# North Carolina passes hateful Amendment 1 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 9, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351 "2012-05-09T02:33:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/141 "2012-05-09T18:07:03Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > No need for conspiracies, they were simply indoctrinated into thinking the bible is the word of their omnipotent creator, and must be obeyed (except for the stuff about clothes made from multiple threads and the like for some reason). Send her [this](http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0splcfoMp1r9qinmo1_500.jpg). šŸ˜ƒ ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/142 "2012-05-09T18:07:59Z")
> [@Southern\_Yankee](#): > > I was hoping my own county, which has an ever-growing populations of transplants from NYC and other places, would come out against, but it was 3-to-1 in favor. I thought things might be turning for the better when NC went Obama in 2008 but the turnout was very low yesterday and the other side did a better job of rallying the vote. Righteous bigotry defeats apathy once again. Yeah, but Union is a pretty darned rural county. Remember: Jessie Helms is from here. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/143 "2012-05-09T18:11:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow, two great minds that think as one! > > Thatā€™s an interesting twist on the issue, and quite frankly I canā€™t think of any place itā€™s been tried. With the benefit of two minutesā€™ analysis, I canā€™t see a fundamental flaw. Maybe itā€™s just the wording, but the idea that discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination on the basis of sex has been used (and rejected) quite often in cases like this. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/144 "2012-05-09T18:21:33Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > As long as institutionalized bigotry and hatred doesnā€™t effect Rand Rover, eh? Unless itā€™s you on the end of the mob of mouth breathing idiotsā€™ vileness, it doesnā€™t really bother you. He states that he doesnā€™t like the decision, but the people of the state voted democratically, and thatā€™s what they came up with. Heā€™s not supporting the principle, he even says that it would be a factor against him moving to the place, but he thinks democracy is good. Seriously, Iā€™m not sure how you can argue against his stance here. Iā€™m not even sure you disagree with it. Do you feel the vote should be ignored because you disagree with it? I fucking hate homophobes, but if thatā€™s what the population there want isnā€™t it their choice? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/145 "2012-05-09T18:25:34Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > As the relative of a lot of anti-gay fundies that live in NC, I think you are vastly overthinking this. > > My relatives, my mom included, have this one and only one argument: the Bible is against homosexuality. No need for conspiracies, they were simply indoctrinated into thinking the bible is the word of their omnipotent creator, and must be obeyed (except for the stuff about clothes made from multiple threads and the like for some reason). If the opponents of gay marriage would just come right out and say, ā€œIā€™m against gay marriage because the thought of two men having butt sex, or two women having scissor sex, kills my boner, dries up my vagina, and thatā€™s why Iā€™m against it,ā€ā€¦ **that would be a valid argument**. And weā€™d have to actually debate them on that. But no, instead they drag out, ā€œWell, the Bible saysā€¦ā€ Hang on. Iā€™m glad you like a book. But that doesnā€™t mean you can have the stuff in the book happen in real life. Thatā€™s what crazy people want. I canā€™t storm into the White House with a stack of comic books and say, ā€œI want a Green Lantern ring! I saw it in a book I like!ā€ I would be deservedly tased. ā€“ stolen from Patton Oswalt ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/146 "2012-05-09T18:27:51Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Seriously, Iā€™m not sure how you can argue against his stance here. Iā€™m not even sure you disagree with it. Do you feel the vote should be ignored because you disagree with it? I fucking hate homophobes, but if thatā€™s what the population there want isnā€™t it their choice? Sometimes it should be ignored. There is a reason we have three branches of government and checks and balances. We had Jim Crow laws in the south for near a hundred years. Were they ok because that is what the population there voted for? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/147 "2012-05-09T18:34:01Z")
North Carolina state motto: > [@](#): > > In 1893 the North Carolina General Assembly adopted the Latin words ā€œEsse Quam Videriā€ as the state mottoā€¦ > > \ > > The motto is a literal translation of a phrase from a sentence in Ciceroā€™s ā€œOn Friendshipā€ (De Amicitia, chapter 26). The complete sentence in Latin is: ā€œVirtute enim ipsa non tam multi praediti esse quam videri volunt .ā€ > > Translations (from North Carolina State Library): > > ``` > "Fewer possess virtue, than those who wish us to believe that they possess it." > > ``` > > SOURCE: [Esse quam videri | State Symbols USA](http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/North_Carolina/state-motto-NC.html) ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/148 "2012-05-09T18:34:11Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > No, Iā€™m not. Iā€™m pointing out that your cop of of ā€œwell, they voted for itā€, is just that, a cop out. > > Thatā€™s for showing your true colors. Sacrifice the civil rights of the minority (hey, youā€™re not one of them, so itā€™s not big deal) to chase some perceived economic gain that is mostly just rhetoric to get elected. You are showing your true collrs as wellā€“what college is stupid anyway? If the libertarian party had a chance kn hell of getting elected then I would vote foe them. As it stands, I donā€™t think the country should have to suffer just because Iā€™m pro gay rights. I cant look at some unemployed person and tell them they donā€™t have a job because I want gay people to be able to marry. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/149 "2012-05-09T18:35:21Z")
When enough people agree with equality, it happens. The legal rationale will be found, and arcane arguments will continue amongst lawyers and legal scholars. Some of the rest of us will care about that, but most will not. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/150 "2012-05-09T18:39:21Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I cant look at some unemployed person and tell them they donā€™t have a job because I want gay people to be able to marry. Well, luckily you wonā€™t have to tell them that. Rather you can look at them and tell them because you supported SSM they are more likely to get a job. > [@](#): > > A UCLA study estimates the impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry on Washingtonā€™s state budget. The study concluded that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in a net gain of approximately $3.9 million to $5.7 million each year for the State.[17] This net impact will result from savings in expenditures on state means-tested public benefits programs and from an increase in sales tax revenue from weddings and wedding-related tourism. > > SOURCE: [Same-sex marriage in Washington - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Washington#Economic_impact) Or how about Vermont? > [@](#): > > Extending marriage to same-sex couples will boost Vermontā€™s economy by over $30.6million over three years, which would generate increases in state and local governmenttax and fee revenues by $3.3 million and create approximately 700 new jobs. > > SOURCE: [Economic Impact of Allowing Same-Sex Marriage in Vermont | PDF | Civil Union | Domestic Partnership](http://www.scribd.com/doc/14047416/Economic-Impact-of-Allowing-SameSex-Marriage-in-Vermont) ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/151 "2012-05-09T18:40:17Z")
I happen to agree with Ayn Rand on this: > [@](#): > > Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). > Ayn Rand I guess itā€™s ironic that **Rand Rover** has no problem with it. Or was I wrong that the **Rand** part of his name is a reference to Ayn Rand? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/152 "2012-05-09T18:42:18Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I happen to agree with Ayn Rand on this: I also agree with Ayn Rand on this. And if the law prohibited gays living with each other, or marrying each other, I would have a huge problem with it. But the law only relates to gay marriages being recognized by the state. Having your marriage recognized by the state is not a right. So Ayn Randā€™s quote does not apply. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/153 "2012-05-09T18:43:27Z")
> [@](#): > > ā€¦ I cant look at some unemployed person and tell them they donā€™t have a job because I want gay people to be able to marry. On this date, May ninth, 2012, **Rand Rover** came out of the closet as a compassionate conservative. Probably doesnā€™t really mean it, but we mustnā€™t forget that hypocrisy is the pretty compliment vice pays to virtue. Some French guy said that, but damned if Iā€™ll look it up. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/154 "2012-05-09T18:44:39Z")
Totally Aynal. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/155 "2012-05-09T18:48:37Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So Ayn Randā€™s quote does not apply. Sure it does, because for Rand a right was not simply something recognized by law. It was something inherent, something that preceded the writing of a particular law. Rand, along with plenty of libertarians, argues precisely that rights are not things that need to be specifically acknowledged or permitted by legislation or government; rights exist independently. Of course, those of a social democratic persuasion who would invoke Rand on this issue need to be a bit careful, because another right, for many the libertarian and objectivist camp, is the right not to have your money taken away by the government for the purposes of wealth redistribution. That also, for these people, constitutes an individual right that should not be subject to public vote. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/156 "2012-05-09T18:50:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, Iā€™ll take that challenge. Because if I read **Whack-a-Mole** ā€™s attempts, Iā€™ll get so irritated that Iā€™ll start correcting him, and it will look like Iā€™m against the underlying concept, which Iā€™m not. > > So hereā€™s the argument: > > 1. Laws that burden suspect classes are analyzed under EP with a higher level of scruntiny than rational basis review. > > 2. Sexual orientation, although not yet recognized as a suspect class, should be, because it fits the characteristics first articulated in Carolene Prodcutsā€™ ā€œFootnote Four.ā€ > > 3. By analogy, gender classifications are analyzed under intermediate scrutiny, and thus so should sexual orientation. > > 4. Analyzing a statute that limits marriage only to a man and a woman under intermediate scrutiny means that the statute must fail. > > If you need me to expand upon the reasoning in any of those steps, let me know. Your argument fails at point 2 because gay people are not a ā€œdiscrete and insular minority.ā€ Rather, homosexuality is defined by behavior, sexual orientation encompasses a whole spectrum of behavior (so there is not just the majority and the minority), and a personā€™s sexual orientation can change over time (ie, it is not immutable) . So, gay people are in a much different position wrt the EP clause than are racial minorities or women. Also, I think your argument has more a flavor of "sexual orientation should raise EP concerns " as opposed to ā€œsexual orientation does raise EP concerns.ā€ You are free to have that opinion and it 's not something I would argue about. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/157 "2012-05-09T18:52:12Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Sure it does, because for Rand a right was not simply something recognized by law. It was something inherent, something that preceded the writing of a particular law. Exactly. Gays have the right to marry each other, and they do, in every state of the union. The laws are not there to stop them from doing that and cannot stop them from doing that. Itā€™s called ā€œfreedom of associationā€. Having your marriage recognized by the state is not a right. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/158 "2012-05-09T18:54:06Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I happen to agree with Ayn Rand on this: > > I guess itā€™s ironic that **Rand Rover** has no problem with it. Or was I wrong that the **Rand** part of his name is a reference to Ayn Rand? This is the type of non-argument drivel Iā€™m choosing not to respond to. Make an argument that I am being a hypocrite or whatever and I will respond. ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/159 "2012-05-09T18:56:53Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Also that stuff Jesus said about renouncing your wealth, and you canā€™t sere two masters - pick God or money. Thatā€™s metaphorical. But the stuff about teh GAY? Cold stone truth. I just want to say how much I love this. But yeah, the more data I gather about pro-amendment voters, the clearer it becomes that their reasoning begins and ends with ā€œthe Bible says marriage is one man and one woman.ā€ I donā€™t know if the majority of people are incapable of analytical thought, or just not interested in it, but I would bet that even very vehement proponents of the amendment are unlikely to have ever thought about the type of issues weā€™re debating in fine detail here, never mind actual understand them and apply that understanding to their voting decision. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351/160 "2012-05-09T18:57:33Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I also agree with Ayn Rand on this. And if the law prohibited gays living with each other, or marrying each other, I would have a huge problem with it. But the law only relates to gay marriages being recognized by the state. Having your marriage recognized by the state is not a right. So Ayn Randā€™s quote does not apply. > [@](#): > > There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. > > SOURCE: [http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples](http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples) There are even more if you consider those granted at the state level by marriage but of course that can differ from state-to-state. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-carolina-passes-hateful-amendment-1/621351.md?page=9)