples than in NY. Every kid is a half and half. So really, they aren't as racist as you're calling them.

And the population of many parts of NC has doubled since 2000, mostly filling with you libs from NY/NJ/PA. 700,000 new residents just in the Charlotte area. Blame your lazy asses for not getting out to vote.
2012-05-09 09:35:34 AM
1 votes:

Proteios1: F-ing democratic process. Can't we just do away with it once and for all?


Yet another person who doesn't understand how our government works.

I'm so glad we left civil rights issues involving womens rights and African American rights up to a popular referendum vote. Oh wait, we didn't.. I wonder why.. duhhh....
2012-05-09 09:26:33 AM
1 votes:

NotSubby: wedding vegetables:

It's not discrimination. It's a contract designed to work for two people. For example, it's the difference between "your wife gets to make your medical decisions" and "your medical decisions will be made by popular vote, or you can delegate a primary and backup decision maker, and this contract will need to be amended if someone else joins the union."

Yes it is. Your argument about medical decisions is also weak. I already have the power to set up guidelines that cover my medical decisions. You apparently don't want more than two people to have the same benefits you want for yourself and another... which is discriminatory no matter how you try to couch your reasoning.


Actually, I give zero farks about polygamous marriage, assuming it's all consensual (no child brides). And medical decision-making isn't a weak example at all (and it's an example, not an argument). I work in healthcare, and see this on a daily basis.

I'm not saying polyamorous couples shouldn't have that right, just that it couldn't be shoehorned into a one-size-fits-all two-person contract, which is what a marriage is, as far as the government is concerned. For a poly union to enjoy the same rights as a two-person marriage, they'd have to have a special contract, reflecting their own unique circumstances, drawn up for *each* benefit that marriage confers, and would have to carry that contract around at all times as proof. I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't, but the fact is that you can't just add another name in there and call it good.

I'm also looking at it from the optimistic (or naïve, if you wish) point of view, that it would never be sought out by those who wish to abuse the system and claim multiple tax credits, or avoid having to testify against one another in court if they were all under indictment for fraud.
2012-05-09 09:20:20 AM
1 votes:
I voted to allow them to wed in Maine but it didn't pass. I actually just am tired of hearing them whine. However, that said, this is pretty funny.

I support civil unions for all without regard to their gender. Marriage has a definition, let the fundies have it and make civil unions the only type of legally recognized bond - retroactively even. People can still have their ceremony if they want it, the gays can wed, freaks can have a union with turtles, and I can have some peace and quiet.
2012-05-09 09:00:43 AM
1 votes:

ph0rk: wedding vegetables: Because then I'm gonna have to get married to my cousin and a horse. I don't want to have waterhead horse babies. Who's looking out for MY rights??

Why is letting you marry a horse and/or your cousin a problem?


I think the correct response was 'what is this I don't even'.

I actually got into an argument with some moron earlier who said that legalizing same-sex marriage would set the precedent for humans to marry animals and their relatives. Apparently this dude was so dumb he didn't realize that you can already marry your relatives in some states.

I was trying to be funny and failed. My apologies. :)

NotSubby: How is it a great idea? Only two adults? Why should multiple partners be discriminated against?


It's not discrimination. It's a contract designed to work for two people. For example, it's the difference between "your wife gets to make your medical decisions" and "your medical decisions will be made by popular vote, or you can delegate a primary and backup decision maker, and this contract will need to be amended if someone else joins the union."
2012-05-09 08:54:03 AM
1 votes:

ph0rk: NotSubby: How is it a great idea? Only two adults? Why should multiple partners be discriminated against? 18 isn't the age of consent in most states already, so this would restrict marriages that are currently legal.

I'd modify it in parts, I don't care how many want in, and whatever the legal age of majority is.

Those points are irrelevant - civil unions are off the table entirely in NC at the moment.


I have an even better idea. Why don't we get our government to stop caring what relationships people are in period? We should a married couple get a tax break over an unmarried one? Marriage shouldn't be a tax issue.
2012-05-09 08:53:43 AM
1 votes:
abcnews.go.com

Marriage is a hermaphroditic deity?

Sounds kinky.
2012-05-09 08:49:28 AM
1 votes:
Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way. I think that should be left to churches to do whatever they want--whether hetero or homo. Marriage is, and can still be, a religious institution. Marriage is not something to be recognized by any law.

Government should manage civil unions and should apply equally to any consenting adults. The social contract between two consenting adults supports our society and, generally, should be considered a good thing.

If we allow laws that give any rights to one couple or reduce tax burdens, ease transition of property upon death, allow adoptions or whatever, then those rights and privileges should apply equally to all civil partnerships. If not, then those rules should be revoked equally, e.g. no federal tax status allowed for "married, filing jointly" or federal protections for "innocent spouse" or rights of inheritance.
2012-05-09 08:46:28 AM
1 votes:

Soup4Bonnie: Backwards ass hicks.


Didn't the backwards ass hicks of California do the same thing a couple of years ago?
2012-05-09 08:45:27 AM
1 votes:

Loaded Six String: I know I'm a bit late in this thread to really get my point across, but it took me a while to remember my password (longtime lurker: enjoy reading the debates, never really felt like joining in until recently).
At any rate, since the opposition to gay marriage keeps saying they only want to protect the sanctity of marriage rather than confirm other equally stupid but more vile motivations, why not just take the marriage out of the equation? My proposal is this, the government substitutes the word "marriage" with the term "civil union" or "recognized union" or whatever else they could come up with. Any ceremonial marriage then means nothing to the government without having a justice of the peace or what have you officialize it. Any previous marriages would be grandfathered in of course. To top it off, "civil unions" can be between any two legal adults as defined by being 18 years of age or older. If a church doesn't want to wed two men or two women, fine. It wouldn't be an official union without the justice of the peace anyways. By taking it out of the church's hands and no longer recognizing marriages as valid legal bindings, the sanctity of their ceremony is intact.
It seems like such an easy fix to such a stupid issue.
/Hi by the way


Great idea. Exactly what the people that came up with Amendment one want to prevent, though.
2012-05-09 08:45:03 AM
1 votes:
Allowing the government to dictate the validity of a personal relationship is stupid. Gays are stupid for wanting to give themselves up to more government intrusion and straights are dumbasses for going along with it.

Ban civil marriage.


/Happily divorced? Why yes, yes I am :)
2012-05-09 08:44:23 AM
1 votes:
Hey, cool, a thread where all the retards decided to concentrate themselves.

We've got the "it is tradition, and shouldn't be changed" nonsense that completely misses the idea of a legal definition of marriage as compared to the religious idea of marriage. We've got the "oh no, the voting public is deciding" nonsense that completely misses the idea that a majority should not be able to vote on the rights of a minority. We've got people that bring up tradition and public sentiment while missing the idea that slavery used to be tradition and publicly accepted since that doesn't make it right. We've got "gay" doesn't count since it is a choice or not as important as race (this one is impressive since the Constitution gives us the power to determine rights). We've got Obama bashing. We've got nitwits explaining away equal protection since, as a straight male, they can't marry a guy either (this one is especially idiotic and takes point missing to a whole new level).

And, we even have the old stand-by "you are intolerant for not accepting my intolerance". Outstanding.

Good show by all the retards.
2012-05-09 08:44:01 AM
1 votes:

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?


Or maybe he just thinks that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, that maybe marriage should be a religious ceremony and that the government should only regulate civil unions.
2012-05-09 08:43:56 AM
1 votes:
I know I'm a bit late in this thread to really get my point across, but it took me a while to remember my password (longtime lurker: enjoy reading the debates, never really felt like joining in until recently).
At any rate, since the opposition to gay marriage keeps saying they only want to protect the sanctity of marriage rather than confirm other equally stupid but more vile motivations, why not just take the marriage out of the equation? My proposal is this, the government substitutes the word "marriage" with the term "civil union" or "recognized union" or whatever else they could come up with. Any ceremonial marriage then means nothing to the government without having a justice of the peace or what have you officialize it. Any previous marriages would be grandfathered in of course. To top it off, "civil unions" can be between any two legal adults as defined by being 18 years of age or older. If a church doesn't want to wed two men or two women, fine. It wouldn't be an official union without the justice of the peace anyways. By taking it out of the church's hands and no longer recognizing marriages as valid legal bindings, the sanctity of their ceremony is intact.
It seems like such an easy fix to such a stupid issue.
/Hi by the way
2012-05-09 08:40:19 AM
1 votes:

al's hat: Happy Hours: al's hat: WaffleStomper: Cousin marriages are against the law in Texas and married cousins in Texas can get a felony conviction for having sex. Should we allow marriage between brother and sisters if they are consenting adults? Do we just do away with all laws on incest as long as they are consenting adults? To say that states can't regulate marriage is bullshiat.

One more thing, if it made it to the supreme court, do you think it will actually be upheld or struck down? Our supreme court is very conservative right now and will probably get moreso as time goes on if the past is any indication.

While I've never actually had any sexual feelings towards any of my relatives (well, other than that one cousin) I'm not sure that the incest laws (assuming consensual adults) have any constitutional validity. There are of course genetic reproductive issues but other than that what's the problem?

and if genetic/reproductive issues are a constitutionally valid reason for outlawing marriage where do you draw the line? Forced sterilization for anyone with a genetic condition they're at risk of handing down to their children anyone?

I was actually siding more towards fewer government involvement. If there were genetic issues it would of course be up to the potential parents to take responsibility for preventing pregnancy. See my comment prior to this one.


So was I. I'm in favor of all forms of marriage providing all parties involved are consenting adults. Either that or just leave marriage to churches and allow civil contracts regarding community property and all the other aspects that marriage entails for consenting adults. I could go either way.

Seems somewhat wrong to me that someone who wants to be single can't enter into a non-sexual non-romantic partnership and share in whatever tax benefits or other niceties that married couples can.
2012-05-09 08:39:43 AM
1 votes:

Egoy3k: jcooli09: I don't think you can take someone seriously if they don't think this is a civil rights issue. It's as basic as it gets, and if they don't see that they don't want to.

I keep coming back to this: There is absolutely no good reason to deny gays the right to marry. I have yet to hear one from anyone. This is bigotry, pure and simple.


Honestly I don't think it's a civil rights issue either. It's a basic human dignity issue and one that should have been put to rest a long ago with universal acceptance of homosexual marriage. I won't get into why I don't see it as a civil rights issue I've been flamed too many times over it y people who don't realize that I'm on the same side of the issue as they just for different reasons.


It's bigotry and it is a polarizing issue that keeps the pubic distracted from the real problems. It the exact same thing that happens in corrupt and tyrannical regimes in the Middle East establishing theocratic rule and blaming the west for all their problems. It's keeps the populace distracted and their rage focused away from their leaders.

If the gay couple next door are "roommates" or married, it does not make one lick of difference in my life or anyone else's life, but the people in power, the corporations, the wealthy, have a vested interest in keeping the populace from uniting against their influence. Recently the populace in the U.S. woke up to how much power they lost over the last 20 years, almost all of it, and now the puppet masters have to keep us divided along social lines in order to keep us from focusing on ousting them.
2012-05-09 08:31:18 AM
1 votes:

Utter Genius: "Gay" is still not a race, sorry.


"Race" is a social construct, not a biological one. Ergo, "gay" is as valid a social grouping as "race"/ethnicity.

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"
2012-05-09 08:27:08 AM
1 votes:

Utter Genius: "Gay" is still not a race, sorry.

But please do keep up with the civil rights comparisons. it doesn't make your movement look histrionic and hyperbolic at all.


Neither is "woman" or "disabled" but it doesn't disqualify them from civil rights.
2012-05-09 08:18:55 AM
1 votes:

Ball Sack Obama: PunGent: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

So, you're lying in your profile when you pretend to be libertarian.

Where did I lie? I took a quiz. I don't remember any questions at all about gay marriage. I AM for legalizing pot though, if that makes you feel any better.


If you are not outraged by the government trying to legislate what happens in people's bedrooms, what they do with their private property, how their households are arranged, who they can share insurance with, you are a shiatty libertarian.
2012-05-09 07:31:28 AM
1 votes:
This thread is exhausted, but shiat lIke this is why my wedding dollars will be spent in Iowa.
2012-05-09 05:30:43 AM
1 votes:

FishStampede: Lot of people hating on southerners, hillbillies, and the state I love here. I just want to say, this state is not irredeemable. My home county voted overwhelmingly against Amendment One and we're situated right in the middle of the mountains.

Your stereotypes are bad and you should feel bad.


60-40 says you should be embarrassed for the entire state. I know I am, and I'm in Buncombe County.
2012-05-09 05:21:14 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: quatchi: Turns out, after a little more conversation that these people actually thought that "good" gay people should all marry people of the opposite sex and totally fake their entire lives because that's what God really wants. It's all a test you see and openly gay people fail God's test according to these very old and dim individuals.

That logic never quite made sense to me. I mean, what parent dreams that one day their darling daughter grows up to marry the flaming gay guy who is never going to be attracted to her like she deserves? Or what parent sits down and hopes that their son marry a woman who is physically repulsed by him? Everybody always says that oh, the gays should just go and get straight married and live the good little hetero life, but really, is that remotely fair to their spouses?


Not fair to anyone, really.

I would feel like a complete and total jerk to go find a guy and convince him to fall in love with me and marry me. What kind of heartless bastard gets somebody to fall for them knowing full well that they'll never be able to love that person back with the same kind of romantic love?

Marcus Bachmann comes readily to mind.
2012-05-09 05:20:08 AM
1 votes:

FishStampede: Lot of people hating on southerners, hillbillies, and the state I love here. I just want to say, this state is not irredeemable. My home county voted overwhelmingly against Amendment One and we're situated right in the middle of the mountains.

Your stereotypes are bad and you should feel bad.


I live in Pitt Co. which is mostly ECU/Brody School of Medicine. I voted against it, but it passed here.

Sometimes stereotypes exist because there are elements of truth to them. There is more racism here than the North East and West. There are more people here who refuse to accept evolution in the South. This vote proves this is a redneck state.

After all, NC did not repeal its Eugenics Laws until the 1980's, and guess which minority grpup got hit hardest by those? I mean seriously. Fark. NC deserves to be shamed for their backward majority.
2012-05-09 05:12:51 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: erveek: By the Roberts Supreme Court?

Given that it affects straight people as well as gay people? Yeah.


And given that in Supreme Court math, all you need to do is figure out how to count to five? Totally.

Breyer + Ginsburg + Sotomayor + Kagan + Kennedy as the swing vote = 5.
2012-05-09 05:10:00 AM
1 votes:

DssDevl: You know, being from NC, the only reason I went to vote in the primary was to vote against this stupid ass amendment. Afterward I read here that I am a backwards hillbilly, inbred dumbass, and a racist KKK member, All because I was born and raised in this great state.

Everyone whose reaction were to post crap like that about our state can pretty much suck a XXXL cock.


Dude, I'm from Florida, I hear day in and day out on Fark about how much my state sucks and don't go whining about people saying mean things because I know that it's true. Admit it, as much as it sucks, there are an awful lot of bigoted hicks in your state, the election results show that.
2012-05-09 05:06:51 AM
1 votes:

quatchi: Turns out, after a little more conversation that these people actually thought that "good" gay people should all marry people of the opposite sex and totally fake their entire lives because that's what God really wants. It's all a test you see and openly gay people fail God's test according to these very old and dim individuals.


That logic never quite made sense to me. I mean, what parent dreams that one day their darling daughter grows up to marry the flaming gay guy who is never going to be attracted to her like she deserves? Or what parent sits down and hopes that their son marry a woman who is physically repulsed by him? Everybody always says that oh, the gays should just go and get straight married and live the good little hetero life, but really, is that remotely fair to their spouses?

I would feel like a complete and total jerk to go find a guy and convince him to fall in love with me and marry me. What kind of heartless bastard gets somebody to fall for them knowing full well that they'll never be able to love that person back with the same kind of romantic love?
2012-05-09 05:03:28 AM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: All male humans in the USA have the right to marry any female human if they are of legal age. Since all of the people have the same right this is not discrimination.


Unless a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman, then yes there's discrimination.
2012-05-09 04:58:52 AM
1 votes:

ur14me: can't choose your gender, skin color, country of origin, peener size, etc.

can choose to be gay a Republican Evangelical bigot


Who you worship and who you vote for are choices , not inborn traits, yet those are rights protected by law, correct?
2012-05-09 04:50:40 AM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: Slam1263: BroVinny: Slam1263: Oh noes, dey be voting again.

I actuall ysupport the right of all Americans to be equally miserable.

Maybe if the people who were asking for special rights weren't so whiny, others would listen.

Let me know if you get any bites. It was a bit obvious, from here.

Nope, just you.

But, I honestly don't care. Let people marry children, or pets, or toasters. As long as they don't start beating their chests and shouting;"Look at me!!".

I think that is they argued from the stand point that our Constitution guarantees equal taxation, married folk get special tax incentives non-married folk don't get, they might win. Just stop with the whining about human rights. You don't have the right to be happy, just to pursue it.

Don't think that will work. Because if you are gay you can still marry someone of the opposite gender. So there is no discrimination.


Right. Just like in the 1950's a woman could have married a white guy rather than the man she loved who happened to be black. That totally means there was no discrimination back then.
2012-05-09 04:42:44 AM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: Don't think that will work. Because if you are gay you can still marry someone of the opposite gender. So there is no discrimination.


So you'd be cool if they made straight marriage illegal and gay marriage mandatory because there would be no discrimination?

Wow, you're weird.

First time I heard that argument I thought it was just trolling until I later encountered people IRL who actually held that belief.

Turns out, after a little more conversation that these people actually thought that "good" gay people should all marry people of the opposite sex and totally fake their entire lives because that's what God really wants. It's all a test you see and openly gay people fail God's test according to these very old and dim individuals.

Still doesn't make any sense to me but it certainly explains why you have marriages like Marcus and Michele Bachmann out there.

If religion wants to survive another 1,000 years it has to learn to stop hating gays.
2012-05-09 04:34:15 AM
1 votes:

ur14me: "Banning equal rights for minorities!?!?"

This must mean I can expect "equal rights" for being a member of the Tiny-Peener People? Well, then I demand "equal rights", the same as Big-Peener People!

/since when are the gheys a "minority" (in the womanly, blackish, Mexican sense of the term)?
//can't choose your gender, skin color, country of origin, peener size, etc
///can choose to be gay
////bonus slashie: don't like it? Move somewhere that cares.


Normally I would thank you for the entertainment you bring as an ignorant farkwit, but it's just not funny right now.
2012-05-09 04:30:44 AM
1 votes:

schubie: 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.

The most annoying thing about living in the south is how people in other parts of America use it to pat themselves on the back for not being racist (while slurring the people of an entire geographical area). In the south, we've lived, worked and farked all together for hundreds of years. Per capita, chances are good that we're actually a lot less racist than you. We are farked when it comes to bible-bangers though. These assholes will just not die out.


No, having lived in Maine, California, and NC I can say that racism and social segregation is FAR more prevelant in the South.

So yes, the rest of the country is better than you.
2012-05-09 04:24:31 AM
1 votes:

Little.Alex: you want to force your beliefs on everyone, specifically to insult them, and they resist. What a surprise.


Wanting to be treated just like everyone else doesn't insult anyone.

Look, I get that you guys are into the whole burning martyr bit and like to claim religious oppression whenever anyone points out what loathsome, immoral scum you are but really claiming persecution just because people won't let you persecute gays anymore is farking ridiculous and just makes you look like an even bigger moron.

I have to go, got stuff to do.

Stuff like reconsider exactly how wrong you've been tonight?

Good luck with that.
2012-05-09 04:18:11 AM
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: As someone who supports gay marriage, here is my advice to the gay community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades. Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks. And that over the top feminine shiat is just annoying.

And yes, I do realize that not every gay person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay folks out there.


As someone who supports Christian rights, here is my advice to the Christian community: If you want equal right, ditch the child rape. Taking tender, young altar boys into the annex before mass and violently raping them isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks. And that over the top self-righteous shiat is just annoying.

And yes, I do realize that not every Christian person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the Christian folks out there.
2012-05-09 04:17:51 AM
1 votes:
Has anyone pointed out the bible was also cool with slavery and that that is one of the reasons it remained an institution for so long?

Face it some religious traditions are just stupid.

Thinking gay people are inherently immoral or not beloved by God is pants-on-head retarded and is a belief worthy of as much scorn and ridicule one can place on the notion.
2012-05-09 04:15:08 AM
1 votes:
Seriously, the GLBT community should just start its own religion.
Might as well tackle so-called 'religious freedom' head on.
2012-05-09 04:06:47 AM
1 votes:
Funny how a large portion of people against gay marriage (and other minorities) look like scared, white, old, inbred, underdeveloped, fundamentalist hicks from a bygone era. Just an observation.
2012-05-09 04:06:00 AM
1 votes:

Little.Alex: Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


That's not a rational basis for the amendment. Also if that's offered up in court it'll get tossed. It's that whole first amendment thing. Also since when is bigotry a justifiable part of culture?
2012-05-09 03:59:40 AM
1 votes:

Little.Alex: Apparently not. There was this vote...


If the amendment gets challenged in court and the defense brings up religion? The case will be over in a hurry.

We call those "Happy Christians."

Yes because to you no Christian can support gay marriage, let alone an entire denomination.
2012-05-09 03:54:36 AM
1 votes:

crazytrain: Pushed it too far - GLBT will never understand that - pushed it beyond civil unions - deep into religious beliefs - and they did for it spite - to be assholes - to make a point - and here is the result - total failure for 100s of years.



Yep. It's like David Duke being surprised that he didn't get the Black Vote.

"we insulted them, their families, their traditions and religion - and they still didn't vote for us. Can't figure it out..."
2012-05-09 03:49:15 AM
1 votes:

crazytrain: Pushed it too far - GLBT will never understand that - pushed it beyond civil unions - deep into religious beliefs - and they did for it spite - to be assholes - to make a point - and here is the result - total failure for 100s of years.


And with little state issues like this popping up all over the place, you're riling up the otherwise complacent national Democratic base in an election year.

Continue.
2012-05-09 03:45:04 AM
1 votes:
Pushed it too far - GLBT will never understand that - pushed it beyond civil unions - deep into religious beliefs - and they did for it spite - to be assholes - to make a point - and here is the result - total failure for 100s of years.
2012-05-09 03:25:47 AM
1 votes:

Little.Alex: stupidity, nonsense, indifference and bullshiat


Wouldn't expect anything more from a racist trolling little shiat. Good day.
2012-05-09 03:22:03 AM
1 votes:

sendtodave: "North Carolina now becomes the 30th state to adopt a same-sex marriage ban."

3/5? That's a majority.* The will of the people.

Why do so many here hate democracy? You'd rather they didn't vote and make their voices heard when they feel strongly about something they see as immoral?

* also, it's a decent compromise.


I'm hoping this is a troll. Do you also think that if a 3/5 majority of people voted that blacks should be slaves, that it should be allowed? We have a constitution that protects people from the tyranny of the majority, as it were. Just because the majority of people want to impose their will on others does NOT mean that it should be validated.
2012-05-09 03:21:59 AM
1 votes:
Oh yeah...don't forget most of your furniture (wherever you buy it) comes from the big factories in High Point, NC.

I've just written to the Chamber of Commerce there, saying they'll never see another dime from THIS family or friends if we're looking for furniture.

A lot of the extended fam on the East Coast likes to go to the annual furniture shows down there to get great bargains. Not this year. Maybe never.

Hit 'em where it hurts...their pocketbooks.

Morons.
2012-05-09 03:18:50 AM
1 votes:

Little.Alex: "Well, what I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

what I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting" -Barrack Obama.



Care to point out where he's tried to put that into law?
2012-05-09 03:18:46 AM
1 votes:

Happy Hours: al's hat: WaffleStomper: Cousin marriages are against the law in Texas and married cousins in Texas can get a felony conviction for having sex. Should we allow marriage between brother and sisters if they are consenting adults? Do we just do away with all laws on incest as long as they are consenting adults? To say that states can't regulate marriage is bullshiat.

One more thing, if it made it to the supreme court, do you think it will actually be upheld or struck down? Our supreme court is very conservative right now and will probably get moreso as time goes on if the past is any indication.

While I've never actually had any sexual feelings towards any of my relatives (well, other than that one cousin) I'm not sure that the incest laws (assuming consensual adults) have any constitutional validity. There are of course genetic reproductive issues but other than that what's the problem?

and if genetic/reproductive issues are a constitutionally valid reason for outlawing marriage where do you draw the line? Forced sterilization for anyone with a genetic condition they're at risk of handing down to their children anyone?


I was actually siding more towards fewer government involvement. If there were genetic issues it would of course be up to the potential parents to take responsibility for preventing pregnancy. See my comment prior to this one.
2012-05-09 03:12:38 AM
1 votes:
i293.photobucket.com
2012-05-09 03:10:12 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: al's hat: WaffleStomper: Cousin marriages are against the law in Texas and married cousins in Texas can get a felony conviction for having sex. Should we allow marriage between brother and sisters if they are consenting adults? Do we just do away with all laws on incest as long as they are consenting adults? To say that states can't regulate marriage is bullshiat.

One more thing, if it made it to the supreme court, do you think it will actually be upheld or struck down? Our supreme court is very conservative right now and will probably get moreso as time goes on if the past is any indication.

While I've never actually had any sexual feelings towards any of my relatives (well, other than that one cousin) I'm not sure that the incest laws (assuming consensual adults) have any constitutional validity. There are of course genetic reproductive issues but other than that what's the problem?

Bans on marriage between close relatives would be subject to rational basis scrutiny because we aren't dealing with a protected class. All the state has to do is show that there's some sort of rational explanation for why there's a government interest and it will stand up under rational basis, and well, it's not hard to show that there's a government interest in discouraging cousin marriage because it's in the state's interest to try to discourage people from inbreeding.


I'd say you've made a pretty good argument for the government to require approval for all marriages on a case by case basis. There are a lot of folks who should be discouraged from breeding regardless of who they are breeding with. Genetic screening has progressed to the point that close relatives could be prohibited from breeding but still allowed to marry if there were serious concerns about birth defects. I'm not really serious about the issue. Just throwing it out there to kind of make a point about cultural biases vs. constitutional freedoms.
2012-05-09 03:02:27 AM
1 votes:

al's hat: WaffleStomper: Cousin marriages are against the law in Texas and married cousins in Texas can get a felony conviction for having sex. Should we allow marriage between brother and sisters if they are consenting adults? Do we just do away with all laws on incest as long as they are consenting adults? To say that states can't regulate marriage is bullshiat.

One more thing, if it made it to the supreme court, do you think it will actually be upheld or struck down? Our supreme court is very conservative right now and will probably get moreso as time goes on if the past is any indication.

While I've never actually had any sexual feelings towards any of my relatives (well, other than that one cousin) I'm not sure that the incest laws (assuming consensual adults) have any constitutional validity. There are of course genetic reproductive issues but other than that what's the problem?


and if genetic/reproductive issues are a constitutionally valid reason for outlawing marriage where do you draw the line? Forced sterilization for anyone with a genetic condition they're at risk of handing down to their children anyone?
2012-05-09 02:59:48 AM
1 votes:

Little.Alex: 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.


Way to go. It always has to go to that level with conservatives doesn't it. I haven't said one bad thing to you and you call me gay. Without even knowing me. You also say it like it's supposed to be bad, go fark yourself you little twat. I've pissed on better people than you just for fun. And I was a conservative before the best part of you ran down your mamas's ass crack. Back when they had enough sense to give assholes like you a blanket party for being so damn stupid. And who gives a fark about Obama? He isn't the one that made Republicans so goddamn ignorant, they did that all by themselves,
2012-05-09 02:55:17 AM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: 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?

You know who else wanted to protect a fundamental part of their culture?


That what Litte.Minded.Alex doesn't get: slavery and segregation and anti-miscegenation were "part of their culture" too. But they were wrong and violated basic rights.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are only for some people apparently.
2012-05-09 02:54:11 AM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: 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?

You know who else wanted to protect a fundamental part of their culture?


redroom.com

mattlitton.com

A democrat FTW!
2012-05-09 02:53:02 AM
1 votes:

WaffleStomper: Cousin marriages are against the law in Texas and married cousins in Texas can get a felony conviction for having sex. Should we allow marriage between brother and sisters if they are consenting adults? Do we just do away with all laws on incest as long as they are consenting adults? To say that states can't regulate marriage is bullshiat.

One more thing, if it made it to the supreme court, do you think it will actually be upheld or struck down? Our supreme court is very conservative right now and will probably get moreso as time goes on if the past is any indication.


While I've never actually had any sexual feelings towards any of my relatives (well, other than that one cousin) I'm not sure that the incest laws (assuming consensual adults) have any constitutional validity. There are of course genetic reproductive issues but other than that what's the problem?
2012-05-09 02:52:48 AM
1 votes:
Republicans are evil, disgusting scum.
2012-05-09 02:51:59 AM
1 votes:

Little.Alex: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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?

...

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.


Thanks for proving my point about the Left being too ignorant, intolerant, immature and insulting to be persuasive. Your obvious mental illness makes my case than anything I could post.


And assuming I'm on "the Left" and that I represent them for your shiatty views, even more pitiful fail.

I don't give a rat's ass whose "side" you're on, if you applaud treating others as less than human because of your narrow-minded idiocy and spiteful little black heart, you're filth. And it's ironic and amusing how you're accusing me of being ignorant, intolerant, immature and insulting when you went on about how much you hate gays and minorities and how you'd happily do whatever you could to oppress them. At least you're honest about your hateful pettiness, refreshing if sickening.
2012-05-09 02:46:30 AM
1 votes:
Cousin marriages are against the law in Texas and married cousins in Texas can get a felony conviction for having sex. Should we allow marriage between brother and sisters if they are consenting adults? Do we just do away with all laws on incest as long as they are consenting adults? To say that states can't regulate marriage is bullshiat.

One more thing, if it made it to the supreme court, do you think it will actually be upheld or struck down? Our supreme court is very conservative right now and will probably get moreso as time goes on if the past is any indication.
2012-05-09 02:45:58 AM
1 votes:

jizonny: Sometimes I think the Fark logo needs to be backed by a huge rainbow, because that's all who post here.


i48.photobucket.com

I guess tolerance only works when you want someone to accept your views? You shouldn't have to tolerate theirs?

When your views are pants on head retarded: No.

Is this not a majority rules country?

In matters that are none of the majority's God damn business: no, it is (or should be) a "majority can mind its own God damn business" country. Democracy does not mean two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

If I want someone to recognize the sweet love I make to the horse in the barn, should I be entitled to tax benefits and societal acceptance?

Once more with feeling: Horses cannot give consent.

Now, please explain to the class what arguments you have against gay marriage other than the ick factor and Bible thumping. Deal with the ick factor by minding your own God damn business. And if teh ghey is against God's law, then God can arrest the Feelthy Queers.
2012-05-09 02:41:40 AM
1 votes:

Little.Alex: and he's nothing but an affirmative action retard.


Who somehow became editor of the Harvard Law Review. You really are a bitter nobody, you can't stand that someone out there who is not like you, who does not think as you do, has accomplished something with their life while all you are capable of doing is attempting to belittle people on the internet.
2012-05-09 02:37:26 AM
1 votes:

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 02:33:10 AM
1 votes:

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 02:31:27 AM
1 votes:

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 02:26:28 AM
1 votes:

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 02:26:13 AM
1 votes:

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 02:24:54 AM
1 votes:
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 02:19:35 AM
1 votes:

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 02:17:23 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-05-09 02:17:05 AM
1 votes:
We used to go every September to the Outer Banks in Duck, NC.

NO MORE, NEVER AGAIN.

I intend to write to the Chamber as well as RCI (who holds the deed to the timeshare we own in Duck) to remove us from their lists and we will bank our weeks from now on to travel elsewhere. (The timeshare is right on the water.) We will NOT return to Duck, NC and absolutely NONE of our $$$ will be spent there or anywhere else in NC.

I also intend to email/write to any companies doing business in NC to inform them that we will no longer support ANY products coming out of that state, ever again.

I will also write to the various real-estate agents who continue to email us with possible rentals and sales on the Outer Banks, telling them the reason we wish to be removed from their mailing list(s).

I will also write to the state representatives with the same messages.

Given that many east-coasters like to head to NC for vacations, I think a major email/writing campaign will alert them to the fact that we no longer want their business, and they will no longer receive ANY $$$ from us for any reason.

Do it.

Goodbye, NC. It was nice while it lasted but, when you went all Nazi on our GLBT friends and family, I am presenting you with a nice old kick in the butt. We won't let the door hit us in the bum on our way out, either.

Idiots.
2012-05-09 02:12:00 AM
1 votes:
In college I was in a small co-ed musical fraternity that drew a large amount of GLBT members. Eh, you pull in a lot of band geeks/glee club/choir/a cappella singers, that'll happen :-P

The founding chapter is at NC State and there are several active and inactive chapters in North Carolina. Many of their members worked on the campaign against the amendment. I have some crushed friends right now.

I really think it will eventually happen, though, once the Boomers start dying off and the Millennials start to outnumber them. This is a total non-issue to the Millennials. I'd say within 10 to 15 years we're either going to be well on our way in most states, or the Millennials will have devised something clever to replace it.

What I'm really concerned about are the Millennials losing hope, developing cynicism and turning into the X's on steroids. I don't suspect that will happen unless the GOP wins huge in November, though.

/I hate the name Millennial
//just has developed too much negative connotation with all the stereotypes being thrown around
2012-05-09 02:05:47 AM
1 votes:
Majority rule is a weird thing. You could probably get a majority of my neighbors to agree that I should move, but since I have a right to live here, they can't make me move. Rights are a weird thing too I guess.
2012-05-09 02:03:56 AM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: Call what "church marriage"? Churches don't do marriages (I think you may be confusing "marriage" with "wedding"); the government does.


I'll try this once more before bed. Does the Church have a ritual through which it recognizes that two people have entered into a lifelong commitment to live monogamously with one another, sanctified in the eyes of God? Yes? The ceremony is a "wedding" the institution is "marriage," I will hereafter call it a "church marriage."

Does the government have a ritual through which it recognizes that two people have entered into a lifelong commitment to live monogamously with one another, sanctified in the eyes of God? No? Okay, no conflict here.

Does the government have a specific set of rights, privileges, and benefits that it bestows upon one other person for the purposes of social stability? Yes? Let's call the document signing ceremony the "wedding" (purely for analogy) and the institution is known as a "marriage" I will hereafter call it a "government marriage."

Does the Church have a specific set of rights, privileges, and benefits that it bestows upon one other person for the purposes of social stability? Maybe. Does it in any way influence the ability of government to provide its own set of rights, privileges, and benefits? No? Okay, no conflict here either.

Saying people aren't talking past each other is kind of amusing, when clearly we're doing it right now. BOTH the Church and government have something they consider "marriage" so saying one "does" marriage and the other "doesn't" is incorrect, however, and this has been my main point the whole time, what they are talking about with that selfsame word is actually does two separate and completely divorcable (pun intended) concepts, that of "church marriage" and "government marriage."

Biological Ali: Also, nobody's talking past each other. The people who don't want to "share" the word "marriage" because they think they somehow own it are bigots to be ultimately marginalized, and not good-faith opponents that should be compromised with. It doesn't matter whether they're whining about sharing marriage with interracial couples or gay couples - this conversation should end in one and only one way.


On this point I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think a significant number of people are afraid of gay marriage because they think it would require their churches to recognize a union that is unholy to them. I think that if they could be convinced that just because the government is using the word "marriage" it doesn't mean that they have to believe that their god has sanctified the union that it would alleviate a lot of the tension in the country on the issue. They really see it as the government trying to dictate the terms of their religion, and what things god should be okay with.

A lot of them are also small minded people who just hate gay people, but I think that they don't have the numbers to pull a 61% majority. But you are right, this conversation should only end one way, people who love each other should be able to be happy together on their own terms.
2012-05-09 01:56:06 AM
1 votes:
I'm sorry, what were the cultural slurs used against the other states that have voted down gay marriage? Those bible-thumping, inbred racist hicks from California? Hmm, no, doesn't sound familiar.
2012-05-09 01:50:38 AM
1 votes:

TheManofPA: Been awhile since I knew the dates, but I think it's like 200-300 years.


Well while the Catholic church has considered marriage a sacrament for ages it didn't actually give a rats ass about being involved in marriages until the Council of Trent which ran from 1545 to 1563. It was only then that the church declared that only those marriages performed by the church were valid. Before then? If you got married at the local court house it was good enough.
2012-05-09 01:42:38 AM
1 votes:
North Carolina now becomes the 30th state to adopt a same-sex marriage ban.

WTF, America? Along with the Death Penalty, you guys have more in common with such vacation paradises as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uganda, etc...than with Hell-holes like Spain, Sweden, France, Norway, Canada, etc.
So much for being the vanguards of progress.

/you used to be cool.
2012-05-09 01:34:58 AM
1 votes:

TheManofPA: Just one of those things that irks me, along with people using the revelations quote about homosexuality


Or that have that Leviticus reference as a tattoo ignoring the one near it banning...tattoos.
2012-05-09 01:31:27 AM
1 votes:

Killer Cars: FTA:

In fact, state house Speaker Thom Tillis (R), a supporter of the amendment, even told a student group at North Carolina State University in March that he predicts that the measure will be repealed within 20 years.

Now that is some effective legislating, fellow citizens. What in the god damn f*ck??


Their main constituency is people who don't expect to be alive in 20 years and/or think nobody will be alive in 20 years.
2012-05-09 01:23:41 AM
1 votes:

OhLuverly: I am not attempting to start anything, I am actually just very curious as I've not been following this issue very well. Why don't we just make all marriages as they are now, civil unions. Then afterwards if people want to do a religious ceremony to marry themselves before God, they can. Everyone has the same equal rights as far as the law is concerned that way.


Ask blacks in The South before 1964 how those separate but equal water fountains, entrances, and bathrooms made them all equal and free.
2012-05-09 01:22:42 AM
1 votes:

OhLuverly: I am not attempting to start anything, I am actually just very curious as I've not been following this issue very well. Why don't we just make all marriages as they are now, civil unions..


I would love for that to happen, make marriage more or less a legal contract while allowing any church to deny you a cerimony. And gays would allowed to enter in this contract. But that'll never happen becuase the busibodies would have to mind their own business and people would be allowed to make their own choices. Who am I kidding?
2012-05-09 01:22:33 AM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: nmrsnr: Just because the state calls a certain set of privileges and tax breaks "marriage" doesn't mean we should confuse it with the religious term "marriage."

The state calls it that because "marriage" is a civil contract and has been understood as such for a very long time. The only reason the religious feel like they now "own" the word, I suspect, is because of how old and familiar the term is. If the term "civil union" had been put into place a couple centuries ago, I imagine that the same people would be going on today about how important it is to them that "civil union" continues to mean what they're used to it meaning and that the gays and blacks find a new term for themselves.


I agree. So what? I don't care which one you want call "marriage" and which "civil union." Call them "church marriage" and "government marriage" or something entirely different for all I care. The point I tried to make was that in general I feel like the debate is mostly taking place because it's conflating two ideas that, in actuality, are fundamentally separate, and if we had a vocabulary that somehow captured the distinction that people wouldn't talk past each other so much and that this issue would be much simpler to resolve.
2012-05-09 01:19:53 AM
1 votes:

Diogenes The Cynic: Biological Ali: Diogenes The Cynic: but the same laws that prevent gays from having a union thats legally recognized also prevent a Mormon, or Muslim guy from having two wives

Not sure if serious.

Absolutely serious. I don't think the government has any right make these kinds of laws. I don't care what two guys, or two girls, or a man and a woman, or a man with his two wives, or whatever do in the privacy of their own homes. Its not up to the government to regulate.


I can't tell if you're being serious or if you're deliberately putting on a show of being ignorant about which laws do what (and more broadly about what the law should do), but if you're being sincere I'd suggest you take a long hard look at

a) The laws and regulations surrounding marriage in a technical sense. This will let you know, among other things, that polygamy would be effectively impossible regardless of whether or not this amendment (or any equivalent) existed.

b) The secular terms in which the right to marriage has evolved in the US. Loving v. Virginia would be a good point to start here. Basically, marriage isn't an institution that some particular religion can claim exclusive ownership over and force everybody else to use some separate but equal alternative.
2012-05-09 01:18:33 AM
1 votes:

austin_millbarge: Conservatism is a mental disorder.


No, it's a character flaw. Social conservatives believe morally indefensible things, and then go out and act on those beliefs. People with mental illnesses may do bad things, but they have the excuse that they are crazy. Conservatives are just bad people.

Diogenes The Cynic: So, don't call it marriage, and everyone is happy. Marriage is specifically a religious institution.


The bolded part is, of course, straightforwardly false. Where does this idea even come from?
2012-05-09 01:17:53 AM
1 votes:

Diogenes The Cynic: quatchi: Diogenes The Cynic: So, don't call it marriage, and everyone is happy. Marriage is specifically a religious institution.

No. Your way nobody wins and nobody is happy except possibly for you.

Calling the gay marriage battle in the fight for full civil rights for gay citizens "a battle you can't win" kinda disregards the number of places where gays already have won their civil rights.

You gotta pick your battles.

This is a good one to pick.

This zeitgeist shift is this generations "civil rights for blacks".

You don't forgo battles you must win.

Sun Tzu knew that as well.

Be Well.

Fighting for civil unionships would be more productive.


You speak as if people weren't doing both simultaneously along with other lgbtq rights initiatives.
2012-05-09 01:16:55 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: . Stop blaming black people for this, look at your own race, they're just as bigoted.


I'm not blaming black people for this, I'm saying many black churches assisted and participated in getting gay marriage bans passed. And other black churches did not, just as many North Carolina communities did not support this act. (Asheville and Chapel Hill come immediately to mind) That's not race baiting, that's a fact.

As I see it, black clergy had the opportunity to stand up for people that were getting the shaft. Many did, but many others decided to jump on the bandwagon with the bigots. The latter group deserves nothing but scorn, and they belong on the trash heap with the rest of the white megachurch fundie asswipes.
2012-05-09 01:14:11 AM
1 votes:

crazytrain: DrBenway

Just anger, temper tantrums, and bigotry - typical spoiled brat liberal dumbass.


You're not very pleasant.
2012-05-09 01:13:10 AM
1 votes:
Civil rights are never voted on in America.

Everybody gets them here.
2012-05-09 01:09:12 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: blueviking: Assemblies of God....

Oh damn, you had it bad.



On one hand, it was such a poor decision, on the other, it gave me an insider's view into how some of these nutjobs actually work. They preyed upon me when I was a naive, directionless girl in HS who had just lost an ex to suicide and they saw that weakness, since I heavily blamed myself for his decision to take that route. After I got out, it opened my eyes and I could see the absurdity of the whole thing.

I have Christian friends that are great people, and would completely support an initiative for gay marriage rights, but my experience with AoG totally turned me from all organized religion.
2012-05-09 01:07:00 AM
1 votes:
I remember when my state passed a voter initiative I hated, and when I complained about it, a lot people said "it's the will of the people", and "why do you hate democracy". My point is that people will say those lines up until the point an initiative passes that they hate.
2012-05-09 01:03:10 AM
1 votes:

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


Yes, it is race baiting. The driving force for all of these initiatives is the almost entirely white Mormon church and the almost entirely white NOM, and the almost entirely white religious right. You're buying right into NOM's divide and conquer race baiting strategy. Stop blaming black people for this, look at your own race, they're just as bigoted.
2012-05-09 01:03:09 AM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: Diogenes The Cynic: but the same laws that prevent gays from having a union thats legally recognized also prevent a Mormon, or Muslim guy from having two wives

Not sure if serious.


Absolutely serious. I don't think the government has any right make these kinds of laws. I don't care what two guys, or two girls, or a man and a woman, or a man with his two wives, or whatever do in the privacy of their own homes. Its not up to the government to regulate.
2012-05-09 12:58:34 AM
1 votes:

blueviking: Assemblies of God....


Oh damn, you had it bad.

untaken_name: in order for marriage to be a right,


Marriage is a right. The Supreme Court said so back in 1967.
2012-05-09 12:55:31 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name: WhyteRaven74: The the enjoyment of rights should be up for public vote? There's a long string of Supreme Court Justices that would like to tell you where to stick that.

That is how a democracy works. We did not start out as a democracy. Additionally, in order for marriage to be a right, you would have to be able to do it without getting a license. (I realize that the Supreme Court has placed limitations on the state as far as rejecting marriage applications. You still have to get a license in order to have the state recognize your marriage.) In fact, you can do exactly that, and marry whomever you wish in a religious or private ceremony, you could even marry a pillow or an NPC in a video game. However, if you do so, you run the risk of having the state not recognize your marriage. That is the same whether you are gay or straight or marrying pillows. Receiving a license to do something is not a right. Receiving official state recognition of a relationship is not necessarily a right. You have a right to marry whoever you want. You just don't have a right to force the state to recognize that relationship, or to force the state to treat you as though you had applied for and received a state-sponsored marriage license.


You do realize we live in a representative republic, right? Not a real democracy, where the majority constantly gets to decide the rights of the minority? We have a constitution and everything.

Marriage has been recognized as a fundamental civil right since the SCOTUS case Loving v. Virginia. The court ruled that even though an anti-miscegenation law granted black people the right to marry any other black person they wanted, and whites any white person they wanted, the law was a violation of the 14th Amendment providing for equal rights under the law. So when a gay man wants to marry another gay man, who is also an adult, human being capable of entering into a contract that grants him the same government-graned benefits as a straight man and woman, and is prevented from doing so, there needs to be at least a rational basis for preventing him from doing so. This is the argument that the Prop 8 supporters failed to make, and will probably fail again in front of the SCOTUS.
2012-05-09 12:55:10 AM
1 votes:

crazytrain: WhyteRaven74

It's not a an angry liberal temper-tantrum unless flag following simpletons like WhyteRaven74 starts calling folks 'bigots.'

Kinda like the whole "We Are the 99% You F***** Bigots!"

LOL

Nice


I have to reiterate a prior poster's question - are you retarded? Seriously, is there a developmental disability that explains your major malfunction?
2012-05-09 12:48:05 AM
1 votes:
Did anyone really expect a southern state to vote in favor of gay marriage? I'd consider it a victory that it was even put up for a vote. Though voting doesn't seem to matter since the court can just overturn an election now because the majority of people voted for something "unconstitutional."

Democracy is getting silly.
2012-05-09 12:45:55 AM
1 votes:

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.


Exactly...I say this as a former member of Assemblies of God....

/shudders
2012-05-09 12:44:41 AM
1 votes:
Probably been mentioned, but: Prop 8 is on it's way up, "strict constitutionalism" results in it being ruled unconstitutional due to equal protection, and the dominoes go down like...[insert joke here].
2012-05-09 12:41:14 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: IHadMeAVision: /people in Atlanta were cool though

Well keep in mind a ton ton of the people in Atlanta are transplants.


Atlanta is a small oasis of civility in the shiathole that is Georgia. I went to college in north Georgia, that place gave me more culture shock than living in Vietnam.
2012-05-09 12:40:46 AM
1 votes:

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.
HBK
2012-05-09 12:40:41 AM
1 votes:
I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone pointed out that this law is more likely to get Supreme Court review than the CA law? That's the only good news out of this.
2012-05-09 12:39:41 AM
1 votes:

studebaker hoch: How did this even go to a popular vote?

You cannot have different civil rights for different people and remain within the Constitution.

"We the people" means everyone.


Never underestimate the power of stupid people, bigots or racists in large groups

The Supreme Court will find this unconstitutional, the right will scream "activist judges", "will of the people" then some people will be murdered by them.

These people lack the fundamental ability of critical thought and truly believe they need to "take back America". Considering their fed flat out lies, hyperbole and propaganda almost 24/7 it's no real surprise. Being objective, bipartisan or even willing to compromise is not a notion in their minds, it's a fight against "enemies".
2012-05-09 12:38:14 AM
1 votes:

IHadMeAVision: /people in Atlanta were cool though


Well keep in mind a ton ton of the people in Atlanta are transplants.
2012-05-09 12:35:25 AM
1 votes:
schubie:

The most annoying thing about living in the south is how people in other parts of America use it to pat themselves on the back for not being racist (while slurring the people of an entire geographical area). In the south, we've lived, worked and farked all together for hundreds of years. Per capita, chances are good that we're actually a lot less racist than you. We are farked when it comes to bible-bangers though. These assholes will just not die out.

As a white dude with a black girlfriend/baby moms... actually, people in the South do come across a lot more racist and judgmental than elsewhere. Both white and black people. Get more stink eyes walking into one Mickey D's in North Carolina than in a full year in New York. New York State, that is. Upstate, downstate, city, burbs, countryside.

/people in Atlanta were cool though
2012-05-09 12:32:34 AM
1 votes:
This shiat is still going on? Don't you idiots know Biden has successfully shifted the discussion from the economy to gay rights?

Thanks for taking the bait like a cheap tranny swallowing the whole chalupa, repuglicans. We can always count on you.
2012-05-09 12:32:34 AM
1 votes:

DeaH: Okay, let's vote on whether or not straight people can get married. We'll do it on a case-by-case basis. You want to get married, put it on the ballot.


I like that idea. If they can vote on my ability to get married, I sure as hell want to be able to vote on their ability to marry.
2012-05-09 12:31:33 AM
1 votes:
I'm pretty disappointed. both because we lost and because I essentially was a single-issue voter this election.

one of my coworkers was all pissy because her Facebook buddy claimed that the people who voted against it are bigots. I disagree - some are bigots, some are assholes, some are busybodies who care way too much about who someone else is farking, some are ignorant, and some are too weak and easily led by their pastor to think for themselves or listen to reason.

a few other coworkers were lamenting the outcome, not an hour after talking about how they forgot to go vote. WTF?!

okay, so STATES RIGHTS!!1 and I can just move if I don't like it, right? I wouldn't mind moving away, actually, but economically it'd be impossible. and the fact of the matter is, even if I were willing or able to take up a nomadic lifestyle to live freely, people who wish to oppress others can find many more like them all over the country, band together and pool their money to influence policy in any other state. why should someone in Alaska with a bee in their bonnet about gay marriage, get a say in the laws we pass down here?

ugh. just... ugh.
2012-05-09 12:31:21 AM
1 votes:

KidneyStone: TheShavingofOccam123: Thanks for posting that pic. I post Major Alan G. Rogers' pic in these threads.

If you knew about him they why the hell did you post your original douchebag post? To what purpose?

/Conservative
//Couldn't care less about same sex marriage. Let 'em marry. And, if necessary, get abortions. Don't care about that either.


Wait, old fashioned conservatives still exist? I thought you guys went extinct in the 90's.
2012-05-09 12:29:00 AM
1 votes:

quatchi: Killer Cars: FTA:

In fact, state house Speaker Thom Tillis (R), a supporter of the amendment, even told a student group at North Carolina State University in March that he predicts that the measure will be repealed within 20 years.

Now that is some effective legislating, fellow citizens. What in the god damn f*ck??

It's a scorched earth policy.

They know full gay rights are inevitable just looking at the demographic information we have now.

They think by putting these immoral bills on record they will somehow slow the process of gays achieving full equal rights. They may be right. Of course, younger people finding the modern GOP to be to too regressive and immoral to support on this issue alone might end up causing that to happen sooner rather than later.

One of the weirdest things about the entire saga of George Wallace back in the bad ole days standing in front of that schoolhouse blocking integration physically was that in an effort to slow or stop integration what he ultimately did caused integration to happen more rapidly and more comprehensively than it looked like it was going to.

The Law of Unintended Consequences.

It is a tricksy biatch.


Actually, I'm pretty sure the point of this thing was to drive a wedge between black voters, who tend to be pretty socially conservative, and more liberal democratic voters, including gay rights groups. The idea being that the more gay rights talk, the more reluctant black voters are to back the Democratic party. If the black turnout goes down in November, or goes from 96% Obama to 92% Obama, that could swing the state. One of the ironies of Prop 8 in California is that without the increased black turnout from Obama being on the ticket, it very possibly doesn't pass.

It's a particularly nasty form of political maneuvering, and unfortunately, it'll probably work for its intended electoral purpose.


The other thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that roughly 20% or more of voters had no conception of what this actually did- it goes far beyond just banning marriage. In polling, when voters were told it also banned civil unions and domestic partnerships, people were opposed 55% to 40% or something like that. The numbers basically flipped with the question presented with no further information.

Anyway, crappy day for all the residents of the parts of NC you would want to visit. We have a lot of new south, educated and fairly liberal cities here, and they're great places in general. This thing is simply disgusting.
2012-05-09 12:26:49 AM
1 votes:

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: For shame, NC. You should be embarrassed of yourselves. There's no reason to deny other human beings basic rights. Something is farked up in America.


This is a state that likes to oppress its ni*bongs, so at least they're consistent
2012-05-09 12:26:07 AM
1 votes:
Well, everyone knows that gays are "pedifiles", trying to drag our innocent retarded children into their depraved toga parties.

aqurette.com
2012-05-09 12:25:11 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name: This is how a democracy works. Majority rules. Don't like it? Neither did our Founders.


The the enjoyment of rights should be up for public vote? There's a long string of Supreme Court Justices that would like to tell you where to stick that.

ongbok: He also directed the Justice department not to defend The Defense of Marriage Act in court also.


Yep there's that too.
2012-05-09 12:23:14 AM
1 votes:

jizonny: If I want someone to recognize the sweet love I make to the horse in the barn, should I be entitled to tax benefits and societal acceptance?


As soon as your horse can legally sign and enter into contract, then yes.
\i921.photobucket.com
2012-05-09 12:20:29 AM
1 votes:

Iczer: steamingpile: austin_millbarge: Conservatism is a mental disorder.

Because california is so conservative, as is north carolina both states that voted for obama last election.........failure on your part.

And the sign in the article is troubling, is the church implying god wants a threesome with a husband and wife? F*cking perverts......

Naw, it's just the church's way of showing you they believe in polygamy polyandry, the one where the WOMAN gets all the husbands...

/kinda disappointed you're the only one besides me that noticed that amusement in the article


FTFY
2012-05-09 12:20:20 AM
1 votes:
This is how a democracy works. Majority rules. Don't like it? Neither did our Founders.
2012-05-09 12:19:24 AM
1 votes:
I'm happy to say that my state (MD) just passed a bill allowing gay marriage. As for the conservative neanderthals...fark you all, bigots.
2012-05-09 12:15:29 AM
1 votes:

xcv: how about he actually tries to properly lead black people away from homophobia or somethin'?


Well he got Don't Ask Don't Tell off the books. Which as Commander in Chief he could. The Defense of Marriage Act will take Congress' help.
2012-05-09 12:14:46 AM
1 votes:

crazytrain: pueblonative

You have to be a True Believer to publicly support rape. I guess those victims were 'asking for it' in your mind. You're a class act to your liberal friends.


And you have to be as farking crazy as Charlie the Choo-Choo Mono to think that the support of Bill Clinton speaking out on marriage equality equals support of rape.

Seriously, dude, and with all due respect, you're a farking moron.
2012-05-09 12:14:08 AM
1 votes:

seadoo2006: zarberg: Mart Laar's beard shaver: There's a lot of butt-hurt in this thread.

And for the first time, that's not figurative.

/Sorry, poo pushers

How do you pack so much stupidity into just 3 short lines?

/really, I'm impressed. It's like you use a font that's made up of thousands of tiny little derps.

It's okay ... it's a natural defense mechanism that was put in place to make manly men feel less gay when they fark their gf/wives/partners in the ass ... because after all, you're gay as hell as soon as you go near that orifice ... unless you're with a woman ... or something like that ...

I guess some straight male interested in anal will have to explain to me the difference between what they do and what gay men do. Apparently, they both like sticking their dicks in the poo chute.


My wife lets me go there on occasion and for the record she has a much, much nicer ass than any guy I know.

/that;'s the appeal to me.
2012-05-09 12:12:47 AM
1 votes:
fark this state and the bigots who are currently running the show. After another election cycle or two it had damn well better be another 140 years before we give the state legislature to farking republicans.

Also, fark those assholes for putting something like this up for a vote on a primary ballot when only one party is having a national primary (not that it would have mattered, but fark you anyway).

I'm going to shoot some farking super mutants.
2012-05-09 12:10:25 AM
1 votes:

eraser8: Weaver95: there's a LOT of troll accounts that haven't been active in a long time that suddenly went active this year.

most curious.

Election year.


most of them seem to have been created around 2007.
2012-05-09 12:07:52 AM
1 votes:

Self_Manifesto: Soup4Bonnie: Backwards ass hicks.

xebeche_tzu: America to N.C.: you are all irrelevant inbred retards.

Guilt by association, the Fark way.

/Voted AGAINST.


It's just the butthurt talking. Apparently 42% or so of NC voters walk upright and don't think the sun orbits the earth. Thanks for trying!
2012-05-09 12:07:22 AM
1 votes:
This was expected. Let's worry about California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. before we trying to civilize the South.
2012-05-09 12:06:48 AM
1 votes:

TheBigJerk: T-Servo: I submitted this with angrier headline.

/but am still wigged out over Michele Bachmann getting a Swiss passport. Srsly? Hell, you lose a Secret clearance if you take a second citizenship, and she sits on the House Intel committee?

Um, what?

We seriously need to iron out the whole dual-citizenship thing, I remember being (possibly mis)taught in high school that applying for foreign citizenships can get your existing citizenship revoked.


They've changed the rules to allow dual citizenship, but those exceptions don't apply when a security clearance is involved. Mrs Servo refused to get a DOD clearance because it would have meant giving up her Canadian passport ("No farking way!"). Normally it's an absolute when dealing with classified intel issues.
2012-05-09 12:05:36 AM
1 votes:

cc_rider: And here it is:


thanks for that :) I was going to have to dig through the last few hours of my facebook feed to find it.
2012-05-09 12:05:12 AM
1 votes:

Devon Park United Methodist Church:

A TRUE MARRIAGE
MALE AND FEMALE
AND GOD


Polyandry, this one sounds like a kinky three-some to me.

Who wants to compete with God's dick?
That guy must be hung... what? I know, I know, it's past my bed time.
2012-05-09 12:02:54 AM
1 votes:

bobbette: Frank N Stein: 1. No need for rude rhetoric.

Then you should have kept your opinion to yourself to start with. You implied LGBTQ people are abnormal and suggested that LGBTQ culture be changed, and its acceptance and celebration of varying gender presentations be suppressed, in order to better fit your preferences and comfort level. That is beyond rude - it's intolerant and ignorant.

The response you should expect to such a post is "fark off".


he has a perfect right to be an asshole. just as you have a perfect right to CALL him an asshole.

and that's really all there is to say about that.
2012-05-09 12:02:37 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: dosboot: Most blacks are against homosexual marriage. But continue to blame white people, libtard.

There was a rather lovely statement by a black minister in NC against Amendment One, there's even youtube video of his statement if you care to see it.



And here it is:

short version

long version
2012-05-09 12:02:35 AM
1 votes:
FTA:

In fact, state house Speaker Thom Tillis (R), a supporter of the amendment, even told a student group at North Carolina State University in March that he predicts that the measure will be repealed within 20 years.

Now that is some effective legislating, fellow citizens. What in the god damn f*ck??
2012-05-09 12:01:40 AM
1 votes:
Supreme court argument: Under this amendment, a non-sexual pair of individuals may enter into a marriage-like contract (civil union) if they are one male and one female but not if they are a male and a male or a female and a male.

Vote 6:3 to over turn.

Next.
2012-05-09 12:01:12 AM
1 votes:

TheBigJerk: T-Servo: I submitted this with angrier headline.

/but am still wigged out over Michele Bachmann getting a Swiss passport. Srsly? Hell, you lose a Secret clearance if you take a second citizenship, and she sits on the House Intel committee?

Um, what?

We seriously need to iron out the whole dual-citizenship thing, I remember being (possibly mis)taught in high school that applying for foreign citizenships can get your existing citizenship revoked.


Not true.. Almost the only way to lose your US citizenship is to go to a US Embassy and formally renounce your citizenship. In other words, it has to be a deliberate decision on your part. There's some stuff about accepting a commission in a foreign military, but even that is not clear-cut as you can enlist in a foreign military without renouncing your citizenship, and so on.
2012-05-09 12:00:02 AM
1 votes:

pueblonative: crazytrain: The best part is when they had accused rapist and admitted adulterer Bill Clinton lecturing North Carolinians on marriage. LOL dumbass liberals.

As far as I know, Bill Cilinton's on his first marriage, while Rush and Newt are going on their 4th.


That is kind of funny that a lot of the conservatives that are screaming about the sanctity of marriage and how it has to be protected from the gay have been married and divorced multiple times.
2012-05-08 11:59:16 PM
1 votes:
"South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum."- James L. Petigru

/And that's what one of their own had to say about them.
2012-05-08 11:56:50 PM
1 votes:

Robots are Strong: CognaciousThunk: Looks like the folks in NC prefer threesomes...

[wwwcache.wral.com image 512x339]

I just wanted to point out for those not from around these parts, this wasn't just some random church, this was an official polling place.


Not true. Devon United Methodist Church was a polling place today.

Link
2012-05-08 11:55:51 PM
1 votes:
I grew up going to a United Methodist church, and was taught during confirmation classes that it's okay to be gay, so the photo in the article seemed very... not Methodist. Until I remembered the schism that damned near occurred over that one issue, if it hasn't since, been like 12 years since I got confirmed and naturally quit waking up early on Sundays.
2012-05-08 11:53:59 PM
1 votes:

BroVinny: bobbette: 2. You know where we have those parades? Places where gays are accepted and gay marriage is legal.

That statement's bullshiat. Gays have pride parades in states where gay marriage is illegal and often in the face of opposition.


Yes, but the biggest and best-attended pride parades - and they're usually the ones that are more risqué - happen in places where gays are more accepted. Because there are more gays there, there's far more spectators, and because there are so many spectators the parades have far more corporate sponsorship, and banks and airlines hire sexy go-go boys in tiny underwear and outrageous drag queens to dance on their floats. And the straight people eat that sh*t up because it's a great show.
2012-05-08 11:53:14 PM
1 votes:

steamingpile: Because california is so conservative, as is north carolina both states that voted for obama last election.........failure on your part.


California gave us three presidents: Hoover, Nixon and Reagan. Three of the worst presidents in all of US history.
2012-05-08 11:52:10 PM
1 votes:

crazytrain: Obama will not win North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, etc - only die-hard crackpots support him now

- Out of Iraq in 60 days - HAHA
- Civil Liberties and Privacy Restored - HAH
- Economy Fixed, Jobs for All, All Good! - HAH

He is out - good riddance.


RON PAUL 2028!

/We're being realistic
2012-05-08 11:51:53 PM
1 votes:

T-Servo: I submitted this with angrier headline.

/but am still wigged out over Michele Bachmann getting a Swiss passport. Srsly? Hell, you lose a Secret clearance if you take a second citizenship, and she sits on the House Intel committee?


Um, what?

We seriously need to iron out the whole dual-citizenship thing, I remember being (possibly mis)taught in high school that applying for foreign citizenships can get your existing citizenship revoked.
2012-05-08 11:51:17 PM
1 votes:

Robots are Strong: CognaciousThunk: Looks like the folks in NC prefer threesomes...

[wwwcache.wral.com image 512x339]

I just wanted to point out for those not from around these parts, this wasn't just some random church, this was an official polling place.


I would have expected better from the Methodists too.
*Shakes head sadly*
2012-05-08 11:50:47 PM
1 votes:

stoli n coke: Until you push a bill to make divorce a crime, you don't really give a shiat about the sanctity of marriage and are just trying to be an asshole.


Haven't quite a few fundies pushed for this, or damn near this?
2012-05-08 11:50:09 PM
1 votes:

ur14me: ///can choose to be gay


What are you basing that on?
2012-05-08 11:49:48 PM
1 votes:

BroVinny: bobbette: 2. You know where we have those parades? Places where gays are accepted and gay marriage is legal.

That statement's bullshiat. Gays have pride parades in states where gay marriage is illegal and often in the face of opposition.


Which was the point.
2012-05-08 11:49:43 PM
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: seadoo2006: who the fark cares

Plenty of people, if this law is of any indication.


And you know what? It's none of their damn business. Just like it's none of their damn business if I have freaky, crazy sex with my girlfriend. Am I hurting anyone else? Nope, so fark off and let me live the life I want to live.

But it bugs me, it bugs me so farking much that other people have the GALL to tell other people what they can and cannot do in their own homes on their own time.

As for pride parades, get real ... If you want them to go away, take the god awful 4th of July parades, Memorial Day parades, Easter parades, Thanksgiving Day parades and farking Saint Patrick Day parades away because they are all farking offensive to ME.
2012-05-08 11:49:02 PM
1 votes:

BravadoGT: 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).


If you use the concept of rational basis, ie that there is no rational basis to not allow gays to marry, can bypass that whole line of reasoning. It's what happened in the case against Prop 8, it was argued along strictly rational basis lines.
2012-05-08 11:48:57 PM
1 votes:

CognaciousThunk: Looks like the folks in NC prefer threesomes...

wwwcache.wral.com


I just wanted to point out for those not from around these parts, this wasn't just some random church, this was an official polling place.
2012-05-08 11:48:55 PM
1 votes:

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.


The most annoying thing about living in the south is how people in other parts of America use it to pat themselves on the back for not being racist (while slurring the people of an entire geographical area). In the south, we've lived, worked and farked all together for hundreds of years. Per capita, chances are good that we're actually a lot less racist than you. We are farked when it comes to bible-bangers though. These assholes will just not die out.
2012-05-08 11:47:44 PM
1 votes:

GORDON: Remember Prop 8 in California? Same thing. Keep talking about those homophobic red states, idiots.


Seeing as I live in one, I will talk about those states as much as I farking like.

Problem, idiot?
2012-05-08 11:47:40 PM
1 votes:

Aar1012: Shaggy_C: Dimensio: Rights are a property of individuals. The concept of rights being applied to a collective, such as a state, is nonsensical.

Tenth amendment is the tinfoil hat constitutionalists use to keep liberals out of their brainwaves.

People claim to support States' Rights until another state works against their state rights. For Example: The Fugitive Slave Act.


I always wondered about this, especially since I just now happen to be reading Team of Rivals. Nullification was fine and good for South Carolina, but as soon as some Northern states used its selfsame logic as a tactic to enact personal liberty laws, the planter aristocracy and their toadies in Congress flipped the fark out.
2012-05-08 11:46:32 PM
1 votes:

ImpendingCynic: That decision would have been disastrous before the Civil Rights Act.


The justices of the court wouldn't have given a good god damn, a couple of the justices who were involved in Loving v Virginia were involved in Brown v Topeka Board of Education, these were not men who took kindly to unequal protection under the law. As a bit of historical trivia, one of the Supreme Court justices in Loving v Virginia was John Marshall Harlan II, the grandson of John Marshall Harlan, the only justice to dissent in the case of Plessy v Ferguson, which largely established the framework for Jim Crow laws. Harlan the elder wrote in his dissent that the decision would cause years of trouble.
2012-05-08 11:46:06 PM
1 votes:
It will be nice when people are no longer allowed to vote on who gets basic human rights.
2012-05-08 11:43:55 PM
1 votes:
Yuck... gay people
2012-05-08 11:43:54 PM
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: As someone who supports gay marriage, here is my advice to the gay community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades. Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks. And that over the top feminine shiat is just annoying.

And yes, I do realize that not every gay person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay folks out there.


1. Fark off and don't tell us how to live. Forced assimilation to heterosexual norms? No thank you.

2. You know where we have those parades? Places where gays are accepted and gay marriage is legal.

3. The straights love the drag queens and high camp way more than most of the gays do. I don't give a rat's ass.

4. I dare you to come into a dyke bar and tell a bunch of women in crew cuts and motorcycle jackets that they're hurting the gay cause by putting off "normal" people
2012-05-08 11:43:00 PM
1 votes:
These are the same people 50 years ago who were voting against blacks and whites being allowed to marry. They will have to explain their actions in 50 years over this vote like they do now over that vote. The old people will just say "Well....that's the way it was back then. We thought differently". That's the lie they will tell. Inside they will feel the same. Just like all the racist old people against Obama who claim they aren't racist.
2012-05-08 11:42:36 PM
1 votes:

drjekel_mrhyde: So no more fapping to Ghastly's profile?


Now that it's illegal, it'll be even more fun.
2012-05-08 11:42:12 PM
1 votes:
Also, I'm noting that this is a "right wingers believe in democracy" thread. The next time something comes up like a citizen's initiative to raise income taxes or something we'll get a "right-wingers reject democracy and scream about tyranny of the majority" thread.
2012-05-08 11:41:32 PM
1 votes:

gingerjet: Which makes DOMA completely unconstitutional and that means my health care is no longer taxable. Thanks for re-enforcing that opinion.


I'd say that any recognition of marriage by the federal government for purposes of taxation or for doling out benefits is discriminatory.
2012-05-08 11:40:43 PM
1 votes:
i1.cpcache.com

link(pops)
2012-05-08 11:39:11 PM
1 votes:

Aar1012: Can a conservative look in me the eye...hell can ANYONE look in me the eye and tell me how this is good for the nation? How this will create jobs or fix the economy or help the state?


No, but Jizonny, apparently, wants to hump a horse. I guess to celebrate patriotism or something. I say we let him as long as the rest of us get to watch when the horse kicks him in the head.
2012-05-08 11:39:01 PM
1 votes:
William T. Sherman:

Great American patriot? Or the greatest American patriot?
2012-05-08 11:38:55 PM
1 votes:

YoungSwedishBlonde: How does the Full Faith and Credit Clause not strike down this bigoted piece of shiat?


I'm thinking "equal protection under the law." A contract is a contract is a contract, be it sales, or NDA, or marriage.
2012-05-08 11:38:54 PM
1 votes:

ImpendingCynic: How would things have turned out if Loving v. Virginia had come about in the 1950s?


If it had been the late 50s? Given that 7 of the 9 justices that decided Loving v Virginia were on the court in the late 50s, it would've come out the same.
2012-05-08 11:38:23 PM
1 votes:
I guess they can stop pretending this bullshiat is about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" (whatever the fark that's supposed to mean). Just a bunch of Christian bigots hiding behind Jesus to defend their hate. Not that this state or the asshats running it are any better, mind you.

Fark 'em. I hope they lose out on tens of thousands of jobs because of this.

If I had the slightest inclination this country was going to go batshiat-insane a year after I came here, I think I might have headed further north overseas instead. :/
2012-05-08 11:38:12 PM
1 votes:

bdub77: Graham 18.5 89%

89%

... holy sh*t.

Let me put this place below Uganda and parts of northern Nigeria on my "planning to never, ever visit" list.
2012-05-08 11:36:32 PM
1 votes:
"family values"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
2012-05-08 11:36:23 PM
1 votes:

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.


Believe it or not South Africa fits that profile (gay marriage is legal there). But then you'd have to live in South Africa.
2012-05-08 11:35:02 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-05-08 11:34:53 PM
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: As someone who supports gay marriage, here is my advice to the gay community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades. Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks. And that over the top feminine shiat is just annoying.

And yes, I do realize that not every gay person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay folks out there.


I'll get right on that. I'm sure my absolute authority over other gay people will assure that these events and behavior come to an end.

Riiight..

Oh, and you're an idiot.

Love ya, though!
2012-05-08 11:34:09 PM
1 votes:

zarberg: Gay marriage was already not legal here, so I guess they spent millions and thousands of man hours to put it on double secret probation.

/after campaigning about creating jobs.


No joke: the wife of the bill's sponsor claimed the benefit to this law would be to encourage "Caucasians" to procreate and save their "race." In other words, if gays can't marry each other, they'll marry women, have kids, and keep jobs and authority for the white man.

/Not kidding.
//Fark had a couple threads on it.
2012-05-08 11:32:51 PM
1 votes:

Sabyen91: Shaggy_C: WhyteRaven74: No state may subvert the rights recognized by the US Constitution.

Marriage isn't mentioned in the US Constitution as a power delegated to any of the federal branches of government. Ergo, states alone have the right to issue marriage licenses.

Neither is owning a AK-47.


Actually, yes it is. That's for another thread though.

/has an AK-47 legally.
2012-05-08 11:32:48 PM
1 votes:
As someone who supports gay marriage, here is my advice to the gay community: If you want equal rights, ditch the pride parades. Wearing women's underwear on a genital shaped float and grinding on another dude isn't the best way to win support from "normal" folks. And that over the top feminine shiat is just annoying.

And yes, I do realize that not every gay person fits the stereotype, but there's enough that do that ruin it for the rest of the gay folks out there.
2012-05-08 11:31:52 PM
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: Marriage isn't mentioned in the US Constitution as a power delegated to any of the federal branches of government. Ergo, states alone have the right to issue marriage licenses.


The Constitution does more than delegate powers, it also recognizes rights, you may want to look up the 9th amendment sometime. It gets lonely.
2012-05-08 11:31:52 PM
1 votes:
The South* truly sucks.

*Everything South of 80.
2012-05-08 11:31:34 PM
1 votes:
I knew this terrible amendment would pass but I'm still farking pissed about it. Laws concerning the smooth running of a society should be based upon the consensual interactions and cooperation between real people, not based on the dictates of mythical deities (as I stated in a letter to the editor of the News & Observer that was actually published).
2012-05-08 11:30:04 PM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: No state may subvert the rights recognized by the US Constitution.


Marriage isn't mentioned in the US Constitution as a power delegated to any of the federal branches of government. Ergo, states alone have the right to issue marriage licenses.
2012-05-08 11:29:10 PM
1 votes:
So no more fapping to Ghastly's profile?
2012-05-08 11:29:10 PM
1 votes:
Gay marriage was already not legal here, so I guess they spent millions and thousands of man hours to put it on double secret probation.

/after campaigning about creating jobs.
2012-05-08 11:28:46 PM
1 votes:

jizonny: Sometimes I think the Fark logo needs to be backed by a huge rainbow, because that's all who post here.

I guess tolerance only works when you want someone to accept your views? You shouldn't have to tolerate theirs? Is this not a majority rules country?

If I want someone to recognize the sweet love I make to the horse in the barn, should I be entitled to tax benefits and societal acceptance?


99% of the state of North Carolina voting for slavery didn't make slavery ok.

99% of the state of North Carolina voting to eat Human Fetus Flakes for breakfast doesn't make it ok either.

Starting to get idea, Majority Hero?
2012-05-08 11:27:58 PM
1 votes:
Son of a farking biatch.
2012-05-08 11:27:24 PM
1 votes:

ImpendingCynic: Do you have any idea how long it's going to take to tear down 32 states' anti-gay marriage laws, plus DOMA? Assuming more states don't do this in the process...


DOMA could be gone a year from now. And one court ruling could send those 32 states' law sup the river. When it came to interracial marriage it didn't go state by state, Loving v Virginia settled the matter in one concise decision.
2012-05-08 11:25:29 PM
1 votes:

BravadoGT: Wayne 985: BravadoGT: 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.

How principled of him. Good thing he's put the cynical politics of the past behind him.

Which is worse?
A) Obama backs off gay rights until his second term, then comes and provides substantial support.
B) Obama comes out strong for gay marriage in the election cycle, narrowly loses, and President Romney does nothing to help.

So you're saying his intellectual dishonesty is ok, because it's STRATEGIC intellectual dishonesty. Got it. Have to break a few eggs, right?


I'm saying that you can be idealistic and probably lose (which I do admire) or you can be pragmatic and win a little later. Yes, sometimes a battle requires sacrifice to win. I don't like it, but I accept it.
2012-05-08 11:25:13 PM
1 votes:

stonent: It's called states rights... Look it up.


-3/10
2012-05-08 11:24:16 PM
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Frank N Stein: What a horrible world we live in where the public gets to vote on what the laws are

Especially when it's on backwards batshiat bigotry BS like this.

Yeah. That post was my troll attempt. It's a shame that this passed.


Well bravo on the troll (I always appreciate good work).

This just means we need more northerners to move down to Charlotte and Raleigh to dilute the inbred rednecks.
2012-05-08 11:23:24 PM
1 votes:

SharkTrager: Listen gay folks. I have been married. Did it twice. These votes are kinda like helmet and seat-belt laws.

We really are doing this for your own good.

You'll thank us later.


When my husband can't be at my side on my death bed I will make sure you are thanked.
2012-05-08 11:22:20 PM
1 votes:

jizonny: Sometimes I think the Fark logo needs to be backed by a huge rainbow, because that's all who post here.

I guess tolerance only works when you want someone to accept your views? You shouldn't have to tolerate theirs? Is this not a majority rules country?

If I want someone to recognize the sweet love I make to the horse in the barn, should I be entitled to tax benefits and societal acceptance?


0/10 you smell like horse vagina
2012-05-08 11:21:48 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: Specifically, the more fundamentalist and extreme they go, the easier it makes it to overturn legally under due process and equal protection.


Exactamundo. In fact, it's effectively assured when this issue finally reaches the Supremes (or a circuit/appellate justice who has some cojones).
2012-05-08 11:21:44 PM
1 votes:

Wayne 985: FormlessOne: I'd be more disappointed in North Carolina, if I wasn't reminded in the article that they're the 32nd state to codify such bigotry.

What we should really be ashamed of is that, in this country, the "land of the free and home of the brave," there are still people here that aren't free, and they're kept that way by cowards fearful of change.

I read an article today that national support for same-sex marriage is in the majority for the second year in a row. It'll take time, and there are fluctuations, but homophobic policies are on the way out. It's a downward trend on the whole, so take solace in that if nothing else.


I realize that what we're seeing here are the last-ditch efforts of the outgoing mindset. The problem is that, as with the economic poison pill the Bush administration pitched prior to leaving office, it'll take a lot of time, money, and effort to repair the damage these knuckle-draggers are causing on their way out.

It's going to take a national effort - perhaps even modifying the Bill of Rights, or including a new amendment - to deal with this mess.
2012-05-08 11:21:43 PM
1 votes:
Way to hold up the stereotype, North Carolina.
2012-05-08 11:21:43 PM
1 votes:

jizonny: Sometimes I think the Fark logo needs to be backed by a huge rainbow, because that's all who post here.

I guess tolerance only works when you want someone to accept your views? You shouldn't have to tolerate theirs? Is this not a majority rules country?

If I want someone to recognize the sweet love I make to the horse in the barn, should I be entitled to tax benefits and societal acceptance?


I am curious: do you suffer physical discomfort as a consequence of your mental retardation, or does your intellectual incompetence instead produce an ongoing sensation of euphoria?
2012-05-08 11:21:41 PM
1 votes:
You can't hold a man down in a ditch unless you linger there with him. Careful all you bigots. The ghey rubs off. Especially in mud.
2012-05-08 11:20:55 PM
1 votes:

Person: zipdog: I'm a straight man and I can't marry a man either. I fail to see how we have unequal rights.

That's because you're not particularly intelligent.


i242.photobucket.com
2012-05-08 11:20:53 PM
1 votes:
Hooray for BS wedge issues.

/My county went 70-30 opposed.
2012-05-08 11:20:41 PM
1 votes:

jizonny: Sometimes I think the Fark logo needs to be backed by a huge rainbow, because that's all who post here.


CRY MOAR EMO TEATARD.
2012-05-08 11:20:33 PM
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: What a horrible world we live in where the public gets to vote on what the laws are


Especially when it's on backwards batshiat bigotry BS like this.
2012-05-08 11:19:37 PM
1 votes:

Wayne 985: BravadoGT: 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.

How principled of him. Good thing he's put the cynical politics of the past behind him.

Which is worse?
A) Obama backs off gay rights until his second term, then comes and provides substantial support.
B) Obama comes out strong for gay marriage in the election cycle, narrowly loses, and President Romney does nothing to help.


So you're saying his intellectual dishonesty is ok, because it's STRATEGIC intellectual dishonesty. Got it. Have to break a few eggs, right?
2012-05-08 11:19:23 PM
1 votes:

jizonny: Sometimes I think the Fark logo needs to be backed by a huge rainbow, because that's all who post here.

I guess tolerance only works when you want someone to accept your views? You shouldn't have to tolerate theirs? Is this not a majority rules country?


Is this irony or stupidity?
2012-05-08 11:19:13 PM
1 votes:

lmxloco: I'm saddened beyond words at most of my state...the state I used to love.

The worst part? I'm willing to bet most people who voted yes didn't realize there was already a statute stating that gay marriages in NC weren't valid (51-1.2) and saw this as a way to stop gay people from marrying.


To provide fair consideration: individuals who oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions are, without exception, either delusional or unintelligent. Both are possible, but at least one condition must be present.
2012-05-08 11:17:39 PM
1 votes:
I remember a week ago in one of these threads some NC farker was vigorously defending his state from the stereotypes of a bunch of bible-thumping backwards redneck hicks. Said that the state was much more progressive and different now.

Well, what do you know, it looks like the stereotypes were right all along. Bunch of ignorant backwards hicks.
2012-05-08 11:17:26 PM
1 votes:
Do you guys really think Sherman would support gay marriage?
2012-05-08 11:17:11 PM
1 votes:

TheManofPA: Remember, the slogan is "not anti-gay but pro-marriage"

I think it is more (NSFW language): Link


I bet those people have "lots of gay friends" too.


/or if they actually did, they probably don't anymore
2012-05-08 11:17:04 PM
1 votes:

Soup4Bonnie: Backwards ass hicks.


xebeche_tzu: America to N.C.: you are all irrelevant inbred retards.


Guilt by association, the Fark way.

/Voted AGAINST.
2012-05-08 11:17:04 PM
1 votes:

farkityfarker: I noticed that Romney could only take about 2/3 of the vote even though his two main challengers have dropped out.


Oh, and that applies to all 3 states that had primaries today, not just NC.

Seems like he should be doing better now that he's virtually unopposed.
2012-05-08 11:16:53 PM
1 votes:

jaylectricity: This is why my girlfriend and I will never get married. It obviously doesn't mean anything, and there are people that want to get married can't. So what's the point?


Future Mr. Mouse and I made a conscious decision to patronize DC and Maryland based businesses for when we start the wedding planning. So what that we have to drive a whole extra couple of minutes here and there to get our goods.
2012-05-08 11:16:15 PM
1 votes:
What a horrible world we live in where the public gets to vote on what the laws are
2012-05-08 11:13:55 PM
1 votes:
I'm a huge supporter of gay rights, but I'm hardly fazed by this, mostly because I saw it coming from a mile away. This is North Carolina. It's not historically the most tolerant or friendly place for people who aren't heterosexual WASPs.
2012-05-08 11:13:42 PM
1 votes:
Come, now- do gays really want approbation from people who think dirt is an entree?
2012-05-08 11:13:42 PM
1 votes:
What a complete and total embarrassment.
i0.kym-cdn.com
2012-05-08 11:12:59 PM
1 votes:
Glad to be out of that state. Fark you, North Carolina.
2012-05-08 11:12:04 PM
1 votes:
I noticed that Romney could only take about 2/3 of the vote even though his two main challengers have dropped out.
2012-05-08 11:11:00 PM
1 votes:
As much as I enjoy States' Rights, this is the sort of thing I'm hoping eventually becomes overturned by a Federal law.
2012-05-08 11:10:21 PM
1 votes:
Wake him

www.danasresort.com
2012-05-08 11:10:14 PM
1 votes:
Well, now they can go back to reporting one anothers' pets to the authorities.

http://stalinists.pfft/.
2012-05-08 11:09:20 PM
1 votes:
Look what the queers are doing to the soil! Rainbows in the sprinkler. It ain't natural.
2012-05-08 11:08:39 PM
1 votes:
And another reason why I like living in MA.

/bring the stereotypes
2012-05-08 11:08:18 PM
1 votes:
The best part is when they had accused rapist and admitted adulterer Bill Clinton lecturing North Carolinians on marriage. LOL dumbass liberals.
2012-05-08 11:07:48 PM
1 votes:

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Can I still knock up my mistress while my wife dies of cancer?


With impunity..
2012-05-08 11:07:33 PM
1 votes:
So they have adopted the Obama position on gay marriage? Sounds rather socialisty and kenyan if you ask me. If they really wanted to stick it to the usurper, they would have voted to allow gay marriage.
2012-05-08 11:07:12 PM
1 votes:
If these Greys want to get married they will get out their spaceships and share their technology
2012-05-08 11:06:39 PM
1 votes:

Generation_D: Damn bible punks. Its always something with them. And black voters. Many ironies as one minority denies rights to another.


When the issue of gay marriage was being decided upon about a year ago in a different state, African Americans drove up from a church from a different state to protest the possibility of gay marriage, and gathered at the deciding state's capital and sang 'we shall overcome.'

The irony was beautiful.
2012-05-08 11:06:15 PM
1 votes:
/Duke sucks
//but can't get married
are you insuating that the blue devil is a homosexual
2012-05-08 11:05:42 PM
1 votes:
I submitted this with angrier headline.

/but am still wigged out over Michele Bachmann getting a Swiss passport. Srsly? Hell, you lose a Secret clearance if you take a second citizenship, and she sits on the House Intel committee?
2012-05-08 11:05:03 PM
1 votes:
Remember, the slogan is "not anti-gay but pro-marriage"

I think it is more (NSFW language): Link
2012-05-08 11:04:51 PM
1 votes:
Redneck dipwads are just ostracizing themselves from modern society. Hope they don't expect growth or tourism dollars any day soon.
2012-05-08 11:04:45 PM
1 votes:
Damn bible punks. Its always something with them. And black voters. Many ironies as one minority denies rights to another.
2012-05-08 11:04:09 PM
1 votes:

Cythraul: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: For shame, NC. You should be embarrassed of yourselves. There's no reason to deny other human beings basic rights. Something is farked up in America.

Don't blame me! I voted against it.


You should have been a million people you lazy bastiche!
2012-05-08 11:02:30 PM
1 votes:
Thank God we protected the Caucasian race.

/asshats
//voted against it
 
Displayed 405 of 405 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report