North Carolina Votes to make gay marriage unconstituational

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I personally disagree with the decision, but maintain that leaving the decision up to states is the best solution. The larger the institution that decides social policy the bigger the mess it creates. EX. Abortion. 30 years since Roe vs. Wade and it is still a complete political disaster because the people never felt they had a decision on how their society defines the issue. My fear/hope (I am conflicted, obviously) is that this will force a court decision with national consequences. I just hope it doesn't end with an abortion-type of decades long controversy.

In the end, people can vote with their feet and dollars. North Carolina will miss millions of dollars in revenue created by gay tourists and residents and the youth of the state will force eventual social change. An imperfect solution, but I think it would be the most efficient solution.

Yeah, I wasn't planning on moving anyway, but now I would definitely never live there. They're going to also lose a lot of talented and skilled people who are either gay or just morally opposed to that decision.

I still think having civil liberties forced on a state by the federal government is better than a state forcibly taking away the rights of people who live there. Those people have virtually no voice and can't fight back.

I'm more afraid of a world where Roe v. Wade didn't happen. Is abortion still a political clusterfuck? Yeah, but it would be regardless. I'm more thankful that the rights of people in conservative states are being protected.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I still think having civil liberties forced on a state by the federal government is better than a state forcibly taking away the rights of people who live there. Those people have virtually no voice and can't fight back.

This is the argument that I personally agree with. Ideally, I just wish everyone would wake up and stop worrying about other people do in their personal lives, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

I'm more afraid of a world where Roe v. Wade didn't happen. Is abortion still a political clusterfuck? Yeah, but it would be regardless. I'm more thankful that the rights of people in conservative states are being protected.

We have a pretty good idea of what would happen just by measuring public opinion state by state. In most cases abortion would be legal in some form or another, and in those few that ban abortion residents would likely travel to a state that didn't have a ban.

And by the way, conservatives aren't the only ones who attempt to deny rights. Keep in mind, a conservative never voted for firearm regulations and rarely ask for tax increases (denying people the right to a percentage of their property).

Government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away (we are born with rights). This is why I have always had issues with big government whether coming from the left or the social conservative right. The bigger the government the smaller the citizen.

[Professor S]

Another concern I have is that exercised public opinion is not with gay marriage at the moment, and if the Supreme Court overturns a state ban on gay marriage a Constitutional Amendment "defining" marriage is not an impossibility. In the end, I think time is always on the side of tolerance if you allow people to get there themselves, especially in the age of the internet where all cultural evolution appears accelerated.

[Typhoid]

I'm more thankful that the rights of people in conservative states are being protected.

Except for the gay people in North Carolina.

If a state gets out of line, which in my opinion they have, the federal government can knock them back into place. It's happened before, and it can and will happen again.

Logical question from an outsider (I'm not down with all of your countries loopholes, I've got too many of my own dumb ones to think about).

So keep in mind that in no way am I disagreeing with you, or directing this question/comment specifically at you.

(Removing the option of Obama giving nation-wide marriage for all, and making it Federal Law) - say Obama overturns their state decision to make gay marriage unconstitutional. He can probably do that, He's the president.
But they can just hold another vote to make gay marriage unconstitutional, can they not? Sort of like an endless cycle of people having to fight for basic democratic rights in their own country.

And by the way, conservatives aren't the only ones who attempt to deny rights. Keep in mind, a conservative never voted for firearm regulations and rarely ask for tax increases (denying people the right to a percentage of their property).

Not to open a can of worms, but (as calmly as possibly can be taken); you can't seriously be comparing firearms and tax to equality rights in marriage.
One is the right to defend yourself from a British Invasion, the other is the right to be treated like a human being in their own country.

Obviously they are both the same in the sense that they are both denying a specific group a certain thing - but I wouldn't compare McDonald's to BBQ, but both are "food", you know.
Also, you're right. Conservatives don't ask for tax increases.

If we're comparing the things Conservatives and Non-Conservatives say as defining them as a whole - I believe it was a Conservative who proposed a Moonbase. Maybe that's why they want more money, and hate gays, and want guns. Gays can't reproduce - so there's no use for them repopulating a Moonbase. You need the guns incase you find any Moon aliens up there. Nobody's ever been to the moon, you know. And you obviously need all the poor people's money to fund the Moonbase.
It's got to be poor people's money because the rich people are the ones going to be sent off to the Moonbase. Then you'll have the straight, Republican state of MoonAmericaBase, and the gay nation of the USA, with all the poor fags that got left behind.
I'm sure you can exactly tell where I smoked the joint and turned that into a bit.

Anyways, everyone's really saying the same things and just picking apart semantics. Nobody here is against gay people having the rights as everyone else does - just who that should be up to, and how it should be achieved.



----------
Edit:
100% non-related:

In the end, I think time is always on the side of tolerance if you allow people to get there themselves, especially in the age of the internet where all cultural evolution appears accelerated.

Time is relative, hombre! We now live in a world where a letter that would take a month to get to another country, and another month to get back now takes less than 20 seconds via the internet to have both people put in on the conversation [and isn't superfuckingexpensive like long-distance calling when it was the only option to writing a letter].
I just think that's neat, is all. I'd never thought of the fact that cultural evolution will maintain a steady pace of superfast from now until the end of time. Nobody has to wait for information anymore, and everyone has the availability to share ideas and opinions with other people across the world. Everyone has the answer to every current and past question right in their pocket. You no longer really need to know anything, only how to access the information. (I used to remember phone numbers. Now I remember that if I press down, and "2" twice it calls Dylan).
Everything can be talked about worldwide within a minute or two, and the youth will begin to form their own worldwide culture composed of little pieces of every other culture; something we as non-internet-at-birth-ers probably can't conceive as to how different it will really be. The world will become one cultural sphere connected at the hip, instead of 200 tiny coloured blotches still making 'dumb pole' and 'a nun, and a priest' jokes, while scribbling down a 2-month early birthday card to send to Grandma back in the old country.
BUT I DIGRESS

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Not to open a can of worms, but (as calmly as possibly can be taken); you can't seriously be comparing firearms and tax to equality rights in marriage.
One is the right to defend yourself from a British Invasion, the other is the right to be treated like a human being in their own country.

Where to begin with this comment?

1) The right to bear arms has nothing to do with "British Invasion". The second amendment is about giving citizens the right to bear arms because the government must have a military, and that military could turn against free citizens.

Penn and Teller explain this quite well:



And my comment about "not just conservatives" was never meant to absolve conservatives of denying rights, it was to point out that government, right or left, can ONLY DENY RIGHTS and can not give them. Any law that is passed, in some way or another, removes individual rights to some degree. IMO, many laws are necessary. I certainly don't want to let anyone have the right to murder. But many are not necessary, and are therefore bad law because an unnecessary law unnecessarily denies people their rights.

2) Being able to use the term marriage to describe your civil union is not the dividing line of human rights. regarding the NC issue, no one I've heard is talking about denying gay people rights related to their union such as tax benefits, etc. They're denying gay people the ability to define their union with a word they want to reserve only use for men and women. That's the sum total of their ridiculous exercise in semantics.

Again, I disagree with these people, but let's not exaggerate the consequences of states making these decisions as opposed to federal governments.