Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 44

Thread: North Carolina Enacts Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

  1. #1

    Default North Carolina Enacts Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

    North Carolina approves ban on same-sex marriage by wide margin

    Updated at 8:17 a.m. ET:
    North Carolina voters Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution which limits marriage to traditional one man-one woman marriages.

    With all of the state's 100 counties reporting, the amendment won in a landslide, with 61 percent of the vote.

    Supporters of traditional marriage were encouraged by the outcome in North Carolina and portrayed it as part of a trend in their favor.
    “Our position that marriage is between a man and a woman is gaining support, not losing support,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

    “Earlier this week the Gallup poll showed that support for same-sex marriage is down. Actual vote percentages in favor of traditional marriage are rising. In 2008 in California, the Prop 8 constitutional amendment on traditional marriage passed with 52 percent of the vote. Then in 2009 in Maine, 53 percent of voters stood for traditional marriage and rejected same-sex marriage legislation. In 2010, 56 percent of Iowa voters rejected three Supreme Court judges who had imposed gay marriage in that state. And now more than 60 percent of North Carolina voters have passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There is a clear trend line, and it is moving in our direction.”

    On other other side, some gay and lesbian rights advocates portrayed the North Carolina outcome as a case of voters being uninformed or deceived.

    The gay and lesbian advocacy group Faith in America said that voters were “duped into believing their religious belief justified bringing harm to the state's gay and lesbian individuals, especially youth and their families.”

    The group said, “We acknowledge the right of voters to decide issues but we do not believe such an expression of bigotry should have been put to a vote by individuals who were banking on a win because of the populace's misunderstanding about sexual orientation….”

    Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, called the North Carolina outcome “what happens when a preemptive ballot-measure is stampeded through before people have had enough time to take in real conversations about who gay families are and why marriage matters to them.”

    For his part President Obama, according to his North Carolina campaign spokesman, was “disappointed” by the result.

    "The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples. He believes the North Carolina measure singles out and discriminates against committed gay and lesbian couples, which is why he did not support it,” said Cameron French, the North Carolina press secretary for Obama’s campaign.

    Obama won North Carolina in the 2008 election and his party is holding the Democratic national convention there in September.
    One noteworthy pattern was that some majority black counties which had strongly backed Obama in 2008 just as strongly supported the proposed amendment on Tuesday.

    For example, Hertford County, with a 60 percent black population, voted for Obama with 70 percent in 2008 and on Tuesday 70 percent of its voters backed the constitutional amendment defining marriage.

    And Halifax County, with a 53 percent black population, voted for Obama with 64 percent in 2008 and backed the amendment with 68 percent of its votes.

    The amendment says: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” In effect, it would bar the state from giving legal recognition to civil unions between same-sex couples.

    Under North Carolina law, same-sex marriages are already banned.
    Source

    Everyone in North Carolina should be ashamed and embarrassed about this.

  2. #2
    Not very surprising, is it? As the article points out, the left-wing of the electorate in North Carolina is black, and that demographic isn't very approving of gays.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    Shame on the voters of North Carolina.

  4. #4
    Click to view the full version

    damn liberal universities
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  5. #5
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Wasn't it only a 15% turnout?
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  6. #6


    That works equally well with population density.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post

    Everyone in North Carolina should be ashamed and embarrassed about this.
    As should the other 38 states with the same constitutional bans.

    Why did they want to prohibit civil unions, even among hetero couples, too?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    As should the other 38 states with the same constitutional bans.
    yipee for state rights!
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    yipee for state rights!
    Why, would you be happier with a Federal ban on gay marriage?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Not very surprising, is it? As the article points out, the left-wing of the electorate in North Carolina is black, and that demographic isn't very approving of gays.
    Based on "religious reasons"....same as white Catholics and/or Evangelicals. We went over this after Prop 8 in CA.

    I think this is a great example of how any referendum, with enough bias in the wording and terminology, can ask people to vote on the "wrong" -- or misleading -- questions. If it had been framed as:

    Should gay, lesbian, or transgender people have fewer or restricted Civil Rights than any other citizen group?

    I wonder who'd vote YES on that....




    Quote Originally Posted by Crowheart View Post
    Me.
    Of course. OMG oops, that needs an edit. Thanks. :
    Last edited by GGT; 05-10-2012 at 11:34 PM.

  11. #11
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Why, would you be happier with a Federal ban on gay marriage?
    Ouch.

    But accurate.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Should gay, lesbian, or transgender people have fewer or restricted Civil Rights than any other citizen group?

    I wonder who'd vote NO on that....
    Me.

  13. #13
    A federal ban? Nah, it will be heard by SCOTUS before there's a federal ban. And it won't be in "defining marriage", but whether restricting Civil Rights to minority groups, state-by-state, based on religious ideology is constitutional.

    Hard to believe that the US still has states where it's legal to fire workers for "being gay".

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Why did they want to prohibit civil unions, even among hetero couples, too?
    Because they know my side has used and will continue to use them as a political hammer to keep moving policy in the direction we want.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    A federal ban? Nah, it will be heard by SCOTUS before there's a federal ban. And it won't be in "defining marriage", but whether restricting Civil Rights to minority groups, state-by-state, based on religious ideology is constitutional.

    Hard to believe that the US still has states where it's legal to fire workers for "being gay".
    The Supreme Court is going to overturn a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #16
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    What exactly does happen if an amendment conflicts with the rest of the constitution?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  17. #17
    The Court muddles through. It decides whether laws are consistent with the Constitution, not whether the Constitution is consistent with itself. There is no mechanism for the courts to strike down a part of the Constitution.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    A federal ban? Nah, it will be heard by SCOTUS before there's a federal ban. And it won't be in "defining marriage", but whether restricting Civil Rights to minority groups, state-by-state, based on religious ideology is constitutional.

    Hard to believe that the US still has states where it's legal to fire workers for "being gay".
    I think you missed the point.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The Supreme Court is going to overturn a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages?
    SCOTUS could have a case before them, asking if State Constitutions are in violation of the US Constitution by denying certain groups from civil liberties. Historically, isn't that how state laws have been deemed federally unconstitutional? I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Why, would you be happier with a Federal ban on gay marriage?
    Does that matter for the populations of the 38 states that are classified as not worthy of full rights? Do you hold the opinion that its just as easy to pass a constitional amendment to the US constition on this subject as its been for the states to pass their own?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    yipee for state rights!
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Because they know my side has used and will continue to use them as a political hammer to keep moving policy in the direction we want.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I think you missed the point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    What exactly does happen if an amendment conflicts with the rest of the constitution?
    "State Rights" have been at odds with Civil Rights for a long time. States have been enacting laws that restrict voter registration, limit access to womens' legal reproductive healthcare, restrict spousal/parental/family rights....and give local jurisdictions powers to supercede federal immigration laws. State legislators know that the wheels of justice move slowly, and it can take decades for a case to be taken to SCOTUS.

    Flixy, you ask a really great question. State Supreme Courts are different than our federal Supreme Court of the United States. Someone like Little Fuzzy would have a better explanation for you.....since it makes no sense to me that state constitutions can be amended in ways that defy the US Constitution.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Does that matter for the populations of the 38 states that are classified as not worthy of full rights? Do you hold the opinion that its just as easy to pass a constitional amendment to the US constition on this subject as its been for the states to pass their own?
    I'm of the opinion that if it weren't for silly, pesky things like, "states' rights" the US likely would have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and 50 states would be subject to a ridiculous, unfair, and oppressive law, as opposed to only 38 of them.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm of the opinion that if it weren't for silly, pesky things like, "states' rights" the US likely would have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and 50 states would be subject to a ridiculous, unfair, and oppressive law, as opposed to only 38 of them.
    Please explain. Do you mean the balance of powers? Does that mean that only after a certain number of states have instituted discriminatory laws, the federal government is "welcomed" to step in? How many states would that be? Would it be alright if just one state banned interracial marriage, and the rest of the nation simply looks away?

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Please explain. Do you mean the balance of powers? Does that mean that only after a certain number of states have instituted discriminatory laws, the federal government is "welcomed" to step in? How many states would that be? Would it be alright if just one state banned interracial marriage, and the rest of the nation simply looks away?
    I'm saying if there were no States' rights, (i.e. there was no 10th Amendment and all law was determined by Federal law) that there were points in history where there would have been more then ample public support, political capital, and willing members of Congress to ban gay marriage.

  25. #25
    Interesting perspective on the United States Constitution, which granted only certain (and restricted) legislative powers to the States, as long as they didn't violate federal (constitutional) laws protecting civil liberties.


    edit: The beauty of our US Constitution is that it does give certain legislative powers to the states, recognizing that each state has its distinct cultures and self-determination needs. That's why we have state constitutions, state legislatures, state Governors....and a whole slew of laws that are distinct and peculiar to each state.

    However, each state is also part of the greater nation, and can't operate as singular entities just because they wanna. PS, the UNION won.
    Last edited by GGT; 05-11-2012 at 04:04 AM.

  26. #26
    This is going to get even more interesting, politically, during this POTUS election cycle. Mitt Romney says "marriage is between one woman and one man", he doesn't condone civil unions, he's defended DOMA and DADT, signed pledges to introduce a federal bill amending the US Constitution that defines marriage as one man/one woman....

    <How odd, coming from his polygamist roots that forced his family to emigrate to Mexico....until they could repatriate to the US and receive the $100,000 federal reparations for "discriminatory practices" against their "religious practices", huh.>

    Even odder that he claims to be a severely conservative candidate. Promising he'd make the federal government smaller, less intrusive, and less important in American lives. What a bunch-o-bull. Romney wouldn't last ten minutes in a debate with someone like Cameron, who said he supports same-sex marriage because he's a conservative.


  27. #27
    You do realize that Mormons are incredibly socially conservative, right? And do you realize how inane you sound by bringing up what someone's great-grandparents did as a reason for not opposing it?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #28
    Romney would still lose a debate with Cameron. A politician can only go so far as The Pretender, before he's exposed as The Puppet.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Romney would still lose a debate with Cameron. A politician can only go so far as The Pretender, before he's exposed as The Puppet.
    I think it is best often to let these things change naturally. In this case, I do think all states will eventually legalize gay marriage. I'm outraged at the NC voters; however, I'm comforted in that gays may not get all the perks of straights but eventually they will, and they have the biggest one (As far as i'm aware) of being able to publically be together in a relationship, even though it comes without legal recognition.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Interesting perspective on the United States Constitution, which granted only certain (and restricted) legislative powers to the States, as long as they didn't violate federal (constitutional) laws protecting civil liberties.


    edit: The beauty of our US Constitution is that it does give certain legislative powers to the states, recognizing that each state has its distinct cultures and self-determination needs. That's why we have state constitutions, state legislatures, state Governors....and a whole slew of laws that are distinct and peculiar to each state.

    However, each state is also part of the greater nation, and can't operate as singular entities just because they wanna. PS, the UNION won.

    Yeah, you missed the point.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •