Amendment One Passes In North Carolina

Update: AP and other networks are projecting that Amendment One has passed.

With about 30% of the vote in the people of North Carolina seem to be voting in favor of prejudice.

About 57% of voters are currently supporting legislation that would ban all legal recognition of any relationship other than male-female marriage.

Author: PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor

28 Comments

  1. Would love to hear from some social conservatives on the site, what do ya think? Is this good news?

  2. I’m not a social conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but I will credit them for seeing the train coming down the tracks, and striving mightily to put the brakes on.

    Just a wild guess here, but I think the abortion fight taught them that it is much harder to put the genie back in the bottle, so they’re trying to get legislation and state constitutional amendments out in front of what is (in my opinion) an inevitable recognition of gay marriage at the national level.

  3. It’s blowback for the bullying and intolerance gay rights activists have shown to everyone who do not agree with them 100%. I was ambivalent towards this whole issue until I ran into the viciousness of the gay rights crowd.

  4. It’s a sad day for our gay brothers and sisters in NC. It never fails to surprise me, though, when people have an easy choice between love and hate and choose hate.

  5. Please tell me you’re being ironic, Eucliwood. Because considering the violence perpetrated against LGBT people both historically and presently, you certainly couldn’t be serious about gays being the bullies. Or did you possibly get a bit butthurt when ome one called you out on supporting inequality?

  6. It is ironic that the bullied became the bully.

    I’ll give you an example. Look at the Carrie Prejean case. From your prospective, I imagine you think gay rights activists were simply applying justice to an ignorant bigot. For the rest of us, it was just outright bullying and intimidation. And it has gotten worse these past few years.

  7. And I wouldn’t be surprised I get banned from this site simply because of the comments I made above. In my personal experience, the complete intolerance of anything that is not 100% pro-gay have reached a fevered pitch in the gay rights movement.

  8. “For the rest of us, it was just outright bullying and intimidation. And it has gotten worse these past few years.”

    Pardon me for asking, but who is “us?”

  9. Catering to the superstitious and the ignorant. Such a great recipe to move us forward in the 21st century. Pathetic.

  10. The 61%, cjjack.

  11. “The 61%, cjjack.”

    Help me out here, Eucliwood…

    Are you saying that 61% of the electorate were just minding their own business when one day they were suddenly and out of nowhere bullied and intimidated into voting one way or another?

  12. Hi there, Eucliwood. Please read the commenters’ rules at the top of the home page first. Keep to the topic of the subject as per commenters’ rules and all will be well. All are welcome within those rules which are generally to comment on the topic of the post, not writers and other commenters, to teach, debate, discuss within those very few perameters.

    Thanks
    archangel/ dr.e

  13. I personally couldn’t care less about the definition of marriage. I can see the benefit to government supporting the traditional marriage as good for society. Not to pass judgment on other lifestyles but few same sex marriages create children and the majority of traditional marriages do. In that limited viewpoint I can see little reason for the government to sponsor same sex marriages and some reason to sponsor traditional ones. I think anyone should be able to partner with anyone regardless of sex and I pretty much leave the marage thing to whatever religion they belong to and see no particular reason not to call a civil union marriage if they want. Tax policies, pensions, and other benefits were designed with the traditional marriage and the likelihood of children being involved so I when children are not in the picture for the majority of same sex marriages don’t believe there is a need to continue the traditional model. Regardless I find the issue low on my list of things that matter when I plan my vote.

  14. EEllis: “I can see the benefit to government supporting the traditional marriage as good for society. Not to pass judgment on other lifestyles but few same sex marriages create children and the majority of traditional marriages do. In that limited viewpoint I can see little reason for the government to sponsor same sex marriages and some reason to sponsor traditional ones.”

    I read the rest of your comment and I understand the whole marriage debate is low on your list of priorities but still you seem to be saying that straights can get married and have children because it’s good for society. Not enough gay couples have children to warrant the government sponsoring same-sex marriage.

    First of all, who determines what is “good for society”? I thought this was a country in which people could pursue their happiness (as long as it did not infringe on other people). Are you saying that allowing same-sex marriage is a detriment to society? Are you saying that some people (straight) can get married and no one need to ask them whether they will have children or not…. whereas people just assume that gay couples won’t have children and should not get married? And because 40% of births are out of wedlock in the US, marriage isn’t essential for having children, nor does a significant percentage of the population believe that marriage is essential. Given that, why is it good for the government to sponsor straight marriage to have children for the good of society, when many straight people themselves have children out of wedlock? I think if the goal is to have children born to people who are married, then the government should pass laws stating that only people who are married can have children. Of course people would be up in arms over this government intrusion (because it is not the government’s business to know what people do with their private lives), but frankly as it stands now this is exactly what the government and conservatives are doing to people they do not like nor respect. The government treats straight people differently (and does not pry into their lives) than they do gay and lesbians.

  15. It really is all BS about how the institution is there to foster family growth etc etc…. as if we are facing a dearth of babies being born and are facing extinction. The fact of the matter is people opposed to gay marriage just don’t like gay people and are creeped out by them. None of the supposed purposes state back marriage are affected by letting gay people marry. Although it is funny because they talk about having kids, yet when gay people want to get married AND adopt kids(from an obviously straight couple that dropped the ball parenting wise) the same people are up in arms over letting them raise kids as well. They just don’t like gay people and that’s the entirety of their argument.

  16. Well it looks as if the one uncensored conservative-leaning comment basically suggested that it just wasn’t that important to him, either way it went. Honesty can be brutally revealing.

  17. Hate is still a family value for some folks.

  18. you seem to be saying that straights can get married and have children because it’s good for society. Not enough gay couples have children to warrant the government sponsoring same-sex marriage.

    Pretty close yes

    First of all, who determines what is “good for society”? I thought this was a country in which people could pursue their happiness (as long as it did not infringe on other people).

    Hey I couldn’t care less what people do. Go for it I say, but not everything deserves tax breaks.

    Are you saying that some people (straight) can get married and no one need to ask them whether they will have children or not…. whereas people just assume that gay couples won’t have children and should not get married?

    I’m saying the majority of traditional marriages create children and only a very small number of same sex marriages do so. If the govt is sponsoring, giving special benefits, to families based on the idea of aiding and supporting children then while it makes sense for them to do so in traditional marriages but not in same sex ones.

    because 40% of births are out of wedlock in the US, marriage isn’t essential for having children, nor does a significant percentage of the population believe that marriage is essential.

    That is a perfect example of why the govt might sponsor traditional marriage. There is no doubt that the best situation is in a two parent home.

    I think if the goal is to have children born to people who are married, then the government should pass laws stating that only people who are married can have children.

    It is one thing to encourage certain behaviors the are a positive for society, but lets get real. Just because you can take something to an absurd end doesn’t invalidate the possible benefit of a practice.

    The government treats straight people differently (and does not pry into their lives) than they do gay and lesbians.

    Yes they do treat people different but there is a difference in the result of couplings between the two groups. Children. It has nothing to do with prying in anywhere that I can see but one union produces kids the other doesn’t. Sure there are exceptions and that is just what they are exceptions. Maybe the govt should get out of the whole sponsorship game entirety and that would remove a possible reason to question gay marriage, I don’t know, but I see why some “benefits” were set up to help families and I don’t see the need for them in same sex marriage. Then again the numbers we are talking about is really to small to make it a significant issue to me. More of a theoretical sort of a thing.

  19. straights can get married and have children because it’s good for society.

    I think I passed that too quick and didn’t give my true thoughts on it. Anyone should and can get married it’s that people want govt acknowledgement and support, all the bennies, for getting married right? I’m saying it is in the govts interest to encourage traditional marriage as good for society but it’s a harder argument to make for same sex marriage.

  20. The fact of the matter is people opposed to gay marriage just don’t like gay people and are creeped out by them.

    Large groups of people just don’t fit in tiny little boxes that easily.

  21. Well it looks as if the one uncensored conservative-leaning comment basically suggested that it just wasn’t that important to him, either way it went. Honesty can be brutally revealing.

    If that refers to me I can quite easily tell you why. I personally think that we would and could of had Civil Unions done and passed a long time ago. That at a certain point the fight became not of equal rights but more of some acknowledgement of approval for a lifestyle. (and no I don’t think they need anyones approval for a damn thing) I have enough going on without campaigning about someones issues with their parents.

  22. I’ll have to respectfully disagree that civil unions could have been passed a long time ago, because this is primarily a religious issue, with a large and coordinated effort to stop it going on in the past and presently.

    The fight is about equal rights, whether people want to frame it in some context of “lifestyle” or not. My wife and I, if we choose childlessness, get rights and recognition and tax advantages given by the state that my gay cousin cannot receive with his lifelong partner.

    And I have no idea how issues with parents came into the conversation.

    I was told a long time ago that the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. It hurts me immeasurably to hear that people just don’t care about this issue, but i respect your honesty, it is a beginning of some reasonable dialogue.

  23. I’ll have to respectfully disagree that civil unions could have been passed a long time ago, because this is primarily a religious issue, with a large and coordinated effort to stop it going on in the past and presently.

    But isn’t it made a religious issue by the word marriage? Maybe it’s my memory but I remember in one state the pro gay marriage lobby refused to accept civil unions in preference to the term marriage.

    The fight is about equal rights, whether people want to frame it in some context of “lifestyle” or not. My wife and I, if we choose childlessness, get rights and recognition and tax advantages given by the state that my gay cousin cannot receive with his lifelong partner.

    I’ve never said, and wouldn’t, “Lifestyle” like it was some chosen behavior, but that doesn’t affect the fact that the results of those relationships have statisticly different results for society. The case for support and or sponsorship is just plain easier to make in traditional marriages.

    I was told a long time ago that the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. It hurts me immeasurably to hear that people just don’t care about this issue, but i respect your honesty, it is a beginning of some reasonable dialogue.

    Here is my deal. I would vote instantly for laws that give domestic partners all and every reasonable right. From health care to inheritance, access to adoption. I’m not concerned about marriage because I think it is more about seeking some acknowledgement or approval for being gay than anything else. I don’t think it is necessary or that they should desire it so no it’s very low on my list of concerns.

    Honestly the crap about being some evil homophobe the instant a person doesn’t jump up and cheer gay marriage is getting more than a bit old.

  24. Yes sir, this isn’t about a cheerleading session for gays, it is about the constitutional amendment that became law in North Carolina that guarantees that the laws that give domestic partners all and every reasonable right that comes inherent to married people, won’t happen.

    It was a vote exactly against, what you would instantly vote for.

    I like your deal, but I won’t presume to suppose what I think most gay oriented people should desire, and I do know a few who expressly desire marriage, religious people included.

    I’m convinced that legalizing marriage for gays will have one statistical outcome for society: it’ll be legal–gay people will remain gay and heterosexual people will remain heterosexual. Still lots of kids running around. Not much else except the advantages for gay couples, giving them same advantages we enjoy as heterosexual marrieds.

    This post probably won’t be here tomorrow but in case you read it, I appreciate your dialogue and I’m convinced now that you aren’t so apathetic about it as I initially thought. Thanks for clarifying.

  25. ” Look at the Carrie Prejean case”

    Hmmm…looks like someone’s comments resurfaced. In any case, I’m quite confused. So if people who don’t like gay people don’t get awarded a crown from a gay person for their ignorant beliefs, they’re being bullied? And somehow this is equivalent to or worse than all the violence and real discrimination perpetrated on gay people in this country? Sorry dude, but no. Saying to someone that what they’re saying is hateful is different than bullying. Even if they’re not nice about it.

Submit a Comment