Saturday, March 17, 2012

Obama Nosing In on NC Marriage Amendment Vote

Obama Nosing in on NC Marriage Amendment Vote

137 comments:

Blogger said...

Hope or change or pure political hypocrisy. President Obama’s words when he was campaigning in 2008: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. God's in the mix.”

Sarkazein said...

From Blogger's link- "With North Carolina a key battleground state, Obama decided to take the potentially risky step of wading into a divisive social issue."

Obama is all about divisiveness. He couldn't resist. He has been the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He has never acted, domestically, as President of the United States.

Sarkazein said...

Abstaining from voting is fine as long as the abstainer realizes they voted with the winning side. Politically speaking, of course.

Reader said...

I have tried to restrain myself from posting...except the other day when I posted the liberal link on how they should educate us on why we shouldn't vote for the amendment.

Blogger, I'm surprised you would admit Obama might make you change your mind. While posting threads about the marriage amendment, I wasn't sure what most of you think about this amendment. I'm voting for the amendment, just to make sure it cannot be changed later on. It doesn't matter to me if Obama gets involved or not...I believe God intended for marriage to be between a man and woman. It sure it hard not to be conformed to this world, but I'm giving it my best shot.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, you are mistaken. You only vote with the winning side if you vote that way. Not voting is a third choice in which there is no one you can support. You have voted with no one and against all of them.

Sarkazein said...

I'm trying to come up with some killer analogies... I'll get back to you.

Happily Married said...

Blogger, Obama did say what he believed FOR HIM. He is also been direct about just because he believes something for him does not mean it should be the law of the land. He is a strong supporter of freedom of belief.
Reader, its great that you believe God meant marriage between a man and a woman, and I hope you are not homosexual for the reason of your personal beliefs. Why again, are you forcing your beliefs on everyone else?

Blogger said...

Happily If you are correct then tell me why he is sticking his nose in my state's business? I know North Carolina is a must have for him. Does he really think NC is full of lefties? His actions are not only detestable, but don't even make sense.

Blogger said...

Sark: "Obama is all about divisiveness. He couldn't resist."

This probably is the answer Sark.

NewGuy said...

Catholics believe that birth control is a sin against God. I don't agree, but I respect their right to believe that and I respect the right of the church to preach this belief.

I think it is a horrible violation of the First Amendments for the Obama administration to REQUIRE Catholic organizations to provide (directly or indirectly) contraception to it's employees. It's telling the church that even though they believe it is an offense against GOD, they must, nontheless comply with Obamas mandate.

That doesn't seem to me to be coming from someone who is a "strong supporter of freedom of belief"...
Unless, of course, you mean "you have the freedom to BELIEVE what you want, but you must ACT in accordance with MY rules, not your beliefs!"

Sarkazein said...

It certainly seems the Hispanic vote would be against Obama on this one.

Happily Married said...

New Guy - U R absolutely right. The protection of women's health (actually all health - but as women's health is regularly ignored) is an important issue and because it has been ignored it needs to be federally mandated. Understand, I do not believe the federal government has any business in private business or religious institutions regarding mandates. Mandates should only be for those that take advantage of federal funding. As soon as the catholic church rescinds it tax exempt status, they can do whatever the hell they want. If you are a woman that works for them at that point, that's your own problem. If you take federal money, you should not be free to ignore women's health issues. If the Catholic church wants absolute freedom, rescind their tax exempt status. I support women's health when the catholic church is sucking of the federal govt teat.

NewGuy said...

Interesting point of view, Happy...
I gather then that you are of the mind that the federal government should provide free contraception to those that want it? Or rather, that they should require someone else to provide it....

But, what I did find surprising was your position that since the Catholic Church is tax exempt, they should not be able to excercise their first amendment rights UNLESS they coincide with the administration in power?
Presumably you would allow future adminstrations to decide what positions the various religions should take and those not in conformance with what those administrations believe to be in someone's best interest, they should not have their tax exempt status?
Of course you would also apply that to other tax exempt organizations as well, wouldn't you? I mean , you wouldn't be hypocritical enough to only deny tax exemption to those religions and organizations you disagree with, would you? Certainly you, being a fair person, would accept the next Republican adminstration's denial of tax exempt status to those who don't agree with their positions.

Happily Married said...

What would be wrong with free contraception to those who want it? We have too many people in the world. It is a lot cheaper to provide contraception than to support people later. Call it an investment. I also believe in freedom of speech and belief - as long as you don't impose it on others. The Catholic church is IMPOSING its beliefs on its workers. That is fine if you are not federally supported where dollars are free from religious inclinations. It is fine to speak your mind - not impose your will. By the way, I am not democrat or republican. I am a free thinking American who thinks both parties have their good points and bad points.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married- There ain't no free ride. Darn, I wish I had thought of that. Turn the Church over to the IRS. That's freedom! Let Congressmen write the New New Testament in the House Ways and Means Committee.
Subjugate the Church to a 6 ft high stack of government IRS regs. That'll fix it! Lib

Liberals don't want the government in their bedrooms.. unless the government is buying, of course.

Sarkazein said...

Danged that Church... imposing its views on people! What has this world come to? Darn glad government doesn't impose its views on people.


HMMMM... let's see, I can change Churches... I guess I can change governments too.. right?

Anonymous said...

Happily Married. You said it's a lot cheaper to provide contraception than to support people later. You seem to be saying that if the taxpayers don't pay for your contraception, we will have to support your children.

Why don't you and your husband just take the responsibility for your own birth control and for raising your own kids? Is that too much to ask of you?

GIG said...

I am ashamed to say i once considered my self a supporter of the basic values of this site.

Now it is turned int to a site where the vocal bigoted members not only want to say who can love who and still have the same rights as any one else.

Now it is a place where those same people want to say how to have sex with someone so as to not have unwanted pregnancies.

I believe those most outspoken here would like to be able to legislate who gets to have sex at all and who with.

Nobody said...

Gig,
That's an incredible leap of logic, with a good dose of name-calling tossed in. It is sad to have seen this one issue turn you into someone who wholeheartedly adopts the rhetoric and tactics of the left. I have enjoyed reading a good many of your posts on other issues, most of them argued with the calm, logical tone of a clear thinking conservative. If you disagree with the posts supporting this issue, argue your points without the insults and name calling. Surely you can at least admit that people of faith have the right to disagree with you as a matter of conscious, don't you?

Sarkazein said...

GIG- You are not allowed to have sex with anyone at any time. You are not allowed to marry anyone ever.

You must, however, donate money to Happily Married's birth control expenses.

Just trying to help you in your search for victimhood.

Sarkazein said...

The liberals said government run healthcare would never have "death panels". Yet, in reading Happily Married's wishes for population control, it is evident there is already some concern on her part that Mommy and Daddy (government), won't have enough money to take care of her if too many other babies are born.
This is one of the big problems with giving government more and more control. Those who want the control (Nanny) quickly develop a selfishness. "More babies, less milk for me." More old people, less healthcare for me.... death panels.

GIG said...

Sark, I would happily give my last cent to Marrieds cause. I would do that long before i would donate it to any organisation or imaginary friend following group that wants to pass their judgement on who should love and how to have sex in to law upon others.

But as i have stated, I will be voting against children, and seniors, and anyone who wants to love and have the same rights as you.

Your ever persuasive logic has won me over to the i know better then you side.

Nobody said...

Gig,
Do you consider Obama to be a bigot because he believes marriage to be between a man and a woman and that marriage, for Christians, has religious significance? Would you support a civil union bestowing all the legal rights of marriage without the traditional religious implications associated with the term marriage for many people of faith, or would that viewpoint automatically make someone a bigot in your mind?

Nobody said...

Lib,
This post will not make any sense once yours has been removed, but your continuing to post here after being asked to leave for repetitive, non-sensical posts is the perfect example of the liberal mindset. Even when not welcome, you feel the need to boorishly impose yourself onto others. A person does not, in your world view, have the right to believe differently from you. To do so makes them intolerant, bigoted, racist and sexist. To you, tolerance is only extended to those who are just like you. Do you not see the irony in that? GIG, pleeeaassse, recognize how much you have sounded like Lib on this one issue in tone and tactics.

Sarkazein said...

There are several groups of gays against same sex "marriage". Obama said he is against it. All bigots? Or just those with differing opinions.

Nobody said...

Maybe the better and more general question here is, "do people of faith have freedom of religion and religious conscious today?" Is it acceptable to drive religious people completely out of the public sphere and prevent them from expressing an opinion based on their beliefs? Or will they be exposed to condescending attitudes and name-calling when they do?

GIG said...

Nobody, I consider anyone a bigot who thinks that the choice of who someone has sex with determines the right to marriage.

Religion has nothing to do with it to me as an atheist. I do not think religion has any place in determining law.

My not believing in an imaginary being should not give me any more right to judge the right to marriage, then someone who does believe in an imaginary being.

Nobody said...

Gig,
Since religion does not matter to you, would you support a civil union as I asked above as a compromise, or are you so rigid and hostile over this issue that no compromise is possible?

guy faulkes said...

G.I.G., I have to admit to being surprised and disappointed at you actions over this issue.

The regular members of this blog have disagreed with each other many times. However, with one exception, we all wear big boy and girl britches and realize not everyone thinks as we do. (The one exception was asked to leave for repetitive obtuse postings that tried to hijack every thread on the blog.) We still make our arguments to each other without whining, calling each other names, and making personal attacks.

For instance, Blogger, New Guy, and Sark are never going to agree with the Wolf, Rico, probably Reader and me about Romney. We still do not attack each other for having a different opinion. We do argue fervently to support our individual opinions.

This is the behavior I would have expected from you.

A person is not a bigot or racist just because he does not agree with you. In order for this to be a legitimate claim, then one must have made continued support of a racist or bigoted issue as the person who was banned did with pedophilia. NO ONE has done that so as to legitimize your claims. It is an issue e of faith alone as the issue is irrelevant for any other reason because a legal union and a marriage accomplish the same legal results. Therefore, legally it is a non issue and cannot be bigoted or racist.

guy faulkes said...

Should have said civil union instead of legal union. Thank you Nobody. You were faster on the enter key than I was.

GIG said...

Nobody, why does the sexual preference of somebody man or woman have to determine that they are only able to be in a civil union not a marriage ?

In my opinion if your sexual preference is not heterosexual then you get a different right?.

Is that not the same as having different drinking fountains do to race since the water is the same ?

Nobody said...

Gig,

You failed to answer the question, but by your careful evasion I take it you would not support a civil union. The comparison between race and sexual preference simply does not work -- they are not the same. A gay man CAN choose to have sex with a woman, but a black man cannot choose to be white for a day. This is the problem for gay marriage activists -- no compromise is acceptable and no differing viewpoint is allowable. Your comment about believing or not believing in an imaginary being demonstrated a complete lack of respect for people of all faiths. I would wager most Christians would tolerate a civil union compromise. Rejecting that and demanding use of the term marriage demands that people who might have a moral objection to a homosexual lifestyle not only tolerate that lifestyle, but also accept and condone it thought state sanctioned marriages. If you think this is an intolerant stand and that my being willing to accept a civil union and live-and-let-live attitude makes me a bigot, I challenge you to try living an openly gay lifestyle in an Islamic theocracy. You might then develop some appreciation for the tolerance of American Christians today.

Sarkazein said...

GIG- This attempt of yours to equate racial discrimination with same-sex "marriage" is ridiculous.
Unless, of course, you believe 'White' homosexuals were allowed to marry each other and 'Colored' homosexuals were not.

G.I.G said...

Nobody. If marriage and civil union are the same to you, then why do I need a license to marry?

I do not know for sure if one is required for a so called civil union. if so then all the more reason to just have one?

Marriage for all preferences regardless of sexual preference. If for no other reason then it would be less costly to tax payers to only have to administer on type of marriage.

G.I.G said...

Nobody and Sarc, it seems to me your reluctance to allow gay marriage is really about your not wanting to consider someone equal to you in right to marry solely because of their sexual partner choice.

Correct me if i am wrong and please explain to me how who someone loves and marries affects you.

G.I.G said...

Nobody this is a blatent lie on your part

". A gay man CAN choose to have sex with a woman, but a black man cannot choose to be white for a day"

Almost every study not funded by a christian think tank has proven sexual preference is not a matter of choice.

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

Sarkazein said...

GIG- Re-read the 138+ comments on the other thread.... nothing has changed.

What do you think about Obama having declared himself anti gay "marriage" and then involving himself in a the state's issue? All while loosing the war in Afghanistan, helping gas futures rise to record levels, dividing the country on any issue he can think of, hiding the true unemployment and inflation figures, presenting forged documents to the country, letting his 13 year old daughter spring break in Mexico while his State Dept warns others not to go... etc.

G.I.G said...

I am with you Sark, I am voting against the measure. I want to damage the rights of children, seniors, domestic relationships, and those who choose to sleep with someone you do not approve of.

G.I.G said...

To the other readers of the blog I apologize for so many posts. I should not have allowed my self to repute the rights bashing.

I have seen the light and agree with the posters here that disapprove of sleeping with anyone they do not approve of.

I will abstain from these rights threads as I said i would.

Sarkazein said...

GIG wrote- "I have seen the light and agree with the posters here that disapprove of sleeping with anyone they do not approve of."

I cannot recall anyone writing anything like that except you. You may be seeking validation?

Happily Married said...

Srak,

I do not want turn the church over to the IRS. I am simply stating that, if they want to not be subject to Federal regulations based on health or discrimination, they should opt out of the Federal subsidy of not paying taxes. If they want to pay taxes, they can force their female employees to abide by their beliefs and not pay for contraception. My simple suggestions have been so blown out of proportion. Then you call me a Lib. I believe firmly in guns and the death penalty. I am smart enough and open minded enough to have ideas and opinions that range form conservative to liberal to progressive (unlike most close minded people on this site). The only view that government imposes is in a sense of fairness and non discrimination (as it should be). You can believe anything you want to believe - gov does not control thought. But when you act on it, that's when you become a bigot. You vote for this amendment, you become a bigot. You force someone to act according to your personal beliefs, you become a bigot. By the way, I support not only my own birth control, my own family but I run a business that supports three other families. I support a civil union for all government entities to get marriage out of gov and back in the hands of religion. Let you religious nut jobs identify whether or not you want to marry and who you want to marry. Granted - some religions will determine on their own that gay marriage is OK. Gov should not determine that. I believe in freedom of thought and belief. I believe that no one should be able to force anyone to conform to their beliefs. If the gov pays for it or part of it - you should not be able to discriminate - period.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married- So in a perfect liberal world, the Church loses either way.

Actually the "Lib" was the start of the next sentence not noticed in the proof read.

Your use of the term bigot cheapens the term. If the Church has to pay taxes they then become subject to the IRS mountain of rules.

guy faulkes said...

I guess those who feel strongly about the issue will decide it, one way or the other.

I had not planned to vote on it at all because it is a non issue, but since G.I.G. has attacked me personally, I may vote for it. Sometimes it is better to present a rational argument than to attack people. Obama has negatively influenced Blogger as has G.I.G. with me.

NewGuy said...

Happy...You seem like a perfectly reasonable person in all respects but I don't understand your position that Freedom of Religion is somehow subject to the terms of the administration. Should a religious or charitable organization really lose their tax exempt status because they choose to follow their religious beliefs? Should Jewish Hospitals be required to serve pork in their cafeterias or else lose tax exempt status?
How about planned parenthood. Should their tax exempt status be dependent upon which party is in power?

I respect your right to advocate any position you choose. But, to use the power of the IRS to require a religious organization to violate it's own basic tenets is not how I see our first amendment working.

We all agree that you have the right to use birth control as you see fit. How that becomes a right to have someone else pay for it, I don't understand. And your position that the church is "imposing" their beliefs upon others is just ludicrous. It is you who is trying to impose your beliefs on the church. Nobody in this discussion has argued that women should be denied contraception. That's like arguing that my employer promotes tooth decay and deprives me of my right to brush my teeth when they don't provide me with free toothpaste!

Happily Married said...

Sark,

How does the church lose exactly? They can give up their tax exempt status and pay taxes like all other public entities and they get force their female employees to do anything they "believe" or they can simply have their insurance company supply contraception to those that want it. They can tell their employees all they want that Catholics believe contraception is s sin. Beautiful thing about freedom of speech, belief, and religion. They just cant force it on someone. That is the whole point. The forcing of beliefs. My proposal do not force my beliefs on anyone. If you think marriage is between a man and a woman I suggest you follow your beliefs and only marry the opposite sex. If you think contraception is a sin - dont use it. If you think aboprtion is wrong - dont have one. It is so frustrating that most conservative approaches are about force. Please tell me how the liberal approach will force anything on you - and try not to be so dramatic as to say "taxes". Everybody always pays taxes. the minor sticking point is the percent and exactly where it goes to. I am asking about social policies - how do any liberal approaches to social policy force you to do something you do not want to do?

Sarkazein said...

Happily- You've got to be kidding. Let's just take Obama-care as an example... do I even need to list the loss of one's rights in this? Do you think it a coincidence the IRS was chosen to enforce Obama-care?

The Church loses either way, because in your liberal world they either have to pay taxes OR they have to participate in something they are against (birth control).

Pay for you own birth control if you want it. Develop ANOTHER free-bee birth control charity and hand them out to University of Georgetown law students who can't afford there bc pills. Hand them out at the Starbucks on Wisconsin Ave where they are sipping $4 Lattes while on their laptops.

Anonymous said...

When the government of the United States can mandate a religious organization to subsidize activity which is contrary to the religious beliefs of that organization, we all lose.

NewGuy said...

Happily, you are suggesting that the government determine which religious beliefs/activities are acceptable to the government and advocating taxing those religions who have a different view.

Incredible!

H said...

We are not talking about serving pork here and this is not a freedom of religion issue. The catholic church is still able to believe what it wants to believe and preach that contraception is a sin. The concept is it cannot force its employees to buy into it. Yes, the government determines "the good of the people" all of the time. The government has many times determined it was good to go to war on my dime and I am against war. I still believe war is wrong, but they use my dime. Given the tax exempt status of the church, the government can say "don't use your money - use the money you would otherwise use to pay taxes" if it makes the church feel better.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married wrote- "They can give up their tax exempt status and pay taxes like all other public entities and they get force their female employees to do anything they "believe" or they can simply have their insurance company supply contraception to those that want it."

Your tax point about the Church is just a dig at the Church. Under Obama-care, it didn't matter whether or not they are tax exempt. Either way, they would have to participate against their will.

Sarkazein said...

H- Find the phrase "birth control" in the US Constitution or in Texas's or North Carolina's Constitution. "War" you will find.

Sarkazein said...

Maybe if the Churches unionized they could get exemptions from Obama.

"I am the Minister at Local 112 Lutheran Union"- he said.

NewGuy said...

Try as you might to change the facts, your constant repeating that they want to "force" employees to buy into their position is just ludicrous - and you surely must know that.

Does not providing them with liquor mean that the church is forcing them not to drink? Does not providing them soap mean that the church is forcing them to not bathe? How does not providing them with contraception force them to not use contraception? The church is also paying them a salary. Does the church mandate that they not use any of that salary to provide their own birth control?


It's a simple issue. The church believes as it does - and it has followed these doctrines for hundreds of years. It IS a freedom of religion issue and it doesn't matter how many times you say that it isn't, it doesn't change that fact.
Requiring a church to provide something which they consider to be a sin against God is wrong! Whether it be contraception, abortion, whatever!

The church is not denying you contraception, they just are not providing it as a fringe benefit for you.

Happily Married said...

New Guy,

You make some sense. One thing that separates me from most of the narrow minded people on blogs is that I ask questions to gain knowledge and see others perspectives. I also am intelligent enough to appreciate those things and adjust my stances accordingly. All that being said, I believe that access to free or affordable birth control is important to women. It does not make them sluts. It makes them human. If the church is unwilling to provide it, I would recommend that the Federal gov would. I have said before that birth control is an investment in preventing having to support people later in life _ no Sark - not because I am worried about the money running out. I am worried about the Fed having to pay for narrow minded decisions made today 40 years from now. I am sure everyone is now going to come down on me like rain despite the efforts I have made to see others perspectives and find middle ground.

Anonymous said...

HM, what do you have against providing for your personal needs yourself?

A sane rebuttal that was posted on Watauga Watch that actually made it past the censor? "If you are required to have insurance and the insurance is required to finance either contraception or abortion, then many people's first amendment rights have been violated. End of story.

Happily Married said...

In retrospect, it is the same stance regarding gay marriage. I would not be in favor of forcing churches to marry gay couples. However, if the state has marriage in its statutes or laws, then marriages should be a right for all and not just for some. So how does insurance work for your spouse at these institutions? Should employees just beware that they might be discriminated against (i.e. some employees get benefits that others don't because they are gay.) What is a reasonable solution here?

NewGuy said...

Ah....now free or affordable birth control is a whole 'nother debate! Remove the church from the equation and it becomes a totally different issue!

I would ask, why "free"? All of the medications that we purchase under our health insurance policy are subject to a deductible and a co-pay. If you accept that Contraception should be provided under a health care policy, why wouldn't it be provided on the same basis as other medications are? Just askin'.

And Happily...I commend you on your willingness to debate this issue with hardly any name calling or insults! We disagree - but you have earned my respect and I look forward to hearing your views on other topics that come up here from time to time!

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Just because you are required to have insurance does not mean you have to use it to purchase birth control. For instance, a catholic that works at ASU has their birth control covered, if requested. Is that persons first amendment rights being violated? - that does not make sense.

Sarkazein said...

What is the reasonable solution? Get government out of it. Quit attempting to mandate a Utopia. It is divisive.

If an unmarried woman is going to have sex, have her make her partner or if a University of Georgetown law student 'partners' chip in and leave a few bucks on the night stand.

Sarkazein said...

If she is happily married, tell her hubby to take on a second job. Earn it.

Nobody said...

"Nobody this is a blatent (sic) lie on your part

". A gay man CAN choose to have sex with a woman, but a black man cannot choose to be white for a day""

I know the course of this thread has changed since I was last here, but I must address this. You say this, but then continually use the term "sexual preference," or this quote from your post at 10:06, just before the post I quoted above:

"Nobody and Sarc, it seems to me your reluctance to allow gay marriage is really about your not wanting to consider someone equal to you in right to marry solely because of their sexual partner CHOICE." (Caps mine)

YOU use the term choice. Preference doesn't sound like no choice whatsoever. If I say, "I prefer chocolate ice cream," one can infer that that means I would eat vanilla if I had to. A straight man COULD have sex with another man and a gay man COULD have sex with a woman. In both cases, it might be an undesirable choice. Are you arguing than no gay man has ever, out of fear of persecution, married, fathered children while living a double life? I thought that was where the phrase, "coming out" came from (Sorry, I'm thinking of a Seinfeld episode or Happily Divorced right now) My point regarding comparisons between race and sexual preference/choice/whatever stands.

Nobody said...

Finally, I didn't really have a strong opinion on the amendment until this conversation. As Guy has stated, you've convinced me to vote for this amendment and encourage my friends and family to do the same. It is not about wanting someone to not be equal to me as you state. Your snarling, insulting, demeaning attitude, so characteristic of the gay rights lobby today has convinced me that gay marriage isn't really about acquisition of equal rights available in civil unions. It is about forcing people of faith, any faith, and ALL people, to give up their beliefs and fully accept and condone a lifestyle they may disagree with. To you, one cannot hold personal beliefs regarding homosexuality, even if they tolerate that lifestyle in every other aspect. Most people believe, as expressed in the Obama quote at the beginning of this thread, that marriage carries religious significance. Demanding marriage and being satisfied with nothing else, even if equal in every other way, MUST mean that ulterior motives are at work -- to make it so that people no longer have the right to think differently about homosexuality than you. I have tried to coax you into a more civil tone -- you called me a bigot. I mentioned the religious issue -- you deride religious people as people who believe in an "imaginary being." You have so brilliantly illustrated my point and convinced me that this is the case. I will also refrain from further posting on this topic -- I regret that I waded in.

Sarkazein said...

Nobody, I envy your ability to express a thought in writing.

Anonymous said...

You miss the point, HM. If I'm forced to purchase insurance that grants benefits for abortion and birth control paid for from premiums that I contributed, to, I have been forced to participate in both abortion and birth control. You have used my money to provide them.

It makes perfect sense.

Nobody said...

Thanks, Sark. I probably spend too much time on these posts, but it helps develop my thoughts -- good mental exercise.

NewGuy said...

My compliments as well, Nobody. Your posts are well thought out, well reasoned and certainly well written.

I'm envious!

matt said...

I havn't posted in years.... I hope this comment sees you all well.

I was brought back to this site after just happening to read an e-mail from the boone tea party. I am going to post my response to an email here as well.


I was involved with the Boone Tea Party for some time. In fact, I spoke at the Boone Tea Party's initial gathering, must have been 3 or 4 years ago now, when we set up outside of the Hardees and turned out a great crowd. There were many terrific speeches that day.... focusing on limited government, freedom and liberty. The message made sense, and we attracted a large, diverse crowd for that very reason. That had been the reason the Tea Party had been able to grow.

Now, The last couple months I have been reading email about the Boone tea party wasting their time supporting a cause to TAKE AWAY American's freedoms and liberties, such as this marriage issue.
Perhaps I am just out of the loop here, can someone please justify how we manage to say we are for limiting the role of government in people's lives, limiting restrictions of freedom and liberty while supporting measures that do exactly the opposite?
Why is gay marriage a government issue?

The idea of limited government goes far and beyond just limiting government from certain aspects in which you disagree with. The practice of this idea must encompass every aspect of government. When it is used only to support YOUR beliefs, or YOUR ideals, but scrapped when it does not, it is nothing more than a ploy for a partisan political party movement, something of which I fear the tea party has become.

It is ironic really, a group that says it is for limiting government is favor of passing so many new laws to expand the reach of the government into even more homes in America.
Where is the defense of our rights to freedom and liberty in this issue? Who has stood up an questioned why the tea party should support a cause that limits these rights?

Matt

Sarkazein said...

Sorry Matt y'er a little late, it has already been decided. See this and a previous post with over 100 comments.

I missed that part of history. When was marriage including "same-sex"? When did it stop... as in rights taken away?

Sarkazein said...

Yes Matt, I remember those early Tea Party rallies. Most of the signs were demanding gay "marriage". In fact many Tea Party members had their gay marriages performed right there at the rallies.

Sarkazein said...

Matt- Did you hear Ted Nugent's speech a the Tea Party rally in San Antonio. He was all about gay marriage.

NewGuy said...

Interesting to note that the California Democratic Party is coming to NC to lobby against amendment 1.

Yes, that's right...I did say "CALIFORNIA"...

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/california_democratic_party_will_mobilize_against_north_carolina_marriage_amendment

Sarkazein said...

AKA Carpetbaggers.

Anonymous said...

I do not know yet how I will vote on Amendment 1.
If the California Democratic Party, President Obama, Governor Beverly Perdue and the people over on Watauga Watch are all opposed to it, well, that makes me think!

matt said...

Sark, I have a lot of catching up to do. I skimmed through this topic, which seemed to be more about birth control than gay marriage.

Sark,
"When was marriage including "same-sex"?"
Why would you need specifics on this issue? Where does it say that gay people can vote? Where does it say that gay people can use the same bathroom as you?
By your logic one could ask: "When has voting included "homosexuals"?"

Your answer is more laws and regulations... please tell me how you justify that you are for limited government again?

Sarkazein said...

Matt- No, you are asking the government to pass more laws if you are asking same-sex marriage be included in the law.The Amendment is preventing more laws from being passed as to include anyone in only a certain lifestyle persuasion of sexual preference receiving special rights. Don't you think we have enough laws? Do we really need the government telling us what marriage is? I've always known.

Sarkazein said...

Matt- Does the voting rights in the US address any sexual preference, I missed that unless you are writing about the 19th Amendment. I saw the "Whites Only" signs on bathrooms, but never "Straights Only". What part of the country did you grow up in?

Sarkazein said...

There are some people who are asexual. Do they get to marry themselves?

Sarkazein said...

How about bi-sexuals.... two spouses, one of each? Matt- You are talking a lot of new laws there.

NewGuy said...

Recent Polling on Amendment 1

From WRAL-SurveyUSA poll of likely NC voters...
http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/10886134/


Amendment One, which would effectively bar any same-sex union in the state, will appear on the May 8 primary ballot.

SurveyUSA polled 1,001 likely voters across North Carolina between last Friday and Tuesday and found that 58 percent support the referendum. Thirty-six percent of voters oppose it, and 6 percent remain undecided.

More than 60 percent of men and 55 percent of women back the proposal. Along racial lines, 61 percent of white voters and 56 percent of black voters support it.

Support for the amendment appears to increase with age, from 50 percent among 18- to 34-year-olds to 65 percent among those age 65 and older.

Independent and moderate voters were the only demographic segments where amendment opponents held a slight advantage – although it was within the margin of error in both instances.

Among independents, opposition to the amendment is running at 47 percent, compared with 45 percent for supporters. Democratic voters are evenly split on the issue at 46 percent a side.

Voters identifying themselves as moderate oppose the amendment by a 46 to 44 percent margin.

Happily Married said...

Nobody,

Wher you are eloquent in your speech, you are so wrong in your idea that anybody is out to change your beliefs. I believe you said "accept and condone". I have written that it does not matter what you believe. The great thing about this country is freedom of belief. I do not ask you to believe or condone gay marriage - I don't really care. I do ask that you not force your beliefs on the rest of your neighbors. It is very convenient that the majority does not believe in gay marriage today and the measure will be based on a majority. It is said that the Islam religion is the fastest growing in the world. If it should so happen that Islam gained a majority in NC and they tried to institute their beliefs into the constitution, what would you say then? This is about letting people live their lives in freedom - not forcing anything on anybody. Voting for the amendment is the only force here. Voting for the amendment is bigotry - plain and simple. I have yet to hear anyone say how it is not. I have also yet to hear anyone say how gay marriage will hurt straight marriage. Try again -eloquent speakers.

matt said...

Sark,
You make my point for me! To quote you: "Don't you think we have enough laws? Do we really need the government telling us what marriage is?"

To quote what Article 14 of the N.C. constitution will say if this amendment passes:
"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."


How is this not 'government telling us what marriage is'???

The other point just didn't make it through I guess. You ask me: "When was marriage including "same-sex"?"

Since we both believe all Americans have equal basic rights, and that government exists to protect those rights, not take them away. I don't think it is on me to support where marriage is defined as same sex, but instead you have to prove why gay people should be denied those rights that are available to you and I.

You asked me to prove where marriage is defined as "Same-Sex". I don't think it has to...it is a right given to all. Just as voting is a basic right given to all. The constitution doesn't have to say specifically that "gay people can vote", Correct? So why should it have to say that "Gay people can marry".

Why do they not deserve the same rights as you?

Sarkazein said...

Matt- As in we have known what marriage is for 1,000's of years. Why do we need government to tell us what marriage is--- as in the Courts or even legislators telling us it has now changed and here is the NEW LAWS to redefine marriage. The Amendment hopes to prevent the Courts and a simple majority of legislators from writing MORE laws or a judge making rulings to change current law regarding marriage. Again I ask, will everyone be allowed to marry, or will it be restricted to only to heterosexuals and homosexuals? With one, you get the benefit of the doubt, the other it would have to be declared... unless it proves that homosexuals are actually a race like GIG and Happy think.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes brought up Samantha Powers on another thread. Samantha is a big lib advisor to Obama. Her husband Cass Sunstein, even a bigger lib, has this belief regarding marriage : (from Wiki) ----"Marriage
In a recent book, Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," argues Sunstein. He continues, "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." He goes on further, "Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," and refers to state-recognized marriage as an "official license scheme."///

Combine this with Happily Married's "baby steps" or incrementalism, and I can see where this is going. The end of the institution of marriage. Another check-off on the Communist list.

Sarkazein said...

And Cass Sunstein is an advisor to the radical Obama also.

NewGuy said...

In France, even dead people can get married!

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-wed-slain-french-soldier-posthumously-111946140.html

Blogger said...

Re: Obama's advisers Genesis 12:3 God said to Israel "I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse."

G.I.G said...

The libertarian in me likes Sunstein's idea.

If people want a religious ceremony to recognize their commitment to each other have it at their choice of building with stained glass windows and a hot line to their deity of choices ear.

If they want to join in a legally recognized commitment for tax reasons, or will and civil benefits like insurance and childcare benefits then have a civil union.

This seems like a logical separation of church and state to me

Sarkazein said...

GIG- This is where some self thought of "libertarians" get caught up with Communism or Totalitarianism. Some are not libertarians at all, they just hate this country's traditions and history. Same with the Communists. The Communists offer a Utopia and some weaker people fall for it... as in-- your enemy is my enemy. For Communism to take over, they have to destroy our historical and religious traditions and values.

Sarkazein said...

GIG- This link is a Cass Sunstein (a Communist) form of libertarianism : Libertarian Paternalism. THIS is the Google page for several links.

G.I.G said...

Sark, you are right.

Only the most strict god fearing right wing opinion on any topic is correct.

I have said repeatedly that the definition of bigotry i posted referred to myself as well. I am voting your party line all the way.

Go removal of rights!

The More the better, we need to get back to the founding fathers ways. No women voting sorry Miss Rico, and No civil rights and No women's equality.

And gay rights are nothing but ways to make the county in to a mid 60's USSR style republic.

And if you do not go to the same building with me on Sundays with the stained glass windows you will burn in a lake of lava for ever. Even if you were a great person if your not my choice of deity follower you will burn i say.

guy faulkes said...

G.I.G. I do not think you are LPOV as Rico stated on another thread, but you are certainly using the dame tactics as he did.

If you are really G.I.G., please go back to using logical arguments. I would hate for you to suffer the same fate as did LPOV.

When you are not frantic over an issue, you made some good points.

You could start by discussing (if I remember correctly) why in one post you did not like civil unions and in another you claim they are all that should be allowed.

GIG said...

Guy, your point is taken, I am done with Sarc, he is beyond helping.

I tried logic, i tried fact,s i tried giving in and agreeing with him, none of the above worked.

I am done with this topic and most likely this site.

When i started reading and posting here an open exchange of ideologies was welcomed .

Now if you do not goose step in line your shouted down and called names.

I am also guilty of retaliating, i have called a spade a spade here and given examples to the definitions of the words i used.

This was once an open forum for people ot discuss what they thougth about topics potsed by the site owner.

Now it stands as a site for people to find in web searches to make the area look close minded and petty.

To the very vocal posters who will demean the thoughts of anyone who challenges their opinion, enjoy patting each other on the back in your mutual admiration society.

guy faulkes said...

G.I.G., if you were honest with your self, you would realize that you are the party that attacked when others disagreed with you.

Rise above it and go on. There is nothing wrong with the site.

Sarkazein said...

"goose step"---Aaaannnnddddd there it is. If you are not for gay "marriage" you are a goose stepping Nazi bigot wife beater.
Ahhh the open minded.

Reader said...

News from Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9157029/Gay-marriage-is-not-a-human-right-according-to-European-ruling.html

Happily Married said...

If you are not for gay marriage it means your believe differently. If you vote yes for amendment 1 - you are a bigot by definition. Should we change the definition of marriage or bigot? I still have not heard from anyone as to how gay marriage will hurt straight marriage. I am interested in an intellectual debate beyond "the historic definition". What is wrong with amending the definition to include "any two people". Marriage used to be defined as "a union between a man and a woman that was arranged for the good of the family, clan, tribe, or country." It has since CHANGED to exclude arranged and include LOVE. If marriage is now about love, why exclude anybody from marrying the person they love most in the world. I was luck y enough to and would never deny that opportunity to anyone for any reason. Maybe those against gay marriage don't really know love.

guy faulkes said...

mar·riage
   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.


big·ot
   /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled[big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Since a civil union is the same as a marriage under the fourth definition of marriage, how can you be a bigot if you would allow gays to have a civil union? This is not being utterly intolerant.

Again I do not care what you call the union of two people of the same sex. I did no plan to vote on this amendment at all until G.L.G. convinced me that I needed to support it due to the fanaticism of those that oppose it.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married- "Sarkazein said...
Guy Faulkes brought up Samantha Powers on another thread. Samantha is a big lib advisor to Obama. Her husband Cass Sunstein, even a bigger lib, has this belief regarding marriage : (from Wiki) ----"Marriage
In a recent book, Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," argues Sunstein. He continues, "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." He goes on further, "Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," and refers to state-recognized marriage as an "official license scheme."///

Combine this with Happily Married's "baby steps" or incrementalism, and I can see where this is going. The end of the institution of marriage. Another check-off on the Communist list.

Anonymous said...

Happily said, "Maybe those against gay marriage don't really know love."

wow, talk about an emotional and low statement. it's comments like this that are convincing me to vote for the amendment too.

Happily Married said...

Guy -

I appreciate the idea that marriage is the same thing as a civil union. If that were true, this would be a non issue. I would love for all governments to wipe the word marriage out of existence and leave that to the churches. The problem is this amendment constitutionalizes this discrimination. Additionally, whereas ideally a marriage and civil union are the same, the reality is they are drastically different. Society has created a marriage that is a ceremony of love that is celebrated. Civil unions are not looked at in the same way. Children are not impressed on to someday look forward to the day the get "civil union ed". Children dream of the wedding celebration. It is the same idea that requires wheelchair accessibility into the main entrance of a new building. A wheel chair bound person could go to the back of the building up the loading ramp and they are technically "in the building". Do you think that person feels mistreated or discriminated against because they are treated differently and have to go around the norm? I think there needs to be more empathy for those who are not allowed the same privileges as the rest. I also think voting for something because of extremist ideas is a destructive policy. Vote based on facts - not a knee jerk reaction to extremists. think where we would be if we actually listened to the nut jobs on both sides of the issues.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Please explain to me how anyone can deny two people who desperately want to celebrate their bond with a wedding - to celebrate an event that all of their family and friends can participate in and have for themselves - and say that they understand that emotionally. I have tried and can't. The statement was meant to ask the heart about this amendment. If anyone can truly deny two people desperately in love the right to get marry because their genitals are the same, I have to question their heart. Was not meant to be insulting. Please simply explain it to me.

Happily Married said...

Is it meant as punishment for something? Do people who would vote yes for this amendment want to punish people for being gay? Is that it? Funny how instead of answering questions I am simply labeled as an extremist and used as an excuse for bias.

Happily Married said...

How is gay marriage the "end of the institution of marriage". Like saying when blacks were allowed to play pro sports that it would be the end of "pro sports as we know it". I would say that sports benefited. I would say that marriage, as it currently stands, needs some new blood infused into it. I think gay marriage will lift up the institution rather than get rid of it. To compare this effort to communism is fear mongering and typical of causes that cant be justified in any other way - pitiful.

guy faulkes said...

A wheel chair bound person could go to the back of the building up the loading ramp and they are technically "in the building". Do you think that person feels mistreated or discriminated against because they are treated differently and have to go around the norm? - HM

Having been in a wheelchair, I was just happy to have a way into the building and to be alive to go there.

As far as being treated differently is concerned, have you ever heard of affirmative action? This is the government mandating people be treated differently on issues ranging from being admitted to schools to getting a job. It is done all the time and does not seem to be a problem to the left. Do you have empathy for those hurt by affirmative action? If not, why?

Civil unions and marriages are the same thing so it is a non issue. I would not even vote on the amendment but I feel it necessary to support it in order to negate the vote of a fanatic such as G.I.G. If he had argued as logically as you, I would not have come to this conclusion.

Happily Married said...

Guy -

I cannot stand affirmative action. I think discrimination is discrimination - period - just as this amendment is. Just because it is done all the time does not make it right. I have a great deal of empathy for those hurt by affirmative action (having had it happen to me!). I appreciate your wheel chair experience. I have spent a lot of time with the ADA. But just as the ADA is indicative that, as a society, we can do better than "minorities should just be happy with----"(civil union in this case. I encourage you to vote for the right reasons or don't vote at all.

BTW - still waiting on answers to my questions.

guy faulkes said...

I did answer it HM. The point about affirmative action is the answer.

You want utopia and a perfect world. It will never happen. I choose not to cry over it, even though I do not like it.

I do not like affirmative action because it does treat people differently. I see no way to change it because some people are also treated unfairly because of their race, religion, gender, age, etc. Things that may make things fair for one person may hurt another person. Until there is fair, case by case judgments on these issues, affirmative action is going to remain a problem.

This is not the case with the gay marriage issue because no one is being treated unfairly. Civil unions and marriages are the same thing.

My reason for voting is to negate the vote of a fanatic. This is an excellent reason.

Anonymous said...

John Hood came out against the Amendment today. "I think amending North Carolina’s constitution to forbid gay and lesbian couples from receiving any future legal recognition, including civil unions, is unwise and unfair. In my opinion the real threat to marriage is not the prospect of gay people getting hitched. It is the reality of straight people too quickly resorting to divorce, or never getting hitched in the first place."

http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=8906

Sarkazein said...

Happily's arguments for ending marriage as we know it seem to be strictly emotional "arguments". Any reasoning is quickly dismissed. And the comparison to the civil rights movement is ridiculous.

Happily Married said...

Sark -
"Happily's arguments for ending marriage as we know it seem to be strictly emotional "arguments". Any reasoning is quickly dismissed. And the comparison to the civil rights movement is ridiculous."
The emotion is the reason you act on the facts. The fact is that not allowing people to get married because of the differences between their legs is discrimination based on sexual preference. It is unconstitutional because it is unequal treatment and the constitution guarantees equal protection. These are facts. I appeal to emotion because until I can get anyone to actual consider what it is like to be discriminated against, the majority will keep their blinders on. This societal driven differential treatment is emotional damaging to the point of suicide in some cases. We have to have the concept of "coming out of the closet" in our vocabulary because of the constant discrimination and differential treatment that keeps people "in the closet" and fear coming out of it. It is emotional and it is harsh and until you realize the ramifications of these bigoted actions haters will keep hating and fearing. Please explain how this emotional (or legal) impact is different than how black people were treated (hated, feared, reduced rights and privileges). It is you who have yet to answer any of my questions as to how this amendment is not discrimination. I have provided facts, reasoning,m and emotion. Please tell me you have more than a "ridiculaous" snipit in you and that you have some factual arguments.

And Guy - I have already explained how civil unions and marriages are very much different. It is cultural context and it is important. Does anyone on this site have any capacity to debate facts? Tell me how gay marriage will hurt straight marriage. Tell me how it is reasonable to deny someone the right to marry the person they love most in the world. All I read is fear and revenge.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- I have written several. You either missed them or your emotions wouldn't allow you to consider them.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

You brought up that marriage has been the same for 1000's of years. You indicated that homosexuals would have to declare themselves to get married (?) and you asked if asexual people would get to marry themselves. I missed where you laid out rational arguments for the amendment. No one has answered how the institution of marriage will end if gays are allowed to marry and no one has put forth an argument how this is not discrimination. If you are heterosexual you are allowed to marry the person you love most in the world. If you are homosexual you are NOT allowed the same right. I don't understand why you have to declare your sexuality. Why cant' a person marry another person without questions. If a gay woman declares herself a man, will that be sufficient. Are we going to start having conservative doctor panels that perform genital check? Why do conservatives insist on prying into everyone's sex life?

guy faulkes said...

HM, your explanations are not correct. They are opinions. A civil union is legally the same as a marriage.

We are debating facts. You are ignoring those with which you do not agree.

guy faulkes said...

HM, do you approve of incestuous marriages? Sark made the point not every group should be allowed to marry very well.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

A quick search on the internet proves a vast difference between marriages and civil unions, so I would say your opinions are incorrect. I am not ignoring anything. You seem to be making facts up. Incestuous marriage would need to be looked at on a case by case basis to ensure kids health etc. It is not my place to tell consenting adults they cannot be married. That is the point. It does not matter what I approve of except in terms of who I want to marry and how i want to live my own life - not others.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Like I said.... You either didn't read my comments or you are so bigoted in your views, you can't even consider my comments.

Happily Married said...

I summarized your comments above and found nothing of substance. I feel like you just effectively said "nanny nanny boo boo". I am interested in debating facts and issues and yet to get a comment that was worthy of debate regarding gay marriage. I don't feel like I am bigoted in that i have respectfully considered other issues in this same thread (church - contraception)and found enlightenment in those comments. I have found none in the gay marriage issue. So i guess nanny nanny boo boo to you would be the appropriate response until you can actually submit something of substance.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Happily Married married her brother or sister? It sounds like she wouldn't see anything wrong with it.

Happily Married said...

Did I just jump into a grade school blog. Am I supposed to say Oh yeah well your momma is ugly? Is this really the best youve got?

Sarkazein said...

Happy- After 100 or so total comments on the subject, I would say, if nothing else, you have beaten it to death.
Everything would merely be a rehash. To what end? It is clear you are so strongly in favor of ending marriage as we know it (one man and one woman) nothing anyone could write would make a difference. You want the government to change the law. The amendment wants to prevent it.

Happily Married said...

To the end that anyone in favor of the amendment acknowledges that the amendment hurts good people. Not passing the amendment hurts no one. I have done my part to listen to reasonable arguments and have even adjusted my stance accordingly (church - contraception). I merely asked the same. I guess that was too much to ask.

Anonymous said...

I dont think you have asked to much. i haven't made up my mind on this issue and I like hearing the different views. I don't much like the personal attacks on each other but when you all are making your points I pay attention.

guy faulkes said...

Passing the amendment hurts no one. Neither does it help anyone. Civil unions are available.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

You are wrong once again: "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." Civil unions for homosexuals will not be recognized. Therefore, they are not provided equal protection under the law that the constitution guarantees. This amendment hurts homosexuals - period.

guy faulkes said...

If this is true, then I would be in favor of changing the law to allow civil unions.

However, the law you posted did say whoever wanted could enter into private contracts to do what they want. It contradicts itself. It should be clarified.

Sarkazein said...

Happy wrote- "This amendment hurts homosexuals - period."

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Since there is no such thing, really, as same-sex marriage, no one is hurt by not getting what does not exist.

I want to officially be called doctor. But, there is no official title of doctor for someone in my field. So I will settle for being a General. It will hurt my feelings if I cannot officially be called general or doctor. What would it hurt if all people wanting to officially be called doctor or general were called this? How would it hurt those with the title now?. I may want to be called Mrs from now on. Why will the state not refer to me as Mrs Sarkazein? Who could it hurt? Certainly not all the married women out there could be hurt by this.

Happily Married said...

Guy - this is exactly why everyone should vote against the amendment. It is poorly worded and problematic.

Sark I can direct you to married couples who are the same sex. A quick internet search will provide that. Since it does exist, I am not sure about your point. Same sex marriage is very real in many parts of the world and the US, so there is really such a thing. For your next point, you seem to be saying you it would be offensive for homosexuals to participate in a marriage. Do you find it offensive for blacks or hispanics to use the same water fountain as you? People are people with different beliefs and ways of living. The very definition of bigot is the intolerance of other groups and you seem to fit the definition. I personally support your right to believe what you want to believe and support your right to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Your position should be stated as such:"For me,a marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe this for me and I will encourage my family and friends to believe in the same way." It is the action of voting for this amendment that takes you beyond our wonderful freedom of belief and into discrimination and bigotry by action. It is not right to force your beliefs on others anymore than it would be for me to force my belief system on you. Try to put yourself in someone else' s shoes and imagine what that would be like. What if I were to get a law passed that prohibited you from living a normal life because of your beliefs? It bothers me that beliefs are being forced. I guess you are OK with it. I hope the same is true when the shoe is on the other foot. BTW weren't you adamantly opposed to Catholic churches being forced to provide contraception? Seems you have a double standard.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Your support of my right to my beliefs rings hollow. Calling someone's beliefs homophobic, bigoted, and anti-civil rights, all in the same comment, is not supporting it is condemning someone for their beliefs.

Again, you won't find any of my comments condemning homosexuality. But, your mind is so closed on this particular subject (same-sex "marriage") you lash out with insults.
When Rev Martin Luther King Jr went to the mountain top, he didn't mention anything about gays "marrying" each other. I think if he had seen the groom kissing the groom, on the mountain top, he would have mentioned it. You are confusing MLK jr and the Mountain Top with Broke Back Mountain.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- I can direct you to many polygamist families, they do exist. A quick search on the internet will provide that.

Happily Married said...

Sark

There is a big difference between supporting your rights to your beliefs (which I wholeheartedly do) and supporting your beliefs (which are bigoted). I am even willing to ignore the beliefs until they are forced on others. Your lack of respect for other people has lead to some passionate responses in terms of names that, quite frankly, still apply. You are narcissistic and unwilling to look at things from anothers perspective. You inferred condemning homosexuality by indicating that heterosexual married couples would be insulted by the concept of gay marriage. When you are honest with yourself, maybe your mind will open a little bit. I am close minded because the true impact is only one way. i am close minded because the law will not force you to live in any way different. The law will prohibit homosexuals from waht many consider the happiest day of their lives. And you have yet to give a good reason to take that from them. BTW polygamy was rampant in the bible. Why the double standard, once again.

guy faulkes said...

I would agree with you, HM, if it were not for G.I.G. His conduct forces me to support the issue. I feel it necessary to negate the vote of a fanatic.

Maybe the civil union can be defined more sufficiently at a later date as your own post indicates the ban on it is meaningless.

Sarkazein said...

Happily wrote- "You inferred condemning homosexuality by indicating that heterosexual married couples would be insulted by the concept of gay marriage."

Show me which comment you interpreted this way. I can't find it.

Sarkazein said...

Narcissus said- We are up to about 6 derogatory names or descriptions you have assigned to me for not supporting your views.

You write that you support my right to express my views. That would not only ring hollow, but it is also dishonest. The names and descriptions you use for me as a dissenter from your views are historically used by liberals to stifle debate. It just doesn't happen to work with me, because you are too obvious in your use of the terms like bigot.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I have stated previously that I am not a liberal. I believe in such things as gun rights, the death penalty, hunting, etc. I am also for freedom from religion and freedom of belief. This amendment is contrary to both of those. My labels seem accurate in the context of your posts. I fully support your write to express your views and live your life according to your views. I will passionately fight to prevent you from imposing those views on others who believe differently. I have tried debating, but have had no answers to my questions. How will homosexual marriage end the institution? How will homosexual marriage hurt existing marriages? I believe the answers to these questions will be telling in your true self as you have refused to answer them. I believe it is you who are being dishonest.

Sarkazein said...

OK, I've had enough typing practice on this subject.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I am probably just as tired of you telling me I am being dishonest as you are of my putting labels on your actions. I reread both threads to make sure I was not missing anything and you have yet to make a point that answers my questions. Your 2+2=5 comment is nonsense. You act as if the modification of a concept or yes, even an institution (in this case marriage) is simply impossible. You have yet to answer my questions substantively and have failed to provide any type of debate. So basically you fail. And if more voters like you show up to the polls than people who can see value in others, then NC fails as well.

Sarkazein said...

Marriage, between a man and a woman is somewhat more than a "concept". Same with the Ten Suggestions and Living US Constitution, I guess.

Sarkazein said...

The "modification", as you now admit (as opposed to taking a non existent right from someone), is being attempted all the time through the courts and through some PC Legislatures. Hence the Amendment.