Nothing To Do With It

jimt 1 year ago

I believe Ms. Lauer is incorrect. I don't think advance living wills or a power of attorney is needed between married couples.

Why is it necessary to "reinforce" North Carolina's current marriage laws?

Mrs. Lauer, the amendment doesn't "simply state" anything. You need to really read it in it's entirety. Even if you were correct, what right does an amendment have to legislate what constitutes a "family" or "marriage?" They need to stay out of it.

GoldenDreams 1 year ago

Mrs. Lauer, the actual language of the amendment states "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." How about the children of unmarried heterosexual parents? Will they lose their insurance because their parents are not married? Can unmarried people not make medical decisions for each other in a crisis because they are not wed? Many single women have children as well. How will their lives change? There is a lot to consider. I say vote no!

FightFireWithFire 1 year ago

Blockquote

Blockquote> The reason Mrs. Bernett could make decisions during her husband’s illness is because there must have been a valid living will or power-of-attorney available.Blockquote

Blockquote

Speculation on your part. Next witness!

The_AnonymusProfit 1 year ago

You all know I'm a conservative, however I feel that this is mostly just a way for conservatives to solidify their bases in NC during an election year.

nothingspecial 1 year ago

Goldendreams, it's a well thought out, TWO SENTENCE amendement that opponent groups all over the country are inventing lies about in a desperate hope to trump common sense for voters who have already approved this amendment in 30 other states. Read the second sentence. Your concerns about the rights of unmarried parents are a myth invented by folks desperate to defeat this measure. The rights of unmarried parents do not change, domestic violence victims rights do not change. Do some research and vote your conscience.

Anonymous Profit, alot of conservatives rank these seemingly insignificant "family" issues above almost everything else that is being argued as an issue these days. For instance, look at everything that is going wrong with our society today and trace it back to where the adult is going wrong and you will come to that adult's upbringing. If we are to be smart and STRATEGIC, we need to work on how we're raising our future adults. We should love and support our children who our of single parents or other constellations but our survival depends upon the traditional marriage unit more than anyone wants to admit.

pacer 1 year ago

Nothing special, you are mistaken. You are trying to play down the truth and what you write is a desperate attempt to pass a measure that will ENSURE that more rights are lost. It is discriminatory, plain and simple.

MikeNC 1 year ago

Pacer....Please show some concrete evidence of all the 'rights' which will be lost and whom loses these rights. All I have seen so far addressing what you say are surveys, opinions and heresay. Nothingspecial states the fact of it being a simple, easy to understand ammendment. I also agree with his/her opinions...Mike

teufelhunden 1 year ago

TAP-"You all know I'm a conservative, however I feel that this is mostly just a way for conservatives to solidify their bases in NC during an election year."

Just like dems pooh-pooh certain laws and promise tons of handouts to solidify their voting base.

SoPinesNo1 1 year ago

Here is the complete Amendment:

"Sec. 6 Marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

ALL the liberals need to get a grip and stop turning this into something it is not.

GoldenDreams 1 year ago

Nothingspecial, I have read the second sentence of the amendment. Sorry, but it gives me no comfort. The language still like it's going to invite law suits and for what? And if I'm wondering about the language, I can imagine the parents of the children I teach in a very poor county. Most have no money, no jobs, and no cars. Do you think they are going to take on the legal system to justify their family situation because they are not married? Why can't we respect all unions based on commitment and leave it at that? Make no judgments. That's for God.

reformgov1 1 year ago

GoldenDreams, I will make judgements when it comes to my money. We know the ultimate goal to have "partners" recognized so they can collect government and corporate benefits. "DON'T PAY FOR PARTNERS" is a political slogan I recently saw that sums it up. We pay enough taxes and premiums. I simply don't want my money paying for something else that I don't support.

PBinNC 1 year ago

Following the "logic" of this argument, it would appear that all laws on the books in North Carolina should have a constitutional amendment further "explaining" them in order to enforce them. I foresee a field day for the legal profession which already has enough field days in my opinion. Leave well enough alone, because when a group of politicians tries to craft something to suit its imagined constituency, it's usually shoot from the hip and find out who gets hurt later.

MikeNC 1 year ago

reformgov1 2 hours, 13 minutes ago ...GoldenDreams, I will make judgements when it comes to my money. We know the ultimate goal to have "partners" recognized so they can collect government and corporate benefits.

And that is the meat of the issue which the liberal side is driving towards.....Free benefits. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks reformgov1 for making this ammendment that much easier to understand and another reason why it should be supported....Mike

GoldenDreams 1 year ago

reformgov1 and MickeNC, I am not a liberal. Why on earth would I want to pay more taxes when I am a teacher making a miserable salary with no raise in almost 5 years? I do care about children, though, especially poor ones. I don't want to see their situation downgraded when it's not their fault. Just leave things be; otherwise the lawyers will have a field day interpreting the new amendment if it passes. Imagine the cost of that! Sorry you have no compassion, but I do.

MikeNC 1 year ago

GoldenDreams...Please elaborate on how the support of this ammendment will bring a downgraded situation for children. Please do so with factual source documents. Thanks....Mike

Bentpan 1 year ago

MikeNC "Please do so with factual source documents. "..................................................... The only factual source document IS the Amendment and it is straight forward with absolutely no ambiguous wording. There is nothing in this amendment that curtails any currently held right. Nothing that removes or reduces any legal protections against victims of violence (domestic or otherwise ) and most certainly nothing that would negatively effect children of any strata of our society. Its only impact is to insure Homosexual marriage will not be recognised by the state of North Carolina. A dishonest liberal left knows they can't win on this issue so they make up fake consequences to cloud the issue. Amendment 1 addresses one issue and only one issue, do we in North Carolina want to recognise homosexual marriage?

MikeNC 1 year ago

Ditto Bentpan....They sure love to conjure up Boogeymen to scare people. Sad part is that some voters still believe in boogeymen...Mike

OldSpook 1 year ago

Bentpan, MikeNC - isn't "dishonest liberal left" a redundancy? Cheers/Dave

Courseaire 1 year ago

By StraightGandmother: *Thank you Courseaire. You have no idea the many many hours upon hours I have spent in research on this topic which allows me to be a well informed participant in these discussions. In my hours of research I have a reference file to save information. If you find my comments are helpful please feel free to copy and save the information for re-use. In Lawrnce vs. Texas which struck down Texas' sodomy law Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote in the Supreme Court Decision,

“for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” … This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice. How can you make a law which denies citizens a Fundamental Constitutional Right, and the Supreme Court has said FOURTEEN Times, that Civil Marriage IS a Fundamental Constitutional Right, because they are homosexual, when homosexuality and homosexual intimate relations are ALSO a Constitutionally protected Right? People think homosexuality is immoral and therefore sexual minorities should rightfully be excluded from Civil Marriage. Lookat Lawrence v. Texas, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Furthermore heterosexual couples when they step up to the counter at city hall to apply for a Marriage License are NOT required to take a Morality Test. There is no Morals Investigation of heterosexual Couples. You cannot demand that couples who are sexual minorities pass a Morals Exam while exempting heterosexual couples. The 14th Amendment to our National Constitution will not permit this. Our 14th Amendment requires the government to treat all citizens equally Under the Law. Gay Rights ARE Civil Rights!**

mcg2010 1 year ago

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)!!

Bentpan 1 year ago

And mcg2010 continues the BS knowing full well it is a lie.

mcg2010 1 year ago

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.

JD 1 year ago

The World According to Bedpan:

If I disagree with you, you are a propagandist If I agree with you, you are a patriot I will ask for facts, links, video, but will provide none myself I will make short, curt remarks when I have nothing else to say

SO SPEAKETH THE BEDPAN

Bentpan 1 year ago

JD " I will ask for facts, links, video, but will provide none myself I will make short, curt remarks when I have nothing else to say"...............................................

Here are my facts, where are yours? "Sec. 6 Marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.".................................................... Or is it that basic reading comprehension is beyond you ?

chubbs 1 year ago

Without a marriage amendment, NC marriage laws would be vulnerable to a state court challenge or revision by the legislature. This is why those of us who stand for Biblical marriage are voting FOR the amendment. To assume that current law about marriage wouldn't change isn't rational whatsoever.

LSM 1 year ago

@chubbs

Bingo. If one wants to see the effects that are coming down the pike see the most unreported on story of the news, the Dan Savage saga. It was reported on FOX News, but that news outlet is ''suspect'' by the left. So here it is sort of reported under the TV section of ABC News (please note, the TV entertainment section). The Romans thought having Christians killed by wild beasts was entertainment, so maybe that is ABC's reckoning. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/05/dan-savage-accused-of-bullying-promoting-promiscuity/

To see the actual video of this "bullying is bad" speech, please do view on FOX website. It is not under the entertainment section. This Mr. Savage is a special advisor to the present White House, as well as being on MTV.

mcg2010 1 year ago

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.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
28	29	30	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1