North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

[Ranger29860]

Maybe it's because they realize that the government ought not sanction, license, and put it's stamp of approval on... deviant behavior.

Maybe it's because they haven't had their brain turn to mush by willfully absorbing the idiotic and never-ending flood of propaganda which wants to tell them that man-man butt-sex is wonderful, cute, sexy, and sweet.

Don Lapre!!!!!

I knew the second I read the title you would magicly appear.

To anyone that is not aware he is 100% seriouse and has brought us such gems in the past such as:

It's not a victory for personal liberty because LIBERTY would be the state being completely OUT of the marriage business.

The state is already eyeballs deep in our business by being IN the marriage business, and now, by adding b*ttf*cking deviants to their marriage logs, they've taken a bad situation (state involved in marriage) and created a HUGE clusterfuck of complication and implication.

Just wait and watch what happens a few years down the road.

The implications of fundamentally changing the definition of marriage - legally, economically, and socially, are enormous.

NO friend to liberty.

And lets not forget this wonderfull logic:

Yes.

Riddle me this, Ranger.

Do homosexuals engage in b'f'ing?

That'd be a yes.

Would it then be "bigoted" to call them b'f'ers?

That'd be a no.


Is male on male anal intercouse a deviant act?

I'd guess a majority of Americans would say so.

Deviant fits.


B'f'ing deviant.

It's on the mark.

That's not bigotry.

It's reality.

Don't fear it.


I'm not speaking of that in this thread, though.

YOU brought that here.

I'm speaking of homosexual adoption.

So I will say you are still very consistent and I really don't think your a troll. IF you are a troll damn you are dedicated.

*edit*
The weird thing is I agree with him 100% on no government involvement in marriage. I don't thin anyone has ever disagreed with him there. He just likes to come in and really rail on homosexuality.

 

[V3n]

As an interesting aside, isn't Don Lapre that guy who was in the tv commercials maybe fifteen or twenty years ago who always said "I can show you how to make MORE MONEY THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE places hundreds of TINY LITTLE ADS in newspapers" or some such thing?

Are you that guy? That would be pretty sweet.

That Don Lapre died last October.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Lapre

I don't believe the government should be in the marriage business, period.
I also don't believe the government should be in the business of defining words.

 

[DEGuy]

Government, at any level, shouldn't be in the marriage business.

+ Rep
That's really the issue here. What's stopping two people from saying they are married and presenting themselves to friends and family as such? Nothing. Nothing but a taboo against any marriage except for a government sanctioned marriage. We have the right to freedom of speech, therefore everyone is able to decide what their definition of marriage is. If Suzie down in HR says, "I'm married to my job and my terrier is my child," no one objects to that definition of marriage.

If only more people were a little more libertarian, we'd all be asking the government just to get out of marriage and discriminating against certain individuals because they don't meet the government sanctioned definition of marriage. To be fair, there are plenty of situations where couples are financially and legally better off NOT being legally married. (Marriage penalty tax being one). So what's the big deal?

 

[chudrockz]

Ah well, our very own forum "Don Lapre" may well be an anti-gay bigot, but at least I got the news of the original Don Lapre. That's sad! A girlfriend and I in college always got quiet when his commercials popped on, because they were so amusing.

 

[Ranger29860]

What are the chances really of this thing not getting struck down? Hasn't the supreme court already sided with the same sex marriage right argument? So what is going to stop them from simply overturning this amendment? If anything this might have been planned or hoped for. With the recent uptick in the idea that congress is useless and the courts are radicle. What would be more beneficial then turning over a amendment that is supported like that? $50 donation dollars to campaign for liberty that by this time next year this could be overturned at some judicial level. There will be hell to pay for it and of course the president whoever it may be will simply say that the court is radical and man he wishes he could just bypass it.

 

[chudrockz]

What are the chances really of this thing not getting struck down? Hasn't the supreme court already sided with the same sex marriage right argument? So what is going to stop them from simply overturning this amendment? If anything this might have been planned or hoped for. With the recent uptick in the idea that congress is useless and the courts are radicle. What would be more beneficial then turning over a amendment that is supported like that? $50 donation dollars to campaign for liberty that by this time next year this could be overturned at some judicial level. There will be hell to pay for it and of course the president whoever it may be will simply say that the court is radical and man he wishes he could just bypass it.

It quite possibly WILL be thrown out by court challenges, yes.

The sad thing though is that there are enough dolts in NC that it passed in the first place.

I'm not sure if this will be on the ballot this November in Minnesota, but my wife and I can't wait to go vote against a gay marriage ban if it is.

 

[Domalais]

This isn't a statist program. State-based Gay marriage is a statist program, and this prohibits North Carolina from engaging in it.

Marriage is a contract. Prohibiting marriage between two consenting adults is the government telling people what types of agreements they can or cannot make in the market.


Gay marriage is an economic liberty issue.

 

[No Free Beer]

Although I believe it's a state's right to do this, I find it rather amusing.

It seems that there is big support from the evangelical-Christian community to ban gay-marriage wherever they can. But, what if we told them that the state could vote on whether to allow them to practice their religion (Christianity) legally. No praying. No churches. Nothing.

Shit would hit the fan.

 

[Don Lapre]

Don Lapre!!!!!

I knew the second I read the title you would magicly appear.

To anyone that is not aware he is 100% seriouse and has brought us such gems in the past such as:

And lets not forget this wonderfull logic:

So I will say you are still very consistent and I really don't think your a troll. IF you are a troll damn you are dedicated.

*edit*
The weird thing is I agree with him 100% on no government involvement in marriage. I don't thin anyone has ever disagreed with him there. He just likes to come in and really rail on homosexuality.

lol

Those takes of mine would only seem trollish to someone who's head has already turned to mush.

 

[Ranger29860]

Not sure if Don Lapre was being sarcastic or not (I hope he was), but it HAS always puzzled me why people often only talk about MALE same-sex marriage as being "nasty", not female. It's quite a telling phenomenon.

Because most homophobia comes from a person having their masculinity threatened. This do0esn't include someone who just doesn't like gays though. Its one thing to not like homosexuality its a whole nother thing to actively seek to ban or ostracize it.

You can clearly see this in the Army in the old days. If a man came out as gay he would not only be kicked out but during the time he was being preprocessed they would send him to another base. This was done because the Army did not want any sympathy coming from the individuals chain of command since they new the person more than just on the basis of he is gay. This led to many horror stories of gay men being put in a situation where they were surrounded by people who didn't know them and only knew they were gay. So you had people who had no emotional tie to an individual judging them based on one attribute that was viewed as unnatural and at the time was interwoven with the idea that homosexuality = pedophile. Go look at some of the storied from vets who got out and litterly had to run for their lives some nights because mobs of soldiers were coming to kill them. I know from experience that this hate they have now in days comes from their own insecurity. I know of a few openly gay soldiers in my old unit. It was never about them misbehaving or sexually harassing a soldier the problem were always on the side of the accusers thinking that everytime he went to the shower he was going to get raped but a gay.

If there is ANY doubt that the threatening of masculinity is the prime mover in homophobia just look at transgender people and how many times they are killed. Watch reactions of males that find out the person they are atracted to has a penis. Even though they look 100% like a women and the man is atracted to that the minute he is told this they tend to go off the handle and get violent. Accusing the peron of tricking them and then having to sure up there maculinity by getting violent.

As for women not being disgusting. I don't know where you live but in the south its just as bad as male homosexuality but it is only really present in women or a group environment.

 

[tod evans]

Lots of discussion about rights and and morality.

What about the legal consequences?

 

[Ranger29860]

Lots of discussion about rights and and morality.

What about the legal consequences?

Care to elaborate? What side of legal consequences are we talking about? Legal consequences of same sex marriage? or the legal consequence of banning it?

 

[tod evans]

Care to elaborate? What side of legal consequences are we talking about? Legal consequences of same sex marriage? or the legal consequence of banning it?

Geeze....both,

There are ramifications either way.

One that pops into my head right off is financial liability for healthcare insurers who would suddenly be legally bound to cover high risk couples.

 

[erowe1]

Marriage is a contract. Prohibiting marriage between two consenting adults is the government telling people what types of agreements they can or cannot make in the market.


Gay marriage is an economic liberty issue.

This isn't about prohibiting or banning anything except state involvement in gay marriage. Gay couples in North Carolina will still be able to have weddings, make promises to each other, live with each other, have sex, and do everything else that they think it means for them to be married, without anybody preventing them from those things or punishing them for them. All this amendment means is that they have to do all those things without the involvement of the state.

 

[Hyperion]

Maybe it's because they realize that the government ought not sanction, license, and put it's stamp of approval on... deviant behavior.

Maybe it's because they haven't had their brain turn to mush by willfully absorbing the idiotic and never-ending flood of propaganda which wants to tell them that man-man butt-sex is wonderful, cute, sexy, and sweet.

Basically how I see it. The bans don't stop the behavior if individuals engage in it, but prevents the state from ever promoting it. As it should be. I'm sure many on here will disagree.

 

[Hyperion]

Better the state decide it's own laws than a group of federal judges.

The title should read NC Bans Gay Marriage Licenses unless marriage is an institution solely created and defined by the government. If the moral authority for your marriage depends upon government approval, then you have a weak case to start with.

Also a very good point.

 

[osan]

Another disgusting example of people believing they have the authority to control the lives of other peaceful human beings. When will people learn that when you attempt to control others, you will eventually be the one being controlled?

I'm truly baffled by the support for these bans. While flawed, I can understand arguments for many other statist programs. However, I cannot understand how anyone can be in favor of this.

Indeed, the ignorance, hypocrisy, stupidity, and really above all else the utter cowardice of it all. How eager they have been to deny the rights of others to live peaceably as they see fit. I hold less contempt for the child molester.

Human tyranny at the state level just reared its ugly head most unmistakably in NC. So much for the utterly idiotic notion of "states' rights". A vast wad of the people of NC have damned themselves. May they find the bed in which they must now lay suitably comfortable and inviting. One can only hope that in the near future that state's legislature will serve up a similar lesson in hypocrisy that will set those wretched people to wailing and gnashing their teeth.

The saddest thing is that the homos may now leave the state in droves when precisely the opposite should occur. Every homosexual in the nation should move there, even if only for a short while and overwhelm that horrid population. Let the imbeciles who voted this oppression upon their fellows have even more of them as neighbors to their fathomless horror. Let them live more deeply in the fear that drove them to this idiocy, because it is exactly fear and their despicable cowardice that drove them to this.

A big step backward for human rights in the nation.

I do have a question though... Given the notion of "equal faith and credit", if a NC couple goes to San Francisco to get hitched, will NC not be obliged to recognize and respect that union? I see no way that such a constitutional amendment could possibly hold up to a court challenge. If NC were to ban Negroes, I my confidence is fair to middling that it would not stand up to judicial review.

I will also point out that this is a prime example of why states have no legitimate authority in the marriage business.

 

[Hyperion]

Maybe they shouldn't be in a position to be putting their "stamp" on any kind of marriages and keep their noses stuck to their own marriages, or lack thereof.

Government, at any level, shouldn't be in the marriage business.

I would have no problem with this.

 

[erowe1]

I do have a question though... Given the notion of "equal faith and credit", if a NC couple goes to San Francisco to get hitched, will NC not be obliged to recognize and respect that union?

No they won't because of DOMA, which Ron Paul supports.

 

[mport1]

Maybe they shouldn't be in a position to be putting their "stamp" on any kind of marriages and keep their noses stuck to their own marriages, or lack thereof.

Government, at any level, shouldn't be in the marriage business.

Agreed. The best thing would be for the government to completely abolish marriage licenses and any benefits associated with marriage. However, until that happens, people should be equal under the law.


Great Daily Show interview of Zach Wahls that discusses some of the harms caused by equal treatment not being afforded to gay couples - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-30-2012/zach-wahls