homosexuals are still guaranteed those same
identical rights that you and I
---
not true
they can't get married or receive spousal benefits ... for starters
On Jun 18, 2:45 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And today, as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted to maintain
> the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still guaranteed those same
> identical rights that you and I have. Nothing's changed, other than North
> Carolina chose not to grant a certain group of people more rights than I
> have, or that you have, because of their behavior.
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > North Carolina did nothing that was
> > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action
> > against a
> > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks.
> > ---
> > homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious and
> > the blacks
>
> > This was a
> > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
> > ---
> > their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the courts
> > decisions
>
> > On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well said Mark.
>
> > > We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think writers such
> > as
> > > Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing that was
> > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action against
> > a
> > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. This was a
> > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
>
> > > At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define
> > marriage.
> > > I see no other alternative. The militant Gays and those that have been
> > > brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right" need to be
> > > quashed and shut down on this issue.
>
> > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th Amendment...
> > > > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral compass
> > > > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the
> > > > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give them
> > > > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well
> > > > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic
> > > > issue.
>
> > > > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012
> > > > > byChris Bassil
> > > > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North Carolina
> > > > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay
> > marriage,
> > > > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed by
> > voters.
> > > > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content, the
> > former
> > > > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but much of
> > this
> > > > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything else.
> > > > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that this
> > > > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but rather
> > that we
> > > > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means of
> > > > collective decision making in the first place.
> > > > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue of gay
> > > > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes that
> > the
> > > > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of
> > business,
> > > > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for collective
> > > > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common
> > denominator
> > > > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's
> > opinions,
> > > > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and contradictory
> > though
> > > > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93 counties
> > to
> > > > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining seven as
> > > > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the opportunity to
> > lead
> > > > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit.
> > > > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local to the
> > > > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure, the
> > > > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss of
> > freedom
> > > > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been cast has
> > been
> > > > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a heterogeneous
> > group
> > > > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting shows
> > this to
> > > > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were entirely
> > > > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our identical
> > beliefs,
> > > > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact same
> > > > actions and conclusions. The vote, by virtue of its own existence,
> > > > therefore implies our heterogeneity. On the other hand, it also
> > implies our
> > > > search for -- or perhaps toleration of -- one-size-fits-all solutions
> > to
> > > > our varied and diverse problems. (If we were content with different
> > > > solutions for different people, again, there would not be a need for
> > the
> > > > vote.)
> > > > > As local backlash to the Amendment 1 decision has shown, however,
> > > > one-size-fits-all solutions tend to fit the mobs that instate them
> > better
> > > > than the minorities that reject them. Put otherwise, the outcome of the
> > > > recent vote is not actually a uniform solution for the heterogeneous
> > > > population of North Carolina. It is a uniform solution for the largest
> > > > homogeneous community within that population, by which all of the
> > smaller,
> > > > subordinate populations will henceforth be made to abide.
> > > > > The tension arising from this arrangement, as Friedrich Hayek noted
> > > > inThe Constitution of Liberty, is fundamental to the democratic
> > process.
> > > > "The current theory of democracy," Hayek wrote, "suffers from the fact
> > that
> > > > it is usually developed with some ideal homogeneous community in view
> > and
> > > > then applied to the very imperfect and often arbitrary units which the
> > > > existing states constitute."
> > > > > Both the imperfection and arbitrariness of state-level decision
> > making
> > > > have revealed themselves to progressive voters here, many of whom now
> > seem
> > > > to be eager to distance themselves as much as possible from the state
> > and
> > > > their fellow citizens.
> > > > > Take, for example, their observation that support for Amendment 1 is
> > > > inversely related to level of education, and that those counties that
> > voted
> > > > against the amendment are all home to major universities:
> > > > > It is, of course, difficult to say exactly why it is that voters have
> > > > taken to invoking these relationships and sharing these images, but at
> > > > least some of them have done so as an assertion of the validity of
> > their
> > > > position. In theirappeal to authorityrepresented, in this case, by the
> > > > ivory tower -- those who promote this intellectually elitist
> > interpretation
> > > > of the outcome concern themselves too much with their own moral
> > > > superiority. In so doing, they overlook the true stories that the
> > graphics
> > > > shown above tell, and the ways in which the depicted voting patterns
> > -- and
> > > > their reality of an electorate fractured along religious, educational,
> > and
> > > > socioeconomic lines -- crystallize the aforementioned ideas of Hayek,
> > as
> > > > well as those of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, on the shortcomings of democracy
> > as a
> > > > process of collective decision making.
> > > > > In other words, the above graphics are valuable, not because they
> > > > provide insight into the progressive voting tendencies of college-going
> > > > young people, but rather because they serve as a strong, visual
> > testament
> > > > to the heterogeneity of North Carolina's (voting) population, and to
> > the
> > > > ways in which a spectrum of varying backgrounds, upbringings, and
> > belief
> > > > systems influence individuals toward differing -- and, in this case,
> > > > opposing -- conclusions. Although this point is easy to lose sight of,
> > it
> > > > should have been obvious even without the graphic: after all, it is
> > clearly
> > > > likely that, in many cases, those who live in close proximity to a
> > > > university may make decisionsdifferently-- not necessarily better and
> > not
> > > > necessarily worse, both being subjective moral valuations -- than
> > those who
> > > > live in more rural areas.
> > > > > For one thing, the presence of a universityattractsa crowd different
> > > > from the one drawn to the rural areas; this fact alone should be
> > enough to
> > > > tell us that these two populations may not see eye to eye. Furthermore,
> > > > those living in city or college-town settings will be drawn toward
> > > > different programs than those who are not, and will often be
> > incentivized
> > > > toward different behaviors and solutions. To lump these varying locales
> > > > together and put matters to a statewide vote, then -- in which every
> > > > personal preference, history, character trait, and bias becomes a
> > variable
> > > > -- is something of an absurd version of "apples to oranges." Each city
> > > > voter attempts to impose his personal standards, goals, and solutions
> > on
> > > > each voter from the outskirts, and vice versa. Each voter holds the
> > entire
> > > > population of North Carolina to his own subjective, personal values
> > scale,
> > > > with the result that 9.7 million of them end up unable to fulfill each
> > > > other's aims.
> > > > > This is one of the fundamental problems that Hoppe addresses
> > > > inDemocracy: The God That Failed. In relation to the question of
> > > > immigration, Hoppe makes a point that is well-taken here as
> > well:Secession
> > > > solves this problem,
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment