Fuck You North Carolina

[89Hen]

My thoughts exactly.

Your church vilifies gays.

[89Hen]

In another 40 years young people will look back in horror at the way gays were treated by our society, like women of 1920s & blacks of the 50s & 60s. It may take some time but it's coming.

It's ironic, the Party that wants less Gov't and the Gov't out of thier lives feel necessary to push government into the bedrooms.

When do we vote against marriage as a whole? I'll vote against that. The government has no business saying who can marry whom. I'm for civil unions, where those that entered it are treated like Married couples are too. THat might be too vague but hey, my view is "evolving."

You never answered my question the other day. Should the gov have the right to say siblings can't marry?

[danefan]

It's ironic, the Party that wants less Gov't and the Gov't out of thier lives feel necessary to push government into the bedrooms.

When do we vote against marriage as a whole? I'll vote against that. The government has no business saying who can marry whom. I'm for civil unions, where those that entered it are treated like Married couples are too. THat might be too vague but hey, my view is "evolving."

You never answered my question the other day. Should the gov have the right to say siblings can't marry?

Why do you care if a brother and sister get married?

You care, for the same reasons most people care, because there is a safety concern (e.g., incest is rarely consensual).

The government should get involved to protect parties that need to be protected. Regulating marriage isn't helping alleviate the safety issues.

[Ibanez]

It's ironic, the Party that wants less Gov't and the Gov't out of thier lives feel necessary to push government into the bedrooms.

When do we vote against marriage as a whole? I'll vote against that. The government has no business saying who can marry whom. I'm for civil unions, where those that entered it are treated like Married couples are too. THat might be too vague but hey, my view is "evolving."

You never answered my question the other day. Should the gov have the right to say siblings can't marry?

I didn't see your quesion. Should siblings marry? Marriage is religous and if the religion says no, then no.

For legal reasons, a civil union should be between 2 consenting adults (of the underaged if thier parents consent).

I'm not advocating incest, but some Judge in NC has no authority to tell two people who they can spend thier lives with. You wouldn't want someone saying you couldn't be with your wife because she's different in some way, would you? I woulnd't advocate the marrying or civil unions of siblings.

[89Hen]

You never answered my question the other day. Should the gov have the right to say siblings can't marry?

Why do you care if a brother and sister get married?

You care, for the same reasons most people care, because there is a safety concern (e.g., incest is rarely consensual).

The government should get involved to protect parties that need to be protected. Regulating marriage isn't helping alleviate the safety issues.

Rare or not, you're OK with the gov saying two adults cannot get married. More than half the US states ban marriage between first cousins, in several it's a criminal offense, and in several it's legal.

[89Hen]

For legal reasons, a civil union should be between 2 consenting adults (of the underaged if thier parents consent).

I'm not advocating incest, but some Judge in NC has no authority to tell two people who they can spend thier lives with. You wouldn't want someone saying you couldn't be with your wife because she's different in some way, would you? I woulnd't advocate the marrying or civil unions of siblings.

So you would or wouldn't?

[danefan]

Why do you care if a brother and sister get married?

You care, for the same reasons most people care, because there is a safety concern (e.g., incest is rarely consensual).

The government should get involved to protect parties that need to be protected. Regulating marriage isn't helping alleviate the safety issues.

Rare or not, you're OK with the gov saying two adults cannot get married. More than half the US states ban marriage between first cousins, in several it's a criminal offense, and in several it's legal.

I think those laws are misplaced. They don't solve the problems incest causes or protect the victims of incest.

I have no problem with a law that seeks to restrict acts of incest. Banning marriage isn't restricting acts of incest. Its just the government saying we're not supporting it.

[JMU DJ]

Blame the old folk. The younger generation has your back.

Except for the ECU Butt Pirates... can't even support their own. Shameful.

[89Hen]

I have no problem with a law that seeks to restrict acts of incest.

Even if they catch unintended people in them?

[danefan]

I have no problem with a law that seeks to restrict acts of incest.

Even if they catch unintended people in them?

How does a law which restricts the act of incest catch unintended people? You mean those who are in a consensual incestuous relationship?

[89Hen]

Even if they catch unintended people in them?

How does a law which restricts the act of incest catch unintended people? You mean those who are in a consensual incestuous relationship?

Yes.

[danefan]

How does a law which restricts the act of incest catch unintended people? You mean those who are in a consensual incestuous relationship?

Yes.

Well that really is a question of whether someone should be allowed to consent to an incestuous relationship. I'm sure there are arguments on both sides. If you make the law a strict liability law, like statutory rape, than consent doesn't matter. Essentially the government saying that no one in that position has the ability to consent. I don't really have a position on whether someone should be able to consent to incest. Never really thought about it.

I'm waiting for you to tie this discussion back to gay marriage. Or state sponsored marriage at all.

[89Hen]

Yes.

Well that really is a question of whether someone should be allowed to consent to an incestuous relationship. I'm sure there are arguments on both sides. If you make the law a strict liability law, like statutory rape, than consent doesn't matter. Essentially the government saying that no one in that position has the ability to consent. I don't really have a position on whether someone should be able to consent to incest. Never really thought about it.

I'm waiting for you to tie this discussion back to gay marriage. Or state sponsored marriage at all.

It was in reference to the notion that the government has NO right to say who can or can get married or have a civil union. I'm not for incestual marriages or banning gay marriage. I'm merely pointing out to some people that the gov does have say in other cases, but there is no outrage over those cases... only the cases in which they disagree.

[Ibanez]

Well that really is a question of whether someone should be allowed to consent to an incestuous relationship. I'm sure there are arguments on both sides. If you make the law a strict liability law, like statutory rape, than consent doesn't matter. Essentially the government saying that no one in that position has the ability to consent. I don't really have a position on whether someone should be able to consent to incest. Never really thought about it.

I'm waiting for you to tie this discussion back to gay marriage. Or state sponsored marriage at all.

It was in reference to the notion that the government has NO right to say who can or can get married or have a civil union. I'm not for incestual marriages or banning gay marriage. I'm merely pointing out to some people that the gov does have say in other cases, but there is no outrage over those cases... only the cases in which they disagree.

I see your point. Personally, I think two consenting adults should be allowed to be in a civil union with all the privelages of a married couple today. FOr example, 2 men should be able to be in a civil union. We stop saying it's marriage, that's a religious idea. The government should allow gay men, lesbians and straight people to be in monogomous, civil unions. In terms of incest...I don't know. I really don't know.

[blueballs]

But thank you Boone - you voted against it

Yup, the next thing you know they'll be trying to marry their goats in Boone- even though their relationships are far from consentual.... notice I wrote consentual and not consensual because them hillbillies like them some goat pussy, and some goat fromunder cheese too.

[CID1990]

Stating the obvious, but crap like this is the exact reason why representative democracies are better. All these referendums on the state level, regardless of the issue, are completely stupid. It always ends up with the majority directly imposing their will on the minority and goes against what the Framers intended; it's not supposed to be this easy to pass laws.

The Framers never meant it to be this easy to pass laws at the FEDERAL level. They enumerated certain powers they felt a central government should possess, and left the rest to the States.

As for the tyranny of the majority, that is quickly becoming a non-issue where gay marriage is concerned. If recognition of gay marriage was simply imposed on the states by fiat (as you seem to imply should happen) then we are not talking democracy. Much better that we evolve to a point to where it is a true minority that opposes gay marriage, then it is no longer an issue. Given that just 20 years ago we would have seen a 70 percent-plus majority against gay marriage, and now the nation is just about 50/50, I would say that in a short time all of this will be moot.


Also Sodomy

[Ibanez]

[Skjellyfetti]

[dbackjon]

Telling...


And note that it almost failed in New Hanover (Wilmington) and Guiliford - the two other more educated counties

[Skjellyfetti]

Last time NC amended their constitution regarding marriage, it was to ban interracial marriage.

I'm actually pretty curious as to whether the 1875 amendment would pass in North Carolina today if it wasn't already ruled unconstitutional.

All marriages between a white person and a Negro or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive are, hereby, forever prohibited.

I bet it would be close.

[citdog]

Last time NC amended their constitution regarding marriage, it was to ban interracial marriage.

I'm actually pretty curious as to whether the 1875 amendment would pass in North Carolina today if it wasn't already ruled unconstitutional.

All marriages between a white person and a Negro or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive are, hereby, forever prohibited.

I bet it would be close.

me too! and rightly so. i mean all white people have ever done is make this little thing called Western Civilization. not important at all.

[citdog]

The people of the South will never sanction this immoral behavior and will not tolerate this mental illness being paraded as being anything but what it is DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. The people of the SOVEREIGN State of North Carolina have spoken as have 30 other States and have rejected this crime against nature.

[Gil Dobie]

In another 40 years young people will look back in horror at the way gays were treated by our society, like women of 1920s & blacks of the 50s & 60s. It may take some time but it's coming.

I think some of the things said on cs.com about gays are horrific.

[citdog]

In another 40 years young people will look back in horror at the way gays were treated by our society, like women of 1920s & blacks of the 50s & 60s. It may take some time but it's coming.

I nuzzle schmeckles:

[Gil Dobie]

I nuzzle schmeckles:

I speak English