Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

You knew it was coming

But thank you Boone - you voted against it

Well I tried. Nebraska's marriage amendment was struck down in courts and that was passed with 70%.

It's not over.

-
After this vote the one who votes present will clarify his “evolving”
position. i’m guessin he’ll be aginnit!

Until after the election of course

Actually, NC said Fvck YOU first.


Also Sodomy

T-Dog wrote:Well I tried. Nebraska's marriage amendment was struck down in courts and that was passed with 70%.

It's not over.

Thank you

T-Dog wrote:Well I tried. Nebraska's marriage amendment was struck down in courts and that was passed with 70%.

It's not over.

But that ruling was later struck down by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I wasn't following this that closely, but weren't the polls showing that this amendment was going down to defeat?

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

JoltinJoe wrote:weren't the polls showing that this amendment was going down to defeat?

It had been polling in the mid to high 50's for much of the leadup to the election. Not at all surprised it passed. Disappointed... but, not surprised.

Well, it wasn't even close- 61%-39%. Must mean most republicans and a majority of independents voted for the measure.

So far the scorecard is:
# of states where voters voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman: 30
# of states where voters voted to allow gay marriage: 0

Skjellyfetti wrote:Blame the old folk. The younger generation has your back.

You forgot UNCA for Buncombe County. Great beer area. Was drunk for five straight days.

Voted no this morning. Still don't understand why this was even an issue...

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.

griz37 wrote: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.

Yup. Just gotta wait for the St Onge fucks to die off.

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.

griz37 wrote: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.

+1

Sad state of affairs in this country.

griz37 wrote: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.

Ok, that's a little dramatic. I support equal treatment under the law for gays, but I don't think I would compare their collective experience in America to that of the blacks or women.

If we were Germany, then you'd have an argument.


Also Sodomy

griz37 wrote: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."

CID1990 wrote:

griz37 wrote: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.

Ok, that's a little dramatic. I support equal treatment under the law for gays, but I don't think I would compare their collective experience in America to that of the blacks or women.

My thoughts exactly.

89Hen wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Ok, that's a little dramatic. I support equal treatment under the law for gays, but I don't think I would compare their collective experience in America to that of the blacks or women.

My thoughts exactly.

Your church vilifies gays.

Ibanez wrote:

griz37 wrote: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."

Very similar to my view.


Stop using the term "marriage" as a legal term. If someone wants to get "married" in the traditional way..fine....


If someone wants to be legally joined make it a civil union between the two.


That way the "sanctity" of traditional marriage isn't fucked with....but we still have what we have today.

clenz wrote:Very similar to my view.


Stop using the term "marriage" as a legal term. If someone wants to get "married" in the traditional way..fine....


If someone wants to be legally joined make it a civil union between the two.


That way the "sanctity" of traditional marriage isn't fucked with....but we still have what we have today.

This!

clenz wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
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."

Very similar to my view.


Stop using the term "marriage" as a legal term. If someone wants to get "married" in the traditional way..fine....


If someone wants to be legally joined make it a civil union between the two.


That way the "sanctity" of traditional marriage isn't fucked with....but we still have what we have today.

You would think this would be middle ground - equal rights for gay couples (Libs) and maintaining the religious "sanctity" of marriage (Conservatives).

So why hasn't this happened?

Because there is no such thing as middle ground in this country anymore. That why this is a representative example of how sad the state of American politics and policy is right now.

danefan wrote:

clenz wrote: Very similar to my view.


Stop using the term "marriage" as a legal term. If someone wants to get "married" in the traditional way..fine....


If someone wants to be legally joined make it a civil union between the two.


That way the "sanctity" of traditional marriage isn't fucked with....but we still have what we have today.

You would think this would be middle ground - equal rights for gay couples (Libs) and maintaining the religious "sanctity" of marriage (Conservatives).

So why hasn't this happened?

Because there is no such thing as middle ground in this country anymore. That why this is a representative example of how sad the state of American politics and policy is right now.

You're right. We're so polarized and hateful that the extremists don't understand what they are for. They are blinded by hatred (reps and dems) that they refuse to get work done THEN complain when they can't. It's a sad state of affairs and i'm not sure throwing out all the incumbents(purge Congress) would do much good.

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

Should we have left that there as well, and let inter-racial couples have civil unions, while leaving "real" marriage to the non-inter racial couples?, so that the religious and bigoted folks that voted for that would not be unhappy?