What isn't rational is the concept that "laws would be vulnerable to a state court challenge or revision by the legislature" is inherently flawed. I don't see a constitutional amendment that bans texting while driving, even though that is a state law, shouldn't we protect that law? I don't see a constitutional amendment that says your dog can't run around at night unaccompanied by it's owner, but that's a state law. Shouldn't we protect that? By this logic, we should amend the constitution to properly enforce every state law is currently in existence to make sure that it is enforced. Because THAT makes sense.
By the by, it's worth pointing out that I do stand for Biblical marriage, which is all the more reason to vote AGAINST this amendment. The last time I checked the big khauna of consitutions, of the United States variety established the seperation or Church and State. So, as a Christian and American I don't see where the government should even be in the business of defining marriage. My God teaches me that marriage is between 3 parties. 2 humans (traditionally a man and woman) and their Lord God. So, tell me what role the government has in marriage, whatsoever? Didn't everyone just all enraged when the government tried to tell the church that they had to provide birth control, but now that same body wants to use the government tell the people how to live their lives? I have a lot of trouble with that hypocrisy, and you should too.
Again, I can't stop anyone from voting for this amendment, but I will do my best to put out the alternative information. It's not deception. It's not fallacy. It's not even propaganda. It is as much as anything my research on the matter, my opinion and my decision to vote against this piece of legislation that is inherently discriminatory (and subsequently unconstitutional), dangerously broad, and generally unnecessary to "protect marriage" in the state of North Carolina. When there is a ballot prohibiting adultery and divorce, we can talk.
If you want to argue against professional legal analysis be my guest. I can't stop you. I also can't stop you from voting for this ridiculous amendment, but I can try to express some facts behind the reason that we are even talking about this amendment. I don't see you defending the fact that Gay Marriage is illegal even if this amendment is voted down.
Also, after reading over my post I'm not really sure what could be seen as a lie, or deliberate attempt to misguide any readers, but I'd be delighted for you to let me know, so that I can make any necessary corrections.
I keep hearing about the "liberal spin" on this amendment and the effects of it on single parents, domestic abuse victims and even the generally unmarried. While I understand how the legal analysis of this amendment can be construed as "liberal propaganda" the fact of the matter is that states that have passed this kind of amendment have seen results that have made it difficult for single parents to have their children covered by their insurance, or unmarried domestic abuse victims haven't been afforded the same protections as those that were married.
While on the subject of propaganda, let's go there, shall we? How about the conservative propaganda that this amendment has anything to do with protecting marriage. Gay marriage is already illegal in this state. That's not going to change today, tomorrow or May 9th. The notion that somehow this amendment is going to save marriage or any "family values" in this state is ludicus. Look at any evening news this week and you'll see how "valued" marriage is in this state, as it features the salacious trial of NC's own John Edwards. Where is the amendment condemning adulterous spouses with poor taste and bad hair?
If we want to talk about the purpose of this amendment, then fine. This amendment was placed on the ballot to drive conservative to polls, on what the GOP General Assembly feared would be a low turnout year. A way to rally the troops before November. Even the bill's original sponsor Jim Crawford has come out and said "I will definitely vote against it because I think it goes too far."
Not to mention the fact that this amendment is going to get slammed down in court and completely overturned and ruled as unconstitutional. So you fiscal conservatives who scream about waste state money should, put down your bullhorns for a while, because the state funds that are going to be used to defend this, unnecessary, unconstitutional, waste of paper, could have actually be used to create jobs, or improve our schools.
It would be one thing if this amendment did a bit to prevent gay marriage in this state. But it doesn't, because we already have a law for that. Protect all families in North Carolina by voting AGAINST Amendment 1 on May 8th (or earlier)!!
If the Amendment actually protected marriage then Bentpan's argument might hold some water. Unfotunately for them, it's full of holes, just like this amendment.
It's too broad and does nothing to "protect marriage." If it did something to make it harder to obtain a divorce, or punish men and women who walkout on their families, or who practice infidelity, then sure it might start protecting marriage then. But it doesn't do any of that. Instead it so strictly defines marriage that many in this very county would suffer from its repercussions.
It would restrict the rights of elderly couples who live together, love and support each other, who decided not to get married due to pension and other benefits that would be lost, by remarrying. It could limit the abilities for single parents (most of whom are not single parents by choice) to receive benefits to care for their children.
The problem with this amendment is that it doesn't define "marriage," it defines families. And we don't have Leave it to Beaver style families any more. It just isn't the world we live it. I was raised by a single mom, because my father passed away from heart disease. Does that mean my family doesn't deserve protecting? Does that make my family any less than anyone else? This amendment does the exact opposite in protecting families and it has to be defeated.
Now, if you are worried about the sanctity of marriage as it regards to gay marriage in the state of North Carolina then I have excellent news for you: IT'S ALL READY ILLEGAL! Gay Marriages are not recognized in this state and still will be illegal if this amendment is voted down, as it should be.
This Amendment does more harm than good. It's too vague, broad as well as inherently discriminatory. There can be long term, unseen consequences to passing this amendment. So, if you are truly concerned about protecting families and values, then I don't see how you CAN vote for this amendment.
Vote AGAINST Amendment One on May 8th. (or now! early voting is now open!)
A few things.
1) As a student of Political Science (complete with BA in the subject) there is no such thing as the "KAOS" Theory. There are points within the general "Chaos Theory" that can be applied to political science, just as they are applied to the fields of math, biology, and economic just to name a few. Now if you were attempting to be factitious in your description of "KAOS" theory then my mistake. But I felt the need to clarify.
2) You initially stated this: "The facts are still fuzzy, but what seems to have occurred was..." and go on to give a play by play of what happened that fateful night. You continuted to elaborate details of the evening in comment posts above. To which I say, wow! What an incredible resource to have right here in Moore County! Someone who was so clearly there in that gated community in Sanford, Florida that night. Surely with your vast knowledge of what exactly happened that night you've been questioned by the Sanford, Flordia Police?
See I can be factitous too. "Race Baiting" and "political spin" is a problem in this case. However the President's comment did not do that. Sure he didn't have to say anything, but his comments were no more inflammatory than anything be shouted from either side of this story.
And nonsense articles like this do nothing, but fan the flames. At this point, the best thing we can do is let the justice system work and allow for the real facts to come forward. For every Al Sharpton screaming about justice for Martin, there is a Sean Hannity screaming about the injustice of the public trial of Zimmerman. They are both wrong. And to be honest, so are you and every other columnist, politico, talking heading, commentator, activist that continues to paint the image that they some how know better than anyone else what happened that night.
Justthinking, which is a screenname clearly meant for ironic purposes, your barely coherent rant somehow makes men responsible for abortion, to which you again have missed the point. It is a woman's choice. And whether or not I agree with that choice is irrelevant, and she does have to live with that decision. Not the man, who could be a dead beat or a rapist, but the woman. Until you start making people in your body, you don't get to tell me what to do with mine.
An earlier comment stated: "I thought this all started because certain employers felt it violated their religious principles to pay for or have company supplied insurance pay for birth control. Was this not the case?"
Okay, let's start there. If birth control is not part of God's will and alters his divine plans and therefore employers or churches shouldn't have to pay for birth control through a company supplied health care plan, then by that same thought process then shouldn't those employers and churches not supply Viagra either? Is impotence not part of God's will? What about other illnesses? Cancer? That's God's will, no treatments for you. I know that example might seem extreme, but do you see the flawed logic in their outrage?
To answer this: do you feel you're being unfairly discriminated against when insurance providers cover Viagra but demand to be allowed to refuse coverage of birth control? If so, did you feel that way because you were convinced by "The Left."?
I do feel as though I am being unfairly discriminated against, but it's nothing that "the left" convinced me of. It's because I see this as people, for fundamental relgious reasons, telling me what treatments I can and cannot have access too, because I am a woman. As a matter of fact, and this might come as a shock to you, I am an independent minded female who doesn't need a political party to tell me what is best for me, nor do I need them to tell me how I'm some sort of harlot because I choose to take birth control to prevent a medical condition, all the while men can have their little blue pills provided to them no questions asked. If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is.
I'm sorry, but until men start dealing with the "lady issues" that I deal with on a monthly basis then you don't get to have a say in this argument. You can have an opinion, and I as an educated woman with my own mind, I will choose to ignore it.
The same people who scream about the importance of Christianity in our government tolerance are the same people screaming about how Shria Law is going to take over the county. Classic.
You know what is a HUGE problem with this "discussion" is? From what I can tell, Deb S. is the ONLY female commenting on this. Again this is a male dominated conversation, which is what got us here in the first place (see, Rep. Issa's first hearing on this where Ms. Fluke wasn't allowed to speak). So, as a woman, let me chime in.
I am less concerned about Rush's stupid (which, yes we all agree, they were s.t.u.p.i.d.) comments and more concerned about the fact that from Wilmington to Arizona women are being attacked over birth control. Something that is beneficial to women's health in every capacity. Instead we are being put on trial for trying to maintain our health (and not just in terms of being childless). Birth control helps control and treat a number of ailments that women, and only women face. If this social issue is truly about reigning in sexual depravity then why don't I hear Rick Santorum and Rush and anyone else attacking men, or screaming for condoms to be ripped from the shelves? Why is this our problem? Why aren't men being called out for their indiscretions? Last time I checked, it took two people to make a baby (unless you're a female and decide to do it on your own in which case, birth control is probably the last of your concerns).
Now this all started because Obama brought it up. Yes, perhaps a distraction tactic by the White House, but you know what, the Republicans took the bait. Hook, line and sinker. And yes, it started out as a perceived attack on Catholics and religions who don't approve of birth control and don't want to pay for it. Fine. I get that. I concede, don't make them pay for it. It's when elected officials are still talking about birth control and talking about it in terms of controlling women's lives? How on Earth does that have anything to do with the original issue of making the church or "tax dollars" pay for contraception? Oh, right. It doesn't.
This hideous concept that women use birth control as the tool fuel their sexual deviant life styles has to stop. Or we have to let men stop buying condoms. One of the two. You can't punish one and ignore the other. That's where Rush went wrong. He could have used the term "harlot" or "floozy" it wouldn't have changed the connotation that he created. Women who want contraception = loose. And regardless of your position on birth control that stance isn't going to get you any where, because it's inherently inflammatory and discriminatory.
mcg2010 1 year ago
Nothing To Do With It
What isn't rational is the concept that "laws would be vulnerable to a state court challenge or revision by the legislature" is inherently flawed. I don't see a constitutional amendment that bans texting while driving, even though that is a state law, shouldn't we protect that law? I don't see a constitutional amendment that says your dog can't run around at night unaccompanied by it's owner, but that's a state law. Shouldn't we protect that? By this logic, we should amend the constitution to properly enforce every state law is currently in existence to make sure that it is enforced. Because THAT makes sense.
By the by, it's worth pointing out that I do stand for Biblical marriage, which is all the more reason to vote AGAINST this amendment. The last time I checked the big khauna of consitutions, of the United States variety established the seperation or Church and State. So, as a Christian and American I don't see where the government should even be in the business of defining marriage. My God teaches me that marriage is between 3 parties. 2 humans (traditionally a man and woman) and their Lord God. So, tell me what role the government has in marriage, whatsoever? Didn't everyone just all enraged when the government tried to tell the church that they had to provide birth control, but now that same body wants to use the government tell the people how to live their lives? I have a lot of trouble with that hypocrisy, and you should too.
Again, I can't stop anyone from voting for this amendment, but I will do my best to put out the alternative information. It's not deception. It's not fallacy. It's not even propaganda. It is as much as anything my research on the matter, my opinion and my decision to vote against this piece of legislation that is inherently discriminatory (and subsequently unconstitutional), dangerously broad, and generally unnecessary to "protect marriage" in the state of North Carolina. When there is a ballot prohibiting adultery and divorce, we can talk.
mcg2010 1 year ago
Nothing To Do With It
If you want to argue against professional legal analysis be my guest. I can't stop you. I also can't stop you from voting for this ridiculous amendment, but I can try to express some facts behind the reason that we are even talking about this amendment. I don't see you defending the fact that Gay Marriage is illegal even if this amendment is voted down.
Also, after reading over my post I'm not really sure what could be seen as a lie, or deliberate attempt to misguide any readers, but I'd be delighted for you to let me know, so that I can make any necessary corrections.
mcg2010 1 year ago
Nothing To Do With It
I keep hearing about the "liberal spin" on this amendment and the effects of it on single parents, domestic abuse victims and even the generally unmarried. While I understand how the legal analysis of this amendment can be construed as "liberal propaganda" the fact of the matter is that states that have passed this kind of amendment have seen results that have made it difficult for single parents to have their children covered by their insurance, or unmarried domestic abuse victims haven't been afforded the same protections as those that were married.
While on the subject of propaganda, let's go there, shall we? How about the conservative propaganda that this amendment has anything to do with protecting marriage. Gay marriage is already illegal in this state. That's not going to change today, tomorrow or May 9th. The notion that somehow this amendment is going to save marriage or any "family values" in this state is ludicus. Look at any evening news this week and you'll see how "valued" marriage is in this state, as it features the salacious trial of NC's own John Edwards. Where is the amendment condemning adulterous spouses with poor taste and bad hair?
If we want to talk about the purpose of this amendment, then fine. This amendment was placed on the ballot to drive conservative to polls, on what the GOP General Assembly feared would be a low turnout year. A way to rally the troops before November. Even the bill's original sponsor Jim Crawford has come out and said "I will definitely vote against it because I think it goes too far."
Not to mention the fact that this amendment is going to get slammed down in court and completely overturned and ruled as unconstitutional. So you fiscal conservatives who scream about waste state money should, put down your bullhorns for a while, because the state funds that are going to be used to defend this, unnecessary, unconstitutional, waste of paper, could have actually be used to create jobs, or improve our schools.
It would be one thing if this amendment did a bit to prevent gay marriage in this state. But it doesn't, because we already have a law for that. Protect all families in North Carolina by voting AGAINST Amendment 1 on May 8th (or earlier)!!
mcg2010 1 year ago
Amendment One Deserves Defeat
If the Amendment actually protected marriage then Bentpan's argument might hold some water. Unfotunately for them, it's full of holes, just like this amendment.
It's too broad and does nothing to "protect marriage." If it did something to make it harder to obtain a divorce, or punish men and women who walkout on their families, or who practice infidelity, then sure it might start protecting marriage then. But it doesn't do any of that. Instead it so strictly defines marriage that many in this very county would suffer from its repercussions.
It would restrict the rights of elderly couples who live together, love and support each other, who decided not to get married due to pension and other benefits that would be lost, by remarrying. It could limit the abilities for single parents (most of whom are not single parents by choice) to receive benefits to care for their children.
The problem with this amendment is that it doesn't define "marriage," it defines families. And we don't have Leave it to Beaver style families any more. It just isn't the world we live it. I was raised by a single mom, because my father passed away from heart disease. Does that mean my family doesn't deserve protecting? Does that make my family any less than anyone else? This amendment does the exact opposite in protecting families and it has to be defeated.
Now, if you are worried about the sanctity of marriage as it regards to gay marriage in the state of North Carolina then I have excellent news for you: IT'S ALL READY ILLEGAL! Gay Marriages are not recognized in this state and still will be illegal if this amendment is voted down, as it should be.
This Amendment does more harm than good. It's too vague, broad as well as inherently discriminatory. There can be long term, unseen consequences to passing this amendment. So, if you are truly concerned about protecting families and values, then I don't see how you CAN vote for this amendment.
Vote AGAINST Amendment One on May 8th. (or now! early voting is now open!)
mcg2010 1 year, 1 month ago
Exploiting the Florida Tragedy
A few things. 1) As a student of Political Science (complete with BA in the subject) there is no such thing as the "KAOS" Theory. There are points within the general "Chaos Theory" that can be applied to political science, just as they are applied to the fields of math, biology, and economic just to name a few. Now if you were attempting to be factitious in your description of "KAOS" theory then my mistake. But I felt the need to clarify.
2) You initially stated this: "The facts are still fuzzy, but what seems to have occurred was..." and go on to give a play by play of what happened that fateful night. You continuted to elaborate details of the evening in comment posts above. To which I say, wow! What an incredible resource to have right here in Moore County! Someone who was so clearly there in that gated community in Sanford, Florida that night. Surely with your vast knowledge of what exactly happened that night you've been questioned by the Sanford, Flordia Police?
See I can be factitous too. "Race Baiting" and "political spin" is a problem in this case. However the President's comment did not do that. Sure he didn't have to say anything, but his comments were no more inflammatory than anything be shouted from either side of this story.
And nonsense articles like this do nothing, but fan the flames. At this point, the best thing we can do is let the justice system work and allow for the real facts to come forward. For every Al Sharpton screaming about justice for Martin, there is a Sean Hannity screaming about the injustice of the public trial of Zimmerman. They are both wrong. And to be honest, so are you and every other columnist, politico, talking heading, commentator, activist that continues to paint the image that they some how know better than anyone else what happened that night.
mcg2010 1 year, 1 month ago
Insulting Talk on Women's Rights
Justthinking, which is a screenname clearly meant for ironic purposes, your barely coherent rant somehow makes men responsible for abortion, to which you again have missed the point. It is a woman's choice. And whether or not I agree with that choice is irrelevant, and she does have to live with that decision. Not the man, who could be a dead beat or a rapist, but the woman. Until you start making people in your body, you don't get to tell me what to do with mine.
mcg2010 1 year, 1 month ago
Insulting Talk on Women's Rights
Oh I'm a girl, let me chime in (again)!
An earlier comment stated: "I thought this all started because certain employers felt it violated their religious principles to pay for or have company supplied insurance pay for birth control. Was this not the case?"
Okay, let's start there. If birth control is not part of God's will and alters his divine plans and therefore employers or churches shouldn't have to pay for birth control through a company supplied health care plan, then by that same thought process then shouldn't those employers and churches not supply Viagra either? Is impotence not part of God's will? What about other illnesses? Cancer? That's God's will, no treatments for you. I know that example might seem extreme, but do you see the flawed logic in their outrage?
To answer this: do you feel you're being unfairly discriminated against when insurance providers cover Viagra but demand to be allowed to refuse coverage of birth control? If so, did you feel that way because you were convinced by "The Left."? I do feel as though I am being unfairly discriminated against, but it's nothing that "the left" convinced me of. It's because I see this as people, for fundamental relgious reasons, telling me what treatments I can and cannot have access too, because I am a woman. As a matter of fact, and this might come as a shock to you, I am an independent minded female who doesn't need a political party to tell me what is best for me, nor do I need them to tell me how I'm some sort of harlot because I choose to take birth control to prevent a medical condition, all the while men can have their little blue pills provided to them no questions asked. If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is.
I'm sorry, but until men start dealing with the "lady issues" that I deal with on a monthly basis then you don't get to have a say in this argument. You can have an opinion, and I as an educated woman with my own mind, I will choose to ignore it.
mcg2010 1 year, 1 month ago
The Bible Offers No Basis for a Gay-Marriage Ban
An oldie but a goodie.
In the word of Julia Sugarbaker to Marathonman..."GET Serious."
Killing All The Right People best part of the show by Irving74656
mcg2010 1 year, 1 month ago
It’s Not Intolerance
The same people who scream about the importance of Christianity in our government tolerance are the same people screaming about how Shria Law is going to take over the county. Classic.
mcg2010 1 year, 2 months ago
Going Way Out on a Limbaugh
You know what is a HUGE problem with this "discussion" is? From what I can tell, Deb S. is the ONLY female commenting on this. Again this is a male dominated conversation, which is what got us here in the first place (see, Rep. Issa's first hearing on this where Ms. Fluke wasn't allowed to speak). So, as a woman, let me chime in. I am less concerned about Rush's stupid (which, yes we all agree, they were s.t.u.p.i.d.) comments and more concerned about the fact that from Wilmington to Arizona women are being attacked over birth control. Something that is beneficial to women's health in every capacity. Instead we are being put on trial for trying to maintain our health (and not just in terms of being childless). Birth control helps control and treat a number of ailments that women, and only women face. If this social issue is truly about reigning in sexual depravity then why don't I hear Rick Santorum and Rush and anyone else attacking men, or screaming for condoms to be ripped from the shelves? Why is this our problem? Why aren't men being called out for their indiscretions? Last time I checked, it took two people to make a baby (unless you're a female and decide to do it on your own in which case, birth control is probably the last of your concerns).
Now this all started because Obama brought it up. Yes, perhaps a distraction tactic by the White House, but you know what, the Republicans took the bait. Hook, line and sinker. And yes, it started out as a perceived attack on Catholics and religions who don't approve of birth control and don't want to pay for it. Fine. I get that. I concede, don't make them pay for it. It's when elected officials are still talking about birth control and talking about it in terms of controlling women's lives? How on Earth does that have anything to do with the original issue of making the church or "tax dollars" pay for contraception? Oh, right. It doesn't.
This hideous concept that women use birth control as the tool fuel their sexual deviant life styles has to stop. Or we have to let men stop buying condoms. One of the two. You can't punish one and ignore the other. That's where Rush went wrong. He could have used the term "harlot" or "floozy" it wouldn't have changed the connotation that he created. Women who want contraception = loose. And regardless of your position on birth control that stance isn't going to get you any where, because it's inherently inflammatory and discriminatory.