# Amendment One Passes in NC **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 9, 2012, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345 "2012-05-09T01:25:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/61 "2012-05-09T15:39:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Question for President Obama, who opposes SSM. If his state were to put a vote to legalizing SSM, would he vote against it, so long as it allowed Civil Unions? > > I hope he’s asked something like that in the debates. This “evolving” crap should be beneath him. Politics is never “beneath” a politician. If Obama leads on this issue, he’ll hand the GOP one of the few remaining wedge issues that might actually help them in legislative races across the country (as happened in 2004, mentioned above). So far, he’s managing to advance LGBT rights without stimulating a reactionary reflex from the wingers. He’s not being careful in order to attract bigoted voters or to avoid alienating bigoted voters already in his camp. He’s trying not to do Republicans’ work for them in rallying their reactionary base. The GOP is sinking right now, and BHO keeps turning their usual flotation devices into anvils. Sneer at him if you want, but if he comes out strongly for SSM he’ll do more to delay it than he could ever do to bring it about. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/62 "2012-05-09T15:45:53Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Rights for minorities shouldn’t be up for popular vote. I disagree, but I’m an ideologue of democracy. I think that representative democracy should be replaced by consensus and that well publicised debates with neutral framing of the issues should precede every vote of some significance. I’d also support requiring a supermajority (of say 80%) to pass or amend a Constitutional amendment granting or declining rights to minorities. As for whether this issue can be debated reasonably without resorting to insults: I think [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=646472) provides a good example of that. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/63 "2012-05-09T15:55:08Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > See Exhibits A, B, and C above. That’s why I have no interest in debating this. The other side has no interest in a debate, but simply resorts to name calling or a Pit thread. You’re right. Please put forth your case for why Jews ought to be required to wear yellow stars, and I’ll be sure to consider it with all the respect it deserves. Or would you prefer to argue that women ought not be allowed to drive? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/64 "2012-05-09T16:13:51Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Then there is no irony in **jayjay** ’s post. A slippery slope argument and an analogy are two different things; objecting to a particular stupid slippery slope argument does not mean you can’t use an analogy. But the analogy is _more_ inflammatory, as it’s actually comparing the two disparate things. Which is the very objection raised in the slippery slope argument, i.e., “how dare you “compare” SSM to polygamy or bestiality?”, when that is NOT what is being done. Try taking off you SSM hat and putting on your logic cap. > [@Marley23](#): > > This is where I should be saying “Thanks for the laugh.” In an argument where one group of people wants to be allowed to marry as they wish and another group says “You can’t,” the moral high ground is not up for grabs. So, you don’t see that an argument based on the actual rights, e.g., hospital visitation, inheritance, etc., without the noise of cultural labels is a purer moral high ground position? ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/65 "2012-05-09T16:19:22Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I disagree with this on every point. Legally, marriage is so entwined with our laws and customs that trying to define civil unions as having the same rights and privileges would be a logistic nightmare. Morally, it would give total permission for those who insist upon marriage as a moral union that overrides all other considerations to continue to look down from a superior moral position. Logically, marriage is already completely secular in the U.S., so the proper course if this is wanted would be to eliminate marriage entirely and replace it with civil unions, obviously a untenable position for the moralists. > > Marriage is marriage precisely because our history of religiously-imposed morality has made it so. Separating some marriages from marriages because of religiously-imposed objections is the worst possible solution. > > Fortunately, as others have said, this is a meaningless argument for the long term. SSM is the future and the future always happens. Something about how “separate but equal” didn’t work in the past either. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/66 "2012-05-09T16:32:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, you don’t see that an argument based on the actual rights, e.g., hospital visitation, inheritance, etc., without the noise of cultural labels is a purer moral high ground position? Yes, I do. Which is why I called for civil unions to entirely replace marriage. > [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](#): > > Something about how “separate but equal” didn’t work in the past either. I thought about using that phrase; thank you for understanding. I’ve said before that in 50 years we will find it as incomprehensible that SSM was barred as we do now that interracial marriage was barred. But that won’t eliminate religious bias any more than racism has been eliminated. It will just shift in an endless series of rearguard actions. Shame on what you just thought. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/67 "2012-05-09T16:49:45Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Yes, I do. Which is why I called for civil unions to entirely replace marriage. > I thought about using that phrase; thank you for understanding. > > I’ve said before that in 50 years we will find it as incomprehensible that SSM was barred as we do now that interracial marriage was barred. But that won’t eliminate religious bias any more than racism has been eliminated. It will just shift in an endless series of rearguard actions. > > Shame on what you just thought. It’s an all or nothing proposition. You can’t say that some get to have a status and others can’t. You can’t say that some get to have a status and others can have that status, but by a different name (both, as far as the law is concerned). Either everyone gets marriage or nobody gets marriage and everyone gets civil unions. Those are the only two “acceptable” answers, with one being more palatable than the other. The problem is, when it gets put on the ballot in some states, and people get to democratically state what they want about it, the waters get muddied, because then the only one that can step in is the federal government. It’s an age problem. My generation overwhelmingly approves of it, or at least sees no reason to restrict it. Also, it’s a lot to ask people that are being affected by it to essentially “wait their turn”, especially with regards to basic civil rights issues. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/68 "2012-05-09T17:10:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Try taking off you SSM hat and putting on your logic cap. Try making a coherent objection. > [@](#): > > So, you don’t see that an argument based on the actual rights, e.g., hospital visitation, inheritance, etc., without the noise of cultural labels is a purer moral high ground position? No, I think it’s nonsense - not because I fail to see it, but because I see it’s a waste of time. They already have the high ground. Forcing them toward higher and higher ground is just a way of adding to their burdens and making it harder for them to get what they’re seeking. It’s only pretending to help. They are already correct and already have the high ground. They don’t need more high ground, and they don’t need additional burdens and increasingly difficult standards or smaller demands that won’t get them more votes. We could spend all day making up ways to drum up more sympathy for gays who want to get married, but what’s the point? They’re not asking for marriage rights because they’re exemplary people - they want those rights because they’re people. Straight people don’t have to be exemplary to get married; gay people shouldn’t have to be either. They’ve already proved that to a lot of people, and not that long from now, a much larger chunk of voters will recognize it. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/69 "2012-05-09T17:10:27Z")
Not sure why it has to be an all or nothing. Wouldn’t it be viable for the government to say we only recognize civil unions between consenting adults. IF you want to get married, that is a religious ceremony and the requirements are up to the various denominations. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/70 "2012-05-09T17:19:43Z")
You’re either equal or you’re not, that’s why. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/71 "2012-05-09T17:23:52Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Politics is never “beneath” a politician. You just handed a blank check to every politician on the right. I’m sure they’re very greatful. > [@](#): > > If Obama leads on this issue, he’ll hand the GOP one of the few remaining wedge issues that might actually help them in legislative races across the country (as happened in 2004, mentioned above). So far, he’s managing to advance LGBT rights without stimulating a reactionary reflex from the wingers. A leader leads. He could lead the nation in breaking down on of the last bastions of discrimination in this country. If he’s not up to the task, we should find someone who is. > [@](#): > > He’s not being careful in order to attract bigoted voters or to avoid alienating bigoted voters already in his camp. He’s trying not to do Republicans’ work for them in rallying their reactionary base. > > The GOP is sinking right now, and BHO keeps turning their usual flotation devices into anvils. Sneer at him if you want, but if he comes out strongly for SSM he’ll do more to delay it than he could ever do to bring it about. That might have been true 10 years ago, but I think the time is well past for tiptoeing around this subject. If he wants to play politics with it, he should look at how it will rally the youth vote. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/72 "2012-05-09T17:24:36Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > Not sure why it has to be an all or nothing. Wouldn’t it be viable for the government to say we only recognize civil unions between consenting adults. IF you want to get married, that is a religious ceremony and the requirements are up to the various denominations. But then what happens to all of those married couples that were married by the justice of the peace, or at a non-religious ceremony, or by a ship’s captain for that matter. Would all of these couples have to then call what they have a civil union instead of a marriage? Would they still be able to talk about when they were married, or would they then have to refer to that date as when they were civilly united? That would be saying that you can’t get married if you aren’t religious, wouldn’t it? I’m not sure that’s better really. Ultimately its just a word, but that being the case, why can’t whoever wants to use the word use it? Its not like there are a finite number of marriages available and if teh gays take some, then there’s less available for the straights right? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/73 "2012-05-09T17:25:08Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > Not sure why it has to be an all or nothing. Wouldn’t it be viable for the government to say we only recognize civil unions between consenting adults. IF you want to get married, that is a religious ceremony and the requirements are up to the various denominations. We’ve done this many, many times here. That would only validate the claim that gays are trying to change marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/74 "2012-05-09T17:28:26Z")
I think you missed the point, **Airbeck**. He’s talking about how the law treats these relationships - meaning they are civil unions whether they are between a man and a woman or two men or two women, whether they were performed in a church by a priest or in a civil ceremony without clergy. People can call them whatever they like. Logical as it may be, it’s a non-starter because of what **John Mace** said: people will say the gays are trying to not only change the definition of marriage, but stop straight people from getting married. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/75 "2012-05-09T17:29:48Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > My position is evolving. I apologize if the OP seems like a taunt. The only thing I am taunting is posters on this board that just can’t fathom that there are two sides to this issue, without resort to insults to one side. The other side is bigotry and ignorance, and deserves to be mocked and marginalized. There is no valid reason to enshrine this type of discrimination anywhere in the US, yet people do it. Those are sad, hateful people. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/76 "2012-05-09T17:33:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We’ve done this many, many times here. That would only validate the claim that gays are trying to change marriage. You said that like you think that there is no attempt to change marriage. Of course there is, it should be changed. Nothing is gained by pretending that change isn’t wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/77 "2012-05-09T17:36:11Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > You said that like you think that there is no attempt to change marriage. Of course there is, it should be changed. Nothing is gained by pretending that change isn’t wanted. One argument at a time. The argument is that letting gay couples get married doesn’t change any marriages between straight people, which it doesn’t. Redefining all marriages as civil unions arguably does because it more clearly draws a line between the legal and religious aspects of marriage, and certainly you can see some people would freak out about that. That marriage has changed over time is not really in question and only people with a very limited and flawed perspective on history have trouble with that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/78 "2012-05-09T17:41:22Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > You said that like you think that there is no attempt to change marriage. Of course there is, it should be changed. Nothing is gained by pretending that change isn’t wanted. I meant changed existing marriages or those going forward for heterosexuals. That’s the specious claim that is made now, but that would be valid if we followed your suggestion. Frankly, I think it’s a good idea, but the country as a whole is waaaaaay far from agreeing on that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/79 "2012-05-09T17:48:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Question for President Obama, who opposes SSM. If his state were to put a vote to legalizing SSM, would he vote against it, so long as it allowed Civil Unions? > > I hope he’s asked something like that in the debates. This “evolving” crap should be beneath him. > > As for NC, I don’t think anyone is surprised. The anti-civil unions clause takes this to a new low, though. Wow. Maybe he will be asked [Today.](http://gma.yahoo.com/timeline-obamas-evolving-same-sex-marriage-162626930--abc-news-politics.html) > [@](#): > > President Obama will discuss same-sex marriage in an exclusive interview today with “Good Morning America” anchor Robin Roberts. With his “evolving” position in the spotlight, here’s a look back at the various positions he has held on the issue: from appearing to support the unions as a young state senate candidate, opposing them outright as a matter of faith in 2004, to suggesting a shift in line with public opinion: ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345/80 "2012-05-09T17:52:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think the SS couples should be arguing for Civil Unions, as that route has a much better chance of gaining them the rights and privileges married couples enjoy and SS couples deserve. So suppose rather than the 14th amendment we had an amendment that said > [@](#): > > Although not citizens, all negros born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are declared naturalzed negros of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of naturalized negros of the United States to be different from that of citizens; nor shall any State deprive any naturalized negro of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any naturalized negro within its jurisdiction protection of the law equal to that of citizens. > > etc… you wouldn’t object?. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amendment-one-passes-in-nc/621345.md?page=5)