North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban

May 8, 2012 Full story: NJ.com 5,908

North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment today defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.

Full Story
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#2341 May 22, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you want to rehash this again? In need of some more embarrassment?
back to your erroneous claim that hernandez is somehow not standing law, but you would be wrong AGAIN....
say, got any support that hernandez is not good law just post it right here...

you really think I wouldn't cite actual LAW based on your silly opinion alone?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#2342 May 22, 2012
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
I said "But we all know marriage is not a right since siblings cannot marry."
You said "Siblings are already related. Marriage would be redundant"
Not only is this wrong (since the privileges and benefits are not the same) but you are saying siblings cannot get married for good reason.
So, you acknowledge their relationship is not the same as marriage (does not have as many privileges and benefits) but do not want to allow them to have the same ones you do.
Time to dig out your LOGIC FOR 1ST GRADERS textbook.

Your initial claim is incorrect (marriage is not a right since siblings can't marry). Marriage IS a right because SCOTUS said so. And THAT'S the end of that story. If you wish to argue your silly point further, take it up with SCOTUS.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#2343 May 22, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
back to your erroneous claim that hernandez is somehow not standing law, but you would be wrong AGAIN....
say, got any support that hernandez is not good law just post it right here...
you really think I wouldn't cite actual LAW based on your silly opinion alone?
Can gay couples marry in New York?
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#2344 May 22, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Can gay couples marry in New York?
Does NY's constitution protect gay marriage?
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#2345 May 22, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Time to dig out your LOGIC FOR 1ST GRADERS textbook.
Your initial claim is incorrect (marriage is not a right since siblings can't marry). Marriage IS a right because SCOTUS said so. And THAT'S the end of that story. If you wish to argue your silly point further, take it up with SCOTUS.
and that same court specifically found gay marriage is not a right.

But you could care less about facts or consistency...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#2346 May 22, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you could do that, but you wouldn't be legally married. You would get zero benefits from the State.
Yep.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#2347 May 22, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
and that same court specifically found gay marriage is not a right.
But you could care less about facts or consistency...
Can gay couples marry in New York?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#2348 May 22, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Time to dig out your LOGIC FOR 1ST GRADERS textbook.
Your initial claim is incorrect (marriage is not a right since siblings can't marry). Marriage IS a right because SCOTUS said so. And THAT'S the end of that story. If you wish to argue your silly point further, take it up with SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS also said African Americans were not citizens or protected under the Constitution. Do you agree with that?

Heck, the SCOTUS ACTUALLY said "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Please explain how gay marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I hope Kindergarten has a logic class because you failed the 1st grade one...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#2349 May 22, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Can gay couples marry in New York?
What does that have to do with anything?

There are lots of things people can do that are not rights.

I can rent out a public park pavilion, but it is not a right.

I can get a permit for a parade, but it is not a right.

I can deduct the interest from my mortgage, but it is not a right.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2350 May 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops...sorry to assume that, my congual marriage mindset conditioning at it again. I hear "husband", and I automatically associate it with "wife". Now if you refer to yourself as the "wife" welllll......
I think you inadvertantly hit on the main reason married male homophobes oppose gay men getting married- they're afraid someone might wonder if they're married to another man when they say "I'm married". And in their minds, the WORST thing EVER would be if someone thinks they might be gay. That's why they're always harping about man-on-man buttsex, but hardly ever peep out of them about lesbians getting married.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2351 May 22, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you've mentioned this and I think it's a smart theory.
We'll find out if I'm right in just 15 days.

Unfortunately I'm going to be fishing in the wilderness of northern Manitoba the first 2 weeks of June, so I won't know anything until I get back to civilization mid-month!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2352 May 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Noooooo...there simply hasn't been a sympathetic judge found yet. Ya never know.
But why not? If it's going to be "so easy" as you claimed, then they should have no trouble whatsoever finding a sympathetic judge.

Yep, it's only a matter of time before Bigfoot gets to marry the Abomonable Snowman; all they have to do is find a sympathetic judge- easy.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2353 May 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Can same sex first cousins marry in the states where ssm is legal?
Only if opposite-sex first cousins can marry in that state. All other restrictions apply- age, relation, consent for minors to marry, etc.

In fact in Maryland the anti-gays tried to get a special ban on gays under age 18 from marrying because they claimed it would encourage old men to marry young boys. Yet they have no problem with current Maryland marriage law which allows old men to marry underage GIRLS. When the pro-equality legislators offered to support an amendment to the marriage equality law which would have made the minimum age to marry 18 for ANYONE. Of course the anti-gays immediately backed down.

Typical anti-gay hypocrisy.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2354 May 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as those people are from opposite teams, male and female.
Obviously not, since many same-sex couples are legally married.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2355 May 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm....okay how about "natural procreation as a result of coitus enaged in by the same sex married couple", would that be a sufficient clarifying modifing statement?
Obviously not, but then such procreation has NEVER been a condition of marriage; not even the abilty or desire to "naturally procreate".

If that is going to be a condition of marriage, then a lot of heterosexual couples won't be allowed to marry. I'm not sure that's going to go over too well with the people, not to mention the courts.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2356 May 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes I did, and stated so in another post. Now replace the scenario you created with two female same sex cousins who reside in a state that does not recognize such marriages, should their relationship receive marital desgination?
Iowa, and Vermont, I believe allows ssm but not fcm (first cousin marriage). Seems rather odd, that "marriage equality" doesn't extend to first cousin marriage which is legal in 25 states, and recognized in all fifty. Did anyone tell the coalition?
Marrige is defined by the states. Obvioussly those states found a good enough reason to ban first cousins from marrying, but not good enough to ban same-sex couples from marrying. Should states have to allow 4 year olds to marry just because same-sex couples can marry? Of course not.

It's all about which bans can be constitutionally justified. At one point inter-racial bans could be justified, along with same-sex bans.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2357 May 22, 2012
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS also said African Americans were not citizens or protected under the Constitution. Do you agree with that?
Heck, the SCOTUS ACTUALLY said "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Please explain how gay marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."
I hope Kindergarten has a logic class because you failed the 1st grade one...
Not currently

Quoted out of context make this meaningless drivel

Ad hominem statment

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2358 May 22, 2012
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. It makes you bi-.
Words have meaning. HomoSEXUAL, biSEXUAL has the SEXUAL in there for a reason. It's not homoATTRACTED or biATTRACTED.
You can't just make up your own definitions.


If that's the case, then about half the country is bisexual!

You're reading the definitions too literally.

A bisexual is someone who is sexually attracted to both genders. People can have sex without actually being sexually attracted to the person, especially women; for a guy it's bit more difficult, but not impossible.

Oh, and people make up their own definitions all the time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2359 May 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And that point is? What is the compelling state interest in calling a same sex relationship marriage? Why is it important, to the state that two men, or two women, are joined in "holy matrimony" and live happily ever after? The burden of proof is on those who support SSM, not the other way around.
Actually we don't have to prove anything like that. Since the govt already has laws recognizing marriages, all we have to prove is that we are being denied the equal protections of those laws.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we just need to convince judges or legislators that our wheel should be treated the same as all the other wheels.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2360 May 22, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Then straights should be considered LGBT just like millions of transgenders are...
or is it that exceptions don't negate the rule...
Okay, straights are now LGBT. Happy?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min deutscher Nationa... 121,063
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Cornelius Scudmister 158,904
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 10 min Kentucky-Mitch 11,460
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 57 min Chimney1 381
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 58 min redeemer 3,938
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 58 min shinningelectr0n 1,126,130
Rahall-Jenkins House race remains tight 1 hr tired 95
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Quirky 270,359
US Ebola Crisis Is A Media Myth, Claims Obama 3 hr Hooogle It 51
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr Prosperity Fundie... 1,538

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE