North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[liberal cl]

the tyranny of the majority decides to limit and oppress the minority. There is no such thing as a tyranny of minority ( at least in this case).

EVERY citizen has a stake in government, majority rule is the hallmark of democracy.

All that the same *** couples want it to have the same marriage rights extended to them. the extension of these tights by no means will limit or oppress the majority (ie. in this case the hetero couples). Therefore your argument about the tyranny of minority is ridiculous.

If you advocate bypassing the say of the majority under any non-constitutional pretext then that amounts to supporting tyranny of the minority, it's pretty cut and dry.

[California Joe]

I simply don't care. I don't live in North Carolina and Bee isn't my neighbor so I won't be tempted.

[Navel Lint]

More importantly, will the Democrats still have the National Convention in Charlotte North Carolina after this?

Opportunity for Ordies hometown here

Yes and it will be a major clusterfvck.

As opposed to the last major elections, dems are not winning much in this state. State level democrats screwed that up.

[SkyUS]

EVERY citizen has a stake in government, majority rule is the hallmark of democracy.
If you advocate bypassing the say of the majority under any non-constitutional pretext then that amounts to supporting tyranny of the minority, it's pretty cut and dry.

One the hallmarks of a modern democratic state is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

[Spartan10k]

Jim Crow laws only showed what states' right can do to oppress a minority.

States Rights is basically about reserving most of the domestic political power to the states instead of the Federal government. It does not mean states get to do whatever they want (we tried that with the Articles of Confederation, didn't work), they still must obide by the Constitution of the United States as well as their own state constitutions. Jim Crow was ultimately found to be in violation of the US Constitution...

[liberal cl]

One the hallmarks of a modern democratic state is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Yes and how is that enforced? Constitutionally. There is no such constitutional guarantee in this case.

EDIT: Actually it's up to the SCOTUS but there's no ruling in that regard.

[SkyUS]

States Rights is basically about reserving most of the domestic political power to the states instead of the Federal government. It does not mean states get to do whatever they want (we tried that with the Articles of Confederation, didn't work), they still must obide by the Constitution of the United States as well as their own state constitutions. Jim Crow was ultimately found to be in violation of the US Constitution...

Yes and how is that enforced? Constitutionally. There is no such constitutional guarantee in this case.

I am aware of this.

14th amendment.

There shall come a perfect case ( involving 14th amendment and the ban on same *** marriage and/or not providing the same protections of the law to same *** couples) that will go all the way to the Supreme Court. It will go federal and same *** couples will have the same protections of the marriage laws as hetero couples.

It's just a matter of time.

[Iceman6MM]

Yes and how is that enforced? Constitutionally. There is no such constitutional guarantee in this case.

EDIT: Actually it's up to the SCOTUS but there's no ruling in that regard.

Dang, Sky beat me to it.

[SkyUS]

Only after we hear of your death by auto erotic mammal intestinal disorder.

Sorry, I don't even know what that is.

[kamazz]

Can any self-described 'conservatives' here please explain to me on what basis do they reject the concept of same-*** marriage? Where does the authority for deciding who can get 'married' come from?

[LineDoggie]

Sorry, I don't even know what that is.

Dead gerbil in the guts

[LineDoggie]

Can any self-described 'conservatives' here please explain to me on what basis do they reject the concept of same-*** marriage? Where does the authority for deciding who can get 'married' come from?

If they answer on Religious grounds you will just belittle their religious beleifs anyway as you normally do.

[Spartan10k]

I am aware of this.

14th amendment.

There shall come a perfect case ( involving 14th amendment and the ban on same *** marriage and/or not providing the same protections of the law to same *** couples) that will go all the way to the Supreme Court. It will go federal and same *** couples will have the same protections of the marriage laws as hetero couples.

It's just a matter of time.

That would require marriage to be defined as a right. Which is not the current definition.

[liberal cl]

I am aware of this.

14th amendment.

There shall come a perfect case ( involving 14th amendment and the ban on same *** marriage and/or not providing the same protections of the law to same *** couples) that will go all the way to the Supreme Court. It will go federal and same *** couples will have the same protections of the marriage laws as hetero couples.

It's just a matter of time.

Fair enough, that hasn't happened though. Until then the tyranny of the majority argument is fairly moot...

[kamazz]

If they answer on Religious grounds you will just belittle their religious beleifs anyway as you normally do.

Yes, absolutely I will.

But are you saying that this resistance towards the concept of gay marriage is based mainly on religious views and religious tradition?