Breaking: Bigotry Wins Again !!!

[Lanie]

Not, that they have. Not that they definately will... MIGHT. Also, how is this hurting gays exclusively if straights are also facing the MIGHT?


No snark intended, it's a serious question.

That's been one of my points. It's not just hurting gays. It's hurting gays and straights who are not legally married. Opponents of Amendment One have been arguing this the entire time.

Consider this. I have a friend who lives with her boyfriend and has for years. He wants her to marry him. Not because he wants to make a lifetime commitment. It's because he wants his girlfriend to have his medical benefits and other benefits that a wife has. Sanctity of marriage? Seriously? People are getting married so they can have these special rights being given to married couples (rights and privileges not given before the 1900s, so you can't say this is traditional). Unfortunately, we live in a part of the state that didn't recognize benefits for unmarried couples. Some people in this state do live in those areas. Giving domestic benefits to unmarried couples (gay and straight) not only satisfies some of the desires for gay rights, but it actually helps the sanctity of marriage because you won't see people getting married just to have benefits.

This fight is mostly about a bunch of special rights given to married couples, and they didn't even have these special rights before the last century.

[BadCat]

Well lanie, you just go ahead and waste your time and energy on a battle you won't win. We laugh at people like you in this part of NC.

[Apache]

That's been one of my points. It's not just hurting gays. It's hurting gays and straights who are not legally married. Opponents of Amendment One have been arguing this the entire time.

Consider this. I have a friend who lives with her boyfriend and has for years. He wants her to marry him. Not because he wants to make a lifetime commitment. It's because he wants his girlfriend to have his medical benefits and other benefits that a wife has. Sanctity of marriage? Seriously? People are getting married so they can have these special rights being given to married couples (rights and privileges not given before the 1900s, so you can't say this is traditional). Unfortunately, we live in a part of the state that didn't recognize benefits for unmarried couples. Some people in this state do live in those areas. Giving domestic benefits to unmarried couples (gay and straight) not only satisfies some of the desires for gay rights, but it actually helps the sanctity of marriage because you won't see people getting married just to have benefits.

This fight is mostly about a bunch of special rights given to married couples, and they didn't even have these special rights before the last century.

You are confusing rights with benefits. That right there makes your argument moot. Worker medical insurance is not a right, it is a benefit that the employer CHOOSES to offer and the employee CHOOSES to accept or decline. That being said, if your friend lives in a county that never offered domestic benefits to unmarried people, what exactly is being taken away? If her boyfriend wants to marry for that reason alone, WHAT IS SHE DOING WITH HIM? Shack-up relationships are a sham to begin with...

[Lanie]

You are confusing rights with benefits. That right there makes your argument moot. Worker medical insurance is not a right, it is a benefit that the employer CHOOSES to offer and the employee CHOOSES to accept or decline. That being said, if your friend lives in a county that never offered domestic benefits to unmarried people, what exactly is being taken away? If her boyfriend wants to marry for that reason alone, WHAT IS SHE DOING WITH HIM? Shack-up relationships are a sham to begin with...

In some counties, people can take advantage of these benefits. That's my point. Just because it wasn't in all counties doesn't mean it should be taken away from the counties it's in.

Shacking up in wrong, but so it getting married to take advantage of benefits. People are going to shack up regardless. People are going to be gay regardless. Why do we have to use medical benefits, tax benefits, and other benefits (given to married couples) to force our morality onto others? I don't want a theocracy, Apache.

The 14th amendment says the state should not be taking away privileges from citizens. Notice I said privileges and not rights. The state of NC has no constitutional right to do this.

[Apache]

In some counties, people can take advantage of these benefits. That's my point. Just because it wasn't in all counties doesn't mean it should be taken away from the counties it's in.

Shacking up in wrong, but so it getting married to take advantage of benefits. People are going to shack up regardless. People are going to be gay regardless. Why do we have to use medical benefits, tax benefits, and other benefits (given to married couples) to force our morality onto others? I don't want a theocracy, Apache.

The 14th amendment says the state should not be taking away privileges from citizens. Notice I said privileges and not rights. The state of NC has no constitutional right to do this.

First of all, what county has revoked domestic benefits? You keep saying, "might" and "if" and "could", yet none have done so. That is a scare tactic and extremely misleading. Ever since I've visited forums such as this one, I've learned to look for those buzzwords, among others. When I see them, it means the people using them are trying to scare other people into their viewpoint without any facts to back them up. I'm not saying that you, yourself are doing it. You are, though, parroting the talkingpoints.

I find it very hard to believe that so many people are getting married strictly for benefits. In fact, I dare say, many couples don't even give those a thought. You seem to be under the impression that only married couple are eligible for medical or other coverage. We both know that you are smarter than that. Gays are just using it as another excuse to further their own agenda. Why is it ok for 2% to force their "morality" on the other 98%... HMMM? Again it's another smokescreen, easily blown away with a clear thought.

The 14^thdoesn't apply here, as this is a state's rights issue. That being said, states on a regular basis deny people privileges. Driving, hunting and land use are ones that I can think of right off the top of my head. Why aren't you upset over that?

[Retread]

I......................... The state of NC has no constitutional right to do this.

The state of NC did not do a thing other than hold and election. The voters did the rest. And it;s all completely legal under fed and state laws.

[txradioguy]

The state of NC has no constitutional right to do this.

Yes they do. It's called the 10th Amendment.

Even your hero Obama said this is a "states rights issue".

[txradioguy]

The 14th doesn't apply here

Especially since it was crafted specifically to deal with the issue of slavery.

[txradioguy]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv



Before the amendment in my state was passed, NC was allowing domestic benefits for unmarried couples (heterosexual and homosexual). Only a few counties were allowing the benefits, but now the benefits might cease. The mayor of Charlotte is already pushing for an end to the domestic benefits (something proponents of the amendment said wouldn't happen).

The 14th amendment says that no state shall make a law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens. It's 100% clear. It's not interpreted. It's clear. It's literal. Truth is if married couples were not given special rights, there wouldn't be that much of a problem.

I didn't realize that gays are being held in...or recenty been released from slavery and needed Federal protection so one state wouldn't recognize their free status even though another did.

You do realize that the 14th is part of a trio of Amendments known as the "Civil War" amendments don't you?

No of course not...you just believe what you're told by those driving the agenda that "the 14th Amendment says gays can marry".

[Lanie]

Especially since it was crafted specifically to deal with the issue of slavery.

Slavery, another issue that was supposed to be about states rights.

How many times should the minority be trampled upon for states rights? This state amendment directly conflicts with 14th amendment (which didn't say it was only for slavery). The entire constitution matters, not just when you think it should matter.

Oh, and Obama just wants to get re-elected. Sort of like your candidate, Flip Romney, who can't make up his mind whether he's for gay rights or for a marriage amendment. Who can't make up his mind whether he's for or against so called obamacare (which he did first in his own state). Think of stuff he did in his own state, Tx. Then tell me you honestly think he's not flipping.

But with that being said, he's tied a dog on the back of a car and that's too much for me to handle.