(no subject)

[neadods]

I'm so ashamed of North Carolina today. And so worried my own state will tip towards bigotry in November.

How afraid, how hateful do you have to be to outlaw something twice over? Oh, wait don't tell me; I already see is in Arizona where they're rewriting the tax code to make sure that even no public funds don't fund abortion already, private funds and private policies will be barred or punished.

Comments

[forked.livejournal.com]

I'm in Greensboro and so very ashamed to admit that at the moment. I really didn't believe it would pass, despite the polls leaning that way. It's just so clearly mean spirited and hateful and I don't see how you can spin that any other way. And now every time I see it come up on the news channels I want to vomit. Bleh.

And wanted to say- I'm grabbing that book today- thanks so much for the code. Yesterday was nuts so hadn't had the chance yet. And then I was just sad last night when I finally got in and didn't feel like mucking with the computer. Sigh.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Mean spirited and, despite the vote, illegal. Is there an argument against it that isn't religiously motivated? Because we've got this Amendment that's supposed to prevent a group, even a majority, to prevent the free exercise of the beliefs of the minority.

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

It's more than free exercise of beliefs.

14th Amendment, article 1:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That seems to sum it up pretty clearly to me: denying equal protection of marriage laws to any citizen is unconstitutional for any state. All we need is a Supreme Court majority that can read the Constitution and someone to bring them the case.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

denying equal protection of marriage laws to any citizen is unconstitutional for any state. All we need is a Supreme Court majority that can read the Constitution and someone to bring them the case

IIRC, the Proposition 8 California case (with attendant "it is against the 14th Amendment" argument) *is* headed to the Supreme court.

In the meantime, ol' Etch-a-sketch is insisting that the youthful "pranks" he can't remember were just assault and battery, but not gay bashing.

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

Gay bashing or not, knocking someone down and forcibly cutting their hair because "he shouldn't wear it like that" is the act of a dangerous jerk. He claims to have grown up since then, but I wonder.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

His dog doubtless has an opinion on the subject.

Not to mention that Etch a Sketch didn't do it alone. He led a mob to do it. They remember and regret; why doesn't he do either?

[lizvogel.livejournal.com]

I found it interesting that, according to Public Policy Polling, more than half the voters didn't understand (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/final-nc-primary-poll.html#more) that the ammendment would outlaw civil unions as well as gay marriage. Which is not a distinction I personally support, but I know a lot of people who are fine with civil unions with equivalent rights as long as you don't label it "marriage", because of the religious connotations. Might be an avenue to explore for the inevitable anti-ammendment push, once NCers realize what they actually voted for.

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I read that once people understood what the amendment would actually do, a majority were against it. Another victory for bigotry and ignorance.

[lizvogel.livejournal.com]

Especially ignorance. Which bigotry is generally a function of, come to think of it.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Ignorance. And putting religion into politics, because I have yet to see a secular argument against gay marriage, just "God's agin it and so am I!"

Fine. Don't marry a member of your own gender, and keep your religion out of my and my friend's lives.

[lyricwrites.livejournal.com]

And putting religion into politics, because I have yet to see a secular argument against gay marriage, just "God's agin it and so am I!"

The secular argument, in my experience, is (if possible) even weaker: "But it's gross!"

Bizarrely, these are often the same people who argue that "freedom of speech" means, "how dare you get offended when I say something disgusting?"

[neadods.livejournal.com]

The government should get out of marriage all together and say "you get these rights with a civil union" period, IMO.

In the meantime, the intolerance just breaks my heart.

[lizvogel.livejournal.com]

Agreed -- civil unions for everybody. If you want something called a "marriage" as well, that's between you and your religious institution, but make it a separate thing.

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

Haven't checked this, but someone says it IS legal in NC for first cousins to marry. Unless they're, you know, both guys or something, then it's ew.

Yep, we want tarheels to breed, even if their kids come out with two heads.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

It's all about the children.

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

Ironically there's no good reason why gay first cousins shouldn't marry, since they're not going to breed with each other....

[neadods.livejournal.com]

There you go being logical again.