This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Deborah Greene Chairs Vote for Marriage NC

Deborah Greene announced she has officially been designated the Watauga County Chair for "Vote FOR Marriage NC", grassroots organization getting the vote out for the  NC Constitutional Amendment that will appear on the Primary ballot. The following issue will appear on all primary ballots:

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT TO NC STATE CONSTITUTION       
[X] For [  ] Against                           
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic
 legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.
One-stop voting starts on April 19th and will continue through May 5th at 1:00pm. The General Election will be held May 8, 2012.

To vote in Watauga County you must have been a resident for 30 days by the date of the election and registered to vote in Watauga County.    To register to vote, you must be a citizen of the US, at least 18 years of age, and a legal resident of Watauga County. Regular voter registration ends April 13th for the Primary.  However, if you miss the regular deadline, you may register and vote during One-Stop Voting. To register during One-Stop Voting, you must show proof of residency with appropriate identification ( one of the following:  NC drivers license, telephone or cell bill, electric or gas bill, cable TV bill, water/sewer bill, passport, government issued photo ID, US military ID, license to hunt, fish, own a gun, property tax bill, automotive registration, certified documentation of naturalization, public housing or Social Service Agency document, check, invoice or letter from a governmental agency, student ID along with document from the school showing the student's name and current address, paycheck or paycheck stub form an employer or a W-2 statement, a bank statement or bank-issued credit card statement)

Curb-side voting is available because of age or physical disability.

One-Stop voting will be held downtown at 842 King Street during regular business hours 8:30am to 5:00pm April 19th through May 4th.  And, then from 8:30am to 1:00pm on May 5th

All voting facilities will be open from 6:30 am to 7:30pm on May 8, 2012, General Primary Election date.  To find out where you go to vote, if you are not sure, call the Board of Elections at (828) 265-8061.

Board of Elections is located downtown Boone on the ground floor of the Courthouse at 842 King Street, Suite 6, Boone, NC 28607.

You are encouraged to register to vote at the Board of Elections if you are not registered.  Registrations at other facilities are doubtful, as others have discovered while working on election day, as I observed many people turned away because their registrations did not make it to the required destination.  If you have registered at another location and have not received a voter registration card by mail, then you need to contact the Board of Election.
 Vote for Marriage NC

Enhanced by Zemanta

140 comments:

G.I.G said...

Misery should know not any political affiliation. Why does straight to gay have to determine if a lawyer makes money on the divorce of over 50% of the population.

Deborah Greene said...

The entire proposed amendment reads as follows(only the first sentence is on the ballot): “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.”

Happily Married said...

So Deborah Greene is an advocate for discrimination?

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm quite frankly shocked. I thought Greene was more from the lines of the Libertarian wing, unwilling to mess in the private lives of others. My bad. Lost my vote, Greene.

G.I.G said...

I find it hard to vote for any politician that feels the need to meddle in the love lives of anyone.

Anonymous said...

http://www2.wataugademocrat.com/News/story/Local-candidate-charged-with-DWI-hit-and-run-id-007195

BAHAHA

Anonymous said...

I'm against the Amendment too, and I can't figure out why the hell we even want to go there.

Sarkazein said...

You single issue voters will find yourself, someday, voting only at the air voting booth. Kinda-like playing the air guitar.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous????- Are you believing Libertarians want the government to be able to CHANGE the meaning of marriage to fit the current fads? 2+2=5... doesn't sound to Libertarian to me.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Libertarian who believes we should keep our noses out of other people's business. There's already a law against same-sex marriage in this state. What we have proposed now is government interference into people's private lives. Haven't we learned yet that this is a loser?

Anonymous said...

"On February 1st, the (Libertarian Party of Mecklenburg) Executive Committee voted unanimously to pass a resolution opposing the new NC state constitution amendment proposal. “Wheras the Libertarian Party of Mecklenburg County (LPMeck) is dedicated to limited government that protects the rights and privacy of its citizens, it most vehemently opposes NC State Constitutional Amendment One which would seek to violate this principle and abridge the rights of its citizens to form a union with any person of their choosing and receive the same recognition and benefits as all other citizens.

The idea that governments should define “marriage” or give permission for marriage is inconsistent with the principles of liberty. A person’s union with another is no concern of the state except for the purpose of establishing next of kin. Accordingly, in addition to our opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment, LPMeck calls for the state to leave marriage to religious institutions or private contracts and to repeal or amend all laws making distinctions based on a state of marriage."

Wake passed same resolution.

G.I.G said...

Sark, do you think it is the place of the government to determine who gets to love and marry who and approve it ?

From a straight GIG who thinks if you want to marry anyone, it is none of my business.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Libertarians believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And the Constitution gives the individual states and the local government entities the right to legitimize contracts, etc.

And marriage is a contract, which has been recognized by society and governments since time immemorial. The Constitution gives that right to the states and local governments and not to the federal government.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- I forget, which ones of the Founders were married to each other?

GIG- That is what you are asking the government to do. Marriage is between a man and a woman, government or no government. How many male North Carolinians married each other before The Declaration of Independence or the adoption of the Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution? They didn't need a government to explain to them what marriage is. You do?

Anonymous said...

So we're for smaller government unless we're for bigger government?

GIG said...

Sarc explain to me how if a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman. how does that effect anyone besides those getting married? I am single and straight libertarian and I believe it is no ones business but the people who love each other enough to marry one another's business. Why does the government need to have anything to do with who can marry who?

GIG said...

Sarc, you say the founding fathers didn't need to allow for marriage between anyone but a man and woman.

They also did not allow for women to vote, for slaves to be counted as a full human being, as in only 3/5th of a person.

How about civil rights there was none of that either .

Maybe those are the things you would like to go by now? Sounds like you yearn for a day of simpler times, where you could beat your wife who it was legal to marry, then go sleep with your salve women on the side and make sure neither got to vote.

Sarkazein said...

G.I.G- The government doesn't need to define marriage, much less re-define it. It is between a man and a woman. The government merely keeps a registry. Until this latest fad, you didn't need to be told by any government marriage is between a man and a woman. Now you need the government to tell you this? What happened? Are you thinking libertarians just bend with the wind? Is the libertarian motto "whatever"?

Sarkazein said...

G.I.G- Where/when did I write-- "Sarc, you say the founding fathers didn't need to allow for marriage between anyone but a man and woman. "?

There you go with "the government allow..." thing. Please re-read my comment regarding the Founders.
Slavery, beating your wife, are all things people knowing what the term marriage means are in favor of, of course. What's next, are you going to say I am a bigot because I don't like Obama?

Sarkazein said...

G.I.G- Are you just tired of being single and you are wanting to expand your odds?

GIG said...

Sarc are you asking me out? I do not think we would be a good fit. See i do not claim to be able to tell others who they can date, love, or marry.

GIG said...

Sarc , I would not call you a bigot for not liking Obama. I would for supporting a law that makes someone not as worthy of marriage due to the sex of who they love.

Anonymous said...

"The government doesn't need to define marriage, much less re-define it." That's exactly what it's doing.

Sarkazein said...

G.I.G- You can see buy your own comments, you have to be dishonest to try and make your point. Unless, of course, you don't know people can date and fall in love and not get married. Where in my comments did I write that people couldn't date whomever(guess) they wanted? Where did I write they couldn't fall in love? You are having to make stuff up to argue your point. Not a good sign.

Sarkazein said...

G.I.G- We could go out. I have actually gone out for drinks with, played golf with, hunted with, fished with, camped with, dined with, shot pool with, surfed with, motorcycled with people of the same sex as me and the opposite sex as me. Most I did not marry.

Sarkazein said...

""The government doesn't need to define marriage, much less re-define it." That's exactly what it's doing."-Anonymous???

Exactly.

GIG said...

Sarc, so according to you it is ok to date and fall in love with whom ever you want. Just don't try to get married unless your of the sexual preference you approve of being allowed to marry.? I am correct?

Anonymous said...

There is already a law in North Carolina against same sex marriage. The Amendment is unnecessary. We just couldn't seem to let this alone for some reason.

Anonymous said...

30 states have an ammendment, why should NC be any different?

Michael said...

My name is Michael. I would like to share how this law will affect me. I am gay and have lived with my partner for 11 years. We love each other very much. We own our own home, are active in our church, shop local businesses, pay our taxes on time, and give what we can to local charities. We have both read up on the amendment, have read objective analyses that leave us very concerned that we are about to lose our rights to assign each other as health advocates, establish will directives, and protect our custody rights to my partner's child. The best case scenario is that we won't lose these rights outright, but will have to pay dearly in legal fees to try to protect them. Of most concern is that I'm qualified for my partner's healthcare plan, and that will most certainly be lost. We simply can't afford a private policy for me, so I will be out of healthcare altogether if this bill passes.

What I want to know is why are you doing this to us? What have we ever done to you? We don't even hold hands in public and are not in your faces. Why do you want to single us out and punish us? What's in this for you? Why aren't we entitled to live our lives the same as everyone else with the same rights? How is this a Christian act of any kind? Do you think that somehow singling out people who aren't even bothering you for evil and unfair treatment is going to earn you some special seat in Heaven? Do you honestly believe God wants you to treat me and my partner and other loving couples this way?

Why can't you just leave us alone?

Sarkazein said...

So Michael, how have you gotten along all this time? Nothing will change for you. I was POA for an elderly person unrelated. I could do everything legally she could do and more. SO please, don't play the victim... butch up and deal with it. You just described a perfect life for yourself... live it. OR state the exact wording you fear will do away with POAs, wills, legal partnerships and co-habitation and, for G.I.G, dating.

Sarkazein said...

Sarc, so according to you it is ok to date and fall in love with whom ever you want. Just don't try to get married unless your of the sexual preference you approve of being allowed to marry.? I am correct?- G.I.G

Better said... unless you are one man and one woman. But again, you don't need my permission to date whomever(guess) you want. You can date family members, Rover, Illegal aliens, Mr Ed, go solo, why should it matter to me?

Sarkazein said...

Michael- If the Amendment does screw you up, just remember how it was before Gay people decided they wanted the government to "help" them by forcing the issue. The less government involvement the better. No one until now ever needed the government to decide this one. The country as a whole has become children-like. Through the Courts, Gays have tried to change the law.... sometimes CHANGE is not for the better.

G.I.G said...

Sarc, it doesn't matter to you until marriage is involved. Why does the marriage of other people affect you at all? Your not marrying them. Remember every gay person, man, or woman, who wants to marry is the product of two straight people. At least they were straight long enough to make that baby who grew up and became a gay person.

Sarc why does the marriage of two people bother you ?

Sarkazein said...

G.I.G- Marriage is between one man and one woman. It doesn't matter what I think. It is a fact. 2+2=4 not 5.
"Gay marriage" has nothing to do with anything you or Michael have written in your comment. Believe it or not, there are heterosexual people living together, raising their children, paying their taxes yadayadayada and are not married... yet life goes on.

Michael said...

So as I understand it, I am now being accused of bringing this all on myself and others? I have forced the state to take away my rights? And by the way, all unmarried straight couples will be affected by the passage of this amendment as will seniors who live together but are not married because they need both social security checks to survive. I suppose they did something to bring this issue on themselves as well?

Please let me in on how I have forced the state to take away my rights? Because I wanted the same rights and privileges as every one else in North Carolina? Because I believe that we are all equal in the eyes of God and because I believe we should all be equal in the eyes of our government?

Because I don't think the government should get involved in my personal life I have somehow now forced the state to get involved in my life? Please. I think you're really stretching here to come up with some reason for putting this bill forward. Since you can't come up with one, you're now blaming me for the amendment. That's rich.

Well, let me just say for the record that all I have ever wanted was to just be left alone. I have never been involved in politics before and am not happy about having to get involved now. But I guess you can say that the state has forced me to.

Sarkazein said...

What rights are being taken away? Seniors will not be allowed to live together? Please. It looks to me as though you want to be a victim. Nothing will change for you, but you have a need to be seen as a victim. Don't feel alone in that Michael. It is part of the New America. So many want to identify with some imaginary victim group. And yes, the gay community did bring this controversy on themselves. Some even held parades about it.

Sarkazein said...

Here is the lie--"Because I don't think the government should get involved in my personal life I have somehow now forced the state to get involved in my life?"- Michael

The lie is, YOU did want the State in your life. YOU asked the State (government) to change the definition of marriage. YOU asked the government to make "gay marriage" mainstream in society (forced acceptance by society). Now, you get brushback and you claim the world is out to get you. You have the same rights as me. I can't marry same-sex and either can you. I can't marry a sibling, either can you. I can choose to marry or not, you can choose to marry or not. Marry meaning one man and one woman... same for you, same for me. Equal. I can legaly have only one spouse at a time, you can legally have only one spouse at a time.

Sarkazein said...

Michael- I have asked this question over and over to those wanting to change the definition of marriage. Will only gay people be allowed to marry "same sex" or will anyone and anybody be able to "marry" under the new definition? In other words, will you have to declare homosexuality to get special rights to "marry" or would it be wide open?

Michael said...

What new definition of marriage are you talking about? There is no new definition. As someone stated above, there is already a law against same-sex marriage in the state. This amendment does nothing at all to change that.

Michael said...

Get educated on this amendment: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/02/3060906/marriage-bill-jeopardizes-rights.html#storylink=cpy

Sarkazein said...

Michael- The new definition of the word marriage you are seeking. For ever it has been between and man and a woman. You are asking to change the definition to mean between a man and a man and a woman and a woman and a man and a woman.
Some of the online dictionaries are changing it already because of political correctness.
Which is it? The law does nothing to change it as it is now or your life is over as you know it if the Amendment is passed?

Sarkazein said...

Michael- Your link is an editorial comment.

Michael said...

I am not seeking a new definition of marriage. Did you follow the link in the editorial written by legal scholars and practicioners as to what the amendment does? I guess I was asking too much. Go here

http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/dlureportnov8.pdf

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/02/3060906/marriage-bill-jeopardizes-rights.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

Maybe you will want to read that before just throwing stuff out there that has nothing to do with the amendment.

G.I.G said...

Micheal, i believe you are beating a dead horse. Sarc, has shown his bigotry. He only wants the people he thinks that should be allowed to have a marriage recognized by the government and society. It is ok if you are gay, bi, transgender, lebian, or any other choice but his own. Just do not think you would ever be his equal in the rights afforded to those who marry vs those who are prohibited by law.

I am sure he was against civil rights and woman voting as well.

I am almost sad to admin in my opinion it will be at least two more generations before the oldest voting bigots die off and a non bigoted society can come to be.

Michael said...

I guess you're right about beating a dead horse, but it would be nice to know people at least had some vague idea what they were talking about before they jumped in with an opinion about it. An opinion apparently based on something perceived as attached to the Amendment which isn't even there. Fact is this Amendment has nothing to do with any definition of marriage and people aren't going to vote on a definition of marriage. As the link says, if people would take the time to read it, unmarried couples both gay and straight will end up with fewer rights over their personal lives than they currently have if the Amendment passes.

Sarkazein said...

Michael- Any lawyer can take a sentence and argue either side of what it means (your links). Gays are trying to change the definition of marriage, and with some success, causing others to defend the institution. You, perhaps, are not pro-gay marriage and are only concerned with this Amendment changing your status-quo. I can understand that.

GIG- You are silly.

Michael said...

wow. That was pretty fast reading of the professional legal analysis! Did you consult the footnotes too? Did you see how this amendment has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage? I'm sure lawyers can argue either way, but I would suggest that these attorneys have a better idea than either you or me how all this will shake out, don't you think?

Sarkazein said...

No

Sarkazein said...

The only thing for sure is, in any Court case there will be a lawyer on both sides arguing he/she knows exactly what it means, no matter how short or long the Amendment. The Bill of Rights still has lawyers arguing both sides.

Sarkazein said...

GIG wrote- " Sarc, has shown his bigotry. He only wants the people he thinks that should be allowed to have a marriage recognized by the government and society. It is ok if you are gay, bi, transgender, lebian, or any other choice but his own. Just do not think you would ever be his equal in the rights afforded to those who marry vs those who are prohibited by law."

We now have to add to the definition of bigotry: Anyone who does not have the same opinion as G.I.G.

Michael said...

So if we are going to now have lawyers on both sides arguing, one of those sides will be the state, using tax payer funds to support exactly what?

Sarkazein said...

The State won't be arguing it unless it is passed and challenged. It wouldn't even be an issue if the gay community and GIG didn't want to change the definition of marriage.

G.I.G said...

Sarc again you speak from an ignorant position. Please do not assume you can speak for me or on any position i may hold.

If your interested in my opinion on anything you may ask, but do not speak for me.
Your as bad as LPOV at that.

I do not even thing marriage is a great institution. But I do think it is not the governments job to determine who gets to marry who according to the genitalia they posses.

I think marriage should not have anything to do with needing a license.

I need a license to show i can drive. No one needs one to show they love someone else enough to want to call them selves married

Sarkazein said...

GIG says anyone not agreeing with his stance on "gay marriage" is a bigot.- GIG's spokesman.

Michael said...

NO ONE IS LOOKING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THAT? THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE WHETHER IT PASSES OR NOT. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THIS THROUGH TO YOU?

Sarkazein said...

Michael- I never wrote and don't know how you developed the thought that the Amendment is changing the definition of marriage. It is an attempt at preventing the definition of marriage, as it has been known for the millenniums, from being changed to other than one man and one woman. We must be talking past each other. Are you thinking this Amendment and many other State's defense of marriage acts just all the sudden happened? Just out of the blue?

Deborah Greene said...

The State of NC already defines marriage as the union between a man and a women. By amending the NC State Constitution, the legislature and/or judiciary will not be able to affect the definition without a vote of the people since an amendment to the NC State Constitution requires a vote of the people. This puts the definition in the hands of the People. The People are only protecting the definition that has existed in the State of NC for years. NC is protecting itself from lawsuits by joining what 30 other states have done, define marriage in their state constitution. If an activist judges should be successful in redefining marriage, it would have profound consequences to churches, families and businesses. This amendment has a second sentence that does not appear on the ballot that stipulates, unlike the many of the other states, that this amendment does not effect contracts. If two people of the same sex want to enter into a contract, there is nothing to prevent that. However, it will not be considered a marriage. Please note that the People are making the decision to protect the definition and it will be only the People who decide to change the definition in the future. Without a constitutional amendment to the NC State Constitution, People will be leaving the definition up to government.

Anonymous said...

Some seem to think that a judge cannot overturn a constitutional amendment. A Federal judge can easily overturn it. If it's decided that the state constitution violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, it will be thrown out, just as it was in California.

Michael said...

Hear ye, hear ye. Fear the activist judges, but fear ye not the activist state legislators. Fear ye not the spokesman of hate who comes to speak here in circles and untruths to sway you to bigotry and hypocrisy, both of the Devil I might add.

You have refused to address any of the issues brought up related to this the Amendment, Oh Spokesman.

Quit lying. No one is trying to redefine marriage. Quit lying. The Amendment is not about marriage. Read the document I provided Spokesman, if you dare, which explains why the second sentence you refer to means nothing; how this Amendment is different from those passed in other states; and how this Amendment does not protect marriage as you say but rather takes away current rights of all unmarried couples, gay or straight.

Then come back here and confess that what you, Chief Spokesman of Bigotry and Intolerance, mean by "will of the people,"is really just "the will of the people" who share your desire for some sort of holy, misguided personal crusade in the name of God.

If you want the people to support the Amendment, then the least you can do, the very least, is tell them the truth.

Sarkazein said...

The Courts rulings, which have been all over the place, have just made the issue more convoluted. The Amendment may take in out of the Courts ever-varying rulings about the definition of marriage.

Sarkazein said...

Michael- I believe Deborah Greene has attempted, quite respectfully I might add, to answer your questions.

GIG said...

LPOV, or Sarc, or who ever you call yourself today, Again you try to speak for me. The fact is I called no one a bigot but you.

Anonymous said...

I would like to thank Michael for taking the time to come to this board. I do not support gay marriage, but I do support civil unions, and Micheal's posts and the analysis he provided have convinced me to vote against this Amendment.

Respect granted, Greene's "explanation" makes no sense. She admits that the definition has been a state law for years and years, and that no one is trying to change the definition of marriage. She says the reason for the Amendment is to "protect" the definition of marriage while she admits there has been no problem with protecting the definition of marriage over the many years same-sex marriage has been the law of the land. She simply fears one in the future. Further, she doesn't address Michael's assertions that the passage of this Amendment will undermine the current rights of unmarried couples, except to say the second sentence takes care of that when it is clear from Michael's link (which I read and found very interesting) that the second sentence doesn't offer any protection. Rather the second sentence insures constant and expensive court challenges.

While it's true the link Michael provides addresses many "potential effects" of the Amendment (may or may not happen), it does say some things will certainly occur should the Amendment pass: a prohibition against NC ever being able to pass civil unions in the future and the immediate elimination of some partner insurance benefits. It also warns that the Amendment will likely cause damage to domestic violence protections and child custody laws, and problems in allowing hospital visitation rights.

It's interesting to me that should the above occur, it will not likely be the "will of the people", as Greene suggests, but rather would be caused by the very "activist judges" Greene claims to fear.

So thank you again Michael for coming here to educate us about the Amendment.

Sarkazein said...

GIG- In one comment, of yours, you write that I am against civil rights etc---- "Maybe those are the things you would like to go by now? Sounds like you yearn for a day of simpler times, where you could beat your wife who it was legal to marry, then go sleep with your salve women on the side and make sure neither got to vote."-GIG

Then in multiple comments following you say with self-righteous indignation-- "Sarc again you speak from an ignorant position. Please do not assume you can speak for me or on any position i may hold. "-GIG

Silly boy.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous???- This is what happens when groups try to attack traditions and accepted institutions through the Courts. The traditions and institutions are defended, and not necessarily to the exact liking of those against those traditions or institutions.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps so, Sarkazein, but that doesn't justify the Amendment. It is not acceptable to try to swat a fly with a bulldozer and take away many of the civil union rights all unmarried couples enjoy today. Swatting a fly with a bulldozer will result in big gaping holes of scorched earth and no dead fly.

Sarkazein said...

This is great, I love it when liberals complain about CHANGE. Liberals voted for it, the country is divided, and this is what you get.

GIG said...

Sarc, I see reading fundamentals like the difference between a question and a statement escapes you. This should not suprize anyone.

If you read the quote you took from my post it is phrased as a question, not a statement.

Yet you try time and time again to speak for me in the form of a statement from yourself.

If you need help comprehending those differences I can help you get an appointment at the adult learning classes offered locally.

Sarkazein said...

Weak

Happily Married said...

It should never be acceptable for the majority to determine the rights of the minority. This is counter intuitive. The bill simply allows some (heterosexual couples) to have rights that others (homosexual couples) don't. It is very simply bigoted and discrimination. If anyone has the right (by state acknowledgement) to marriage then EVERYONE should have the right to marriage. It is such a cop out to indicate that "homosexuals do have the right to marry - as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex. Marriage has evolved (i.e. changed - not stagnant - not permanent) from an arrangement most often forced for the good of the family into an institution of love - plain and simple. Anyone should be able to marry the person they love - no matter what chromosomes they have. I challenge anyone to defend how this amendment is not discrimination. I have yet to hear a valid argument.

Sarkazein said...

Do woman have to register with Selective Service?

Happily Married said...

Fine example of discrimination - one that should also be changed. just because discrimination exists does not mean we should make it constitutional. Almost as bad as the weak minded who indicated "30 states have done it - so we should to!" We should be working to remove ALL instances of discrimination.

Sarkazein said...

Even after this lengthy thread, no one (pro-gay marriage) has been willing or able to answer an old question-- Will all people be legally allowed to marry, with no restrictions (discrimination) on anyone OR will it just be adding gay couples getting special rights (same-sex)?

G.I.G said...

Sarc,What special rights will gay couples have by being able to have the marital rights straight couples have ?

By the way Sarc, when did you stop beating your wife

Happily Married said...

Sarc,

I'll take your obvious bait. I believe the idea is that all people will be allowed to be married within the current legal context less the discrimination. IE anyone over the age of 18 (16 w/ parental consent)etc etc. Please tell me you were not going to try to spout the crap about marrying children etc.

Anonymous said...

Sarkazein, no one has addressed your question because the Amendment doesn't change the definition of marriage so your question is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

"...all people will be allowed to be married within the current legal context..."

Yes. And the current legal context does not allow for same-sex marriage already. That doesn't change with this Amendment one way or another.

Happily Married said...

Yes the amendment makes constitutional the discrimination rather than just currently illegal. We are actually considering voting to discriminate against against our own people further than we already do. As it is currently illegal, why the state wide vote in the first place? Deborah actually said it - fear. I have not gotten an answer to my first question but maybe someone can answer how gay marriage hurts families (as DG proposes)?

Anonymous said...

Good point, HP. I hadn't thought about that. Also, Deborah says "If an activist judges should be successful in redefining marriage, it would have profound consequences to churches, families and businesses." I would like to hear what these profound consequences would be.

Sarkazein said...

And still no one in favor of "gay marriage" can answer the question.
Anonymous????- I am leaving out the Amendment in my question. The Amendment only reared its head because of "gay Marriage" and my question only relates to "gay marriage". (for people of legal age, of course).

Sarkazein said...

Happily married came close, but chickened out at the end with a caveat.
Happily Married wrote- "I believe the idea is that all people will be allowed to be married within the current legal context less the discrimination."

Sarkazein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GIG said...

Sarc, when interracial marriage became legal did that also anger you this much ?

Sarkazein said...

Like I thought... more personal attacks but no answer to an easy question.

GIG said...

Sarc, you really do have trouble determining between a question and a statement don't you? My last post to you was a simple question.

My offer to help you get in to reading comprehension classes still stands.

Sarkazein said...

"Simple" is right.

G.I.G said...

Sarc, Calling a question you can not answer simple, only makes your inability to answer it reflect even more poorly upon yourself.

Sarkazein said...

GIG- There is/was a commenter on the blog LPOV who would make insulting statements in the form of a question as you do also. Yours are the same.

Happily Married said...

Sark - to answer your question - All people will have the same rights. Gay couples getting married would not be a "special right". The right to marry is simply that - a right - it is not special or different. Gay people are simply asking for the ability to marry the person they love regardless of their chromosomes. This is not a difficult concept and I have yet to hear why it is so concerning for so many people.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married-OK. All people asking will be licensed to marry. In other words, a gay couple will not have to prove they are gay because anyone wanting to marry will be permitted to marry. This way you will not be discriminating against anyone wanting to be recognized by the State as married. Am I reading you correctly?

guy faulkes said...

HM, Sark raises an interesting point. What if someone wanted to marry his or her sister?

As I have said before, this seems a non issue to me because gays can have a legal union.

G.I.G said...

Sarc, i ask again in the form of a question are you against interracial marriage as well as being against marriage by gay or lesbian or bi couples?

This is not an insult rather an inquiry if you have as strong a feeling on marriage about the race of the couple as you do the sexual preference.

G.I.G said...

Guy, I took you as a much better person then to compare incest to marriage between two people who love each other.

G.I.G said...

"because gays can have a legal union"

To me this sentiment right here is the issue. How about we just say everyone can be married that chooses to be.

Regardless or race, creed, color, or sexual preference. Why does sexual preference determine what type of union you can have at all ?

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- Either they could marry or they would be one of the groups still "discriminated" against. Anyone would be allowed to marry (of legal age) in a perfectly politically correct world. OR would it only be gay people the "right" is extended to? All others don't qualify to not be discriminated against? No, it has already been established--- ALL shall be issued a license to marry.

Sarkazein said...

The obvious outcome of this topic is--- "gay marriage" is not about rights at all. It is about a government forced societal acceptance of homosexuality under the ruse of "gay marriage". It is the dishonesty of the Left. Rather than saying they would like a union of some kind to be recognized by the State, the term marriage is used instead. There is a number of unintended consequences in this politically correct move. To me, it has little to do with pro or anti homosexuality. It has everything to do with the Left being incapable of honesty when debating their politics, yet always capable of trying to force their beliefs on others through the courts, or as we have seen here with the insults and accusations punctuated with question marks (sometimes) in an attempt to stifle debate.
Once ALL are licensed to marry, the institution of marriage, as it has been known throughout the millenniums is destroyed, just as liberalism has destroyed so much in this country including the family. Government is taking the place of family.

Happily Married said...

Sark - first of all, I explained previously that it would be limited by the current definition (less the discrimination) and NC law does not currently allow for siblings to be married. If you had actually paid attention to my previous posts that would have been clear. Although one could make the case that siblings could marry is no offspring is allowed - another topic I have no intention of wading into. We cant even get past two unrelated people who love each other wanting to get married. So first things first. You implicate that I have somehow been dishonest in what I am seeking. I don't want to force you to accept homosexuality (as that takes an open mind and I know better than that)- I want the government to NOT discriminate against homosexuals - big difference. I don't give a rats ass what you personally believe because the beauty of this country is that we have freedom of belief for individuals. We also have an equal protection under the law concept that is being ignored by people of limited mental capacities such as yourself. I know gay couples who contribute and lift up this society so much more than traditional" married couples" such that I would argue we would be doing the institution of marriage a favor by letting them participate. Society indoctrinates children to associate love with marriage - like it or not (and I think that is the way it should be), then when a homosexual wants to marry the person they love most in the world, bigots like you say - NO you do not deserve the same rights as us. The State of NC grants the right of marriage for some and it should be for all - otherwise get the fu** out of the marriage business all together. You and your ilk can huddle in your god fearing places and have your weddings and homosexuals can establish churches that acknowledge their beliefs and have their own weddings. It is not about deception and you have insulted me and others to claim such. It is simply infuriating that people want to keep people from happiness because of fear. Please elaborate on how marriage will be destroyed by allowing loving homosexual couples to participate. Remember - change does not mean destroy - it means change.

G.I.G said...

Sarc, please elaborate on this statement of yours

"Once ALL are licensed to marry, the institution of marriage, as it has been known throughout the millenniums is destroyed"

Would you be so kind as to tell us what will happen to the institution of your marriage if a gay couple marries?

TPrtyXprss said...

Pretty simple to me. This issue doesn't help our party at all. You can see that in this comment thread. If your explaining, your losing.

Look at the polls folks. We're losing women big time. Lets be for something instead of against it. Focus on cutting spending and taxes.

guy faulkes said...

G.I.G., what does incest have to do with people loving each other? These are two different issues.

Sark made a good point in regard to HM's comment. The brother /sister analogy merely highlights his point, as does his reply to me.

Apparently you do agree all groups cannot be treated the same as per your incest comment.

Again, I do not care if it is a marriage or a legal union. All I am saying is that Sark scored a telling point. So far it has not been rebutted.

This has been a very entertaining debate.

GIG said...

Guy , HM made the reply to the incest ploy clear enough i did not believe it needed to be reiterated again. I 100% agree with HM on your and Sarc's comparison of incest to committed love and marriage.

I am sorry to say your support for legal bigotry leaves me with a lower opinion of you .

Maybe you can explain how if people you do not approve of marrying do it affects your marriage personally?

guy faulkes said...

G.I.G., it does not effect my marriage. That is one reason I do not care about it one way or the other. It also does not effect the relationships of anyone else. If one can have the benefits of marriage by being part of a legal union, there is no harm other than a sensitivity for semantics.

The incest analogy is certainly viable. Your comment about love is not. Most brothers and sisters love each other. They do not have sex with each other. It is not necessary to love someone to have sex with them. Sex and love are not the same thing.

Sark made the point that some groups are not and will not be allowed to marry (or have legal unions). This is legal bigotry, as you call it. You did not and cannot refute it.

You are to intelligent to continue to try to talk around this. Award the point to Sark and go on.

GIG said...

Your as wrong as Sarc, incest and sexual preference are two different and completely unrelated reasons to allow or disallow marriage.Just as race has been in the past. I hope someday you will realize that.

An open and educated mind can learn that personal prejudiced are not valid reasons to write laws removing rights of people.

Sarkazein said...

I can't explain my point any better. Guy Faulkes gave good example of the unintended consequences of allowing all people wanting to marry to marry. There are many more.
When the people of the Great Society said they would end poverty by government mandate, it destroyed families as an unintended consequence. It didn't destroy mine, but society has suffered a break down in the family in mainly the people they were trying to help. Crime increased, school dropouts increased, teen pregnancy and children born out of wedlock increased. All unintended consequences.
Where charity from government (welfare) was once an embarrassment for a proud person to have to take, it is now a way of life and entitlement.

Sarkazein said...

In reading Happily Married's many insults in her comment of 2:55pm, I notice she backtracked to the previous comment with the caveat. Also known as moving the goal posts.
If you pick adding gays to be allowed to marry under the law and not everybody else EVERYBODY, you must discriminate against every other group or persons wanting to marry. In other words, you are only adding one group (gays) to those who qualify to marry... all others not receiving your approval are discriminated against (your words).
Just be honest, this is about forced government mandated acceptance and not rights.
This is why the law is fair as it stands. ALL men and ALL women are equally subject to the law, including gays, siblings, mother and son, mother and daughter, business partners, roommates, father and son, father and daughter, first cousins, and heterosexual couples.

G.I.G said...

Sarc, are you really trying to say that allowing people who are of the same sex to marry will cause unintended pregnancies and welfare recipient growth ?

G.I.G said...

Sarc I may not be as intellectually superior and enlightened a man as you, by being a straight white married man as you are, but please explain how gay marriage has any effect on these statements you assert?

"When the people of the Great Society said they would end poverty by government mandate, it destroyed families as an unintended consequence. But society has suffered a break down in the family in mainly the people they were trying to help. Crime increased, school dropouts increased, teen pregnancy and children born out of wedlock increased. All unintended consequences.

Please explain how people marrying with a different sexual preference then yours will cause these things to happen to me .

Sarkazein said...

GIG- Unintended consequences of government mandated programs. The point is just that. Good intentions gone bad.

There is another group who claim an idyllic way of life. When interviewed, both the husband and his WIVES claim they are happy with their way of life. They say it is natural to them. Fine. One man and one woman covers this. Will these people of differing opinions continue being discriminated against in the politically correct liberal world? Or will it be ONLY gays "benefitting" by the change in the definition of marriage?

Sarkazein said...

GIG- One of the unintended consequences of the Great Society is charity, once an appreciated good thing, is now seen as entitlement, an unsustainable debilitating thing.

Sarkazein said...

Judge Judy explains it. There are several cases on this show concerning people thinking the charitable money given to them is an entitlement.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

The many insults were a direct result of you accusing me of dishonesty when there is, in fact, none at all. You threw the first stone. See if you can wrap your mind around this: NC marriage law excludes people for a reason - some good some bad. It excludes people who are too young to marry. I am not suggesting changing that because there are certainly legitimate reasons for the exclusion. The other cases are worthy of discussion - But, once again, baby steps. I have yet to hear the reason for the exclusion of gays. The only reason is hatred and bigotry. The "all or nothing" does not hold water. Same thing as gun rights- individuals have the right to carry guns - convicted violent criminals do not - there are reasons for the exclusions - and I have yet to hear a reason why "being gay" should be an exclusion to marriage. You also have not answered how allowing gay couples to marry will "destroy" marriage.
Guy Faulkes, can you disagree with the above analogy?

guy faulkes said...

G.I.G., no one said incest and sexual prefeence were the same thing. The point is that Sark was correct in his statement that not all groups would or should be allowed to marry.

Prejudice has nothing to do with this. Incest is not a good idea for both biological and medical reasons.

Do you really think the laws against incest are due to prejudice and legal bigotry? Do you think incestuous marriage should be allowed?

Of course you do not. Sark is right. It just pains you to admit it.

How many times do I have to tell you there is no difference in marriage and a legal union as far as the government is concerned?

Religiously there may be a difference. That is between the people involved and their God, not the government. This entire debate indicates people do not agree about this.

One thing is for certain. One group is going to be happy and the other offended over something that does not matter.

guy faulkes said...

hM, the only reason I can think of has to do with sex, not marriage. This reason is that AIDS used to be apparently more prevalent in homosexual sexual relationships that heterosexual relations.

Again, I do not care if gays get married or not. I do not see what the big deal is. Call it marriage or a legal union as you so desire. They are the same thing.

G.I.G said...

Guy, you keep wanting to use incest as a reason people should not be allowed the same legal rights as you have.

How much incestuous couple bashing have you seen? how many incestuous couples have been denied medical end of life partner rights ?

There is also no medical or biological reason preventing same sex marriage.

As a matter of fact it is less likely to cause unwanted pregnancy like you and Sarc claim will be a result of same sex marriage.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married wrote- "The other cases are worthy of discussion - But, once again, baby steps."


Also known as incrementalism. The scourge of liberalism.

G.I.G said...

Sarc, you are really stretching out there now using s scripted reality television show to try and support your twisted view of bigotry.

G.I.G said...

Guy, a quick google search shows the fasting growing groups of HIV infections belong to single straight women . I guess there goes that argument.

http://www.floridaaids.org/Basic_HIV_AIDS_info.pdf

Happily Married said...

Guy- It actually does make a difference. Marriage is ingrained to be about love. People want to marry the person they love - period. When they cannot, they feel discriminated against. As long as the state regulates marriage and it has legal implications, it is unconscionable that some are discriminated against.

Sarkazein said...

I will have to admit to Happily Married, the admission of "baby steps" or incrementalism is VERY HONEST in this debate. Most will not admit it. I stand by the argument for "gay rights (marriage)" is a dishonest argument, but Happily Married has shown unusual honesty with her admission of incrementalism.

Worried said...

I am with TPrtyXprss who said...
"Pretty simple to me. This issue doesn't help our party at all.
Look at the polls folks. We're losing women big time. Lets be for something instead of against it. Focus on cutting spending and taxes."

Big Amen to that!

guy faulkes said...

I was not making an argument, G.I.G. All I said was that AIDS used to be considered a greater risk for homosexuals than it did for heterosexuals.

Your link did not say the fastest growing group for contacting AIDS was single straight women, if I read it correctly. It said it was African American and Hispanic women. This may be true or it may have been put out by a racist group.

I have to admit I only scanned the article because it did not tell me anything about the credentials of those posting it. What are they? I would be interested to know.

G.I.G said...

Guy, the link I posted was from the state of Florida's BUREAU OF HIV/AIDS.

I see in your opinion now if your hispanic or african american you can not be single or straight? I knew race would be an issue as bigotry rarely resides with just one subject such as sexual preference.

G.I.G said...

For Guy and Sarc it is good to see how you support these outcomes.

The amendment could harm millions of North Carolina families, women and children by potentially impacting contract agreements between individuals, stripping health care from children of unmarried couples and invalidating domestic violence laws meant to protect unmarried North Carolinians.

http://www.protectncfamilies.org/news/nc-libertarian-party-urges-north-carolinians-vote-against-amendment-one

G.I.G said...

http://www.protectncfamilies.org/content/get-informed

Reader said...

http://www.bluenc.com/thoughts-combating-marriage-amendment

Thought this was interesting.

Reader said...

http://www.bluenc.com/thoughts-combating-marriage-amendment

Thought this was interesting.

guy faulkes said...

I see in your opinion now if your hispanic or african american you can not be single or straight? - G.I.G.

First of all it is if you're Hispanic or African American, not your and lower case for proper names. The use of your for you're annoys me like fingernails on a blackboard. I usually ignore it, but as you have apparently decided to deliberately misconstrue my post, I could not resist bringing it to your attention.


My point was that your link singled out Hispanic and Afro American women as being the most likely to get AIDS. I do not remember if it said they were single, but I do not think so. I also do not know if this statement was factual or made by a racist organization. As I have never heard of this group, I still do not know.

Why does AIDS matter as to the topic of the post? I said it had nothing to do with marriage, but it was the only reason I could think of for the government discouraging homosexual sex. I know the disease has spread to the heterosexual community and that of the drug culture, but that is all I know.

Sarkazein said...

Worried/TPrtyXprss- You just hate children and old people and minorities and single mothers or you wouldn't want to cut the budget. You just don't want to pay your fair share of taxes.

In other words, if you think you will ever escape the Socialist Left's misconceptions, I have news for you.

G.I.G said...

Guy, my typo's not with standing you do not and will not dispute the fact you want bigotry legalized.

Bigotry that will hurt children, seniors, single parents, and people who choose to sleep with people you do not approve of them sleeping with.

Nobody said...

Gig,
As a casual reader of this thread, I don't understand your rather hysterical tone. It seems to be clouding your ability to understand Guy's posts. He has stated several times he does not really care about this issue and that gay marriage would not affect him. He only notes that Sark made a good point. You go on to rather irrationally acuse him of racism and bigotry. To win an argument, you might be better served to take a breath and refrain from angrily attacking those who do not necessarily oppose your viewpoint.

GIG said...

Nobody your right. Sarc and Newguy are correct. I will be voting to remove rights from seniors children single parents and people who sleep with people they do not approve of.

My opinion is that of someone who did not realize that amendment one, if not voted in to law would allow brothers and sisters to marry.

I should have know better then to try and prove that having the majority vote on removing rights from a minority is a fools belief. I will refrain from posting in this thread again.

Sarkazein said...

GIG- You can sleep with whomever you want. You don't need to carry around a sign in a parade or wear a T-shirt informing everyone of your sexual preferences, just live your life, it's no one else's business. You won't be voting to take away rights that don't exist. If you find that special person to spend the rest of your life with, no one will stop you. As far as sleeping with them, a gentleman never tells, you do have the right to remain silent.

Sarkazein said...

You- as in: one; anyone; people in general: a tiny animal you can't even see.

NewGuy said...

GIG said...
"Nobody your right. Sarc and Newguy are correct"....


While I appreciate being recognized as "correct" once in a while, I am a little confused by this one.

What am I correct about?

Sarkazein said...

Percy Sledge, tonight, took the time to congratulate Joshua for his American Idol version of "When a Man Loves a Woman". That was really nice of him.

Anonymous said...

Civitas Poll

Sarkazein said...

From Anonymous's link above- Raleigh, N.C. – A majority, 64 percent, of North Carolina voters say they support a constitutional amendment that establishes marriage between one man and woman as the only recognized domestic legal union in the state.///


It should read it verifies rather than "it establishes".

ITCM said...

http://blog.wataugawatch.net/2012/03/whos-pushing-amendment-1-in-watauga.html

Great article from a different point of view!

Didn't Deborah Greene home school her son? Why does she have any interest in promoting this issue as she campaigns for school board? If she wants to campaign for her Christian, tea party, right-wing beliefs, that's fine. But, she should not be dually running for a secular office and promoting the segregation of a group of people. Church and State do not mix and this is 100% a belief issue on Deborah's part. She can say all she wants that it's a government attack against her rights, but it's actually that she hates gay people. Isn't this the 21st century? Haven't we left such beliefs behind? I can see the oldest generation still maintaining hostility towards homosexuality, but the 18 - 45 year old generation just does not. I have two students in the school system and I have raised them to believe in equal rights for all people and groups. They will become open minded, free thinking adults, unlike Ms. Greene. I for one will do everything I can to keep Deborah off of the school board. I will also be voting against this amendment. Hopefully, she has caused her own downfall with this one.

guy faulkes said...

So, ITCM, what you are saying is that only those with no religious beliefs should be allowed to run for political office?

Interesting thought. Does this disqualify Obma as his school records indicate he was a Muslim and he now says he is Christian, even if it is of the Reverend Wright variety?

I wonder what Ms. Greene thinks of you. Could it be that you are not free thinking either, but are only promoting your opinion, just as she does?