Send her this. 
Yeah, but Union is a pretty darned rural county. Remember: Jessie Helms is from here.
Maybe it’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.
He states that he doesn’t like the decision, but the people of the state voted democratically, and that’s what they came up with. He’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, I’m not sure how you can argue against his stance here. I’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 that’s what the population there want isn’t it their choice?
If the opponents of gay marriage would just come right out and say, “I’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 that’s why I’m against it,”…that would be a valid argument. And we’d have to actually debate them on that.
But no, instead they drag out, “Well, the Bible says…” Hang on. I’m glad you like a book. But that doesn’t mean you can have the stuff in the book happen in real life. That’s what crazy people want. I can’t storm into the White House with a stack of comic books and say, “I want a Green Lantern ring! I saw it in a book I like!” I would be deservedly tased.
– stolen from Patton Oswalt
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?
North Carolina state motto:
You are showing your true collrs as well–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 don’t think the country should have to suffer just because I’m pro gay rights. I cant look at some unemployed person and tell them they don’t have a job because I want gay people to be able to marry.
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.
Well, luckily you won’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.
Or how about Vermont?
I happen to agree with Ayn Rand on this:
I guess it’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?
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 Rand’s quote does not apply.
On this date, May ninth, 2012, Rand Rover came out of the closet as a compassionate conservative. Probably doesn’t really mean it, but we mustn’t forget that hypocrisy is the pretty compliment vice pays to virtue. Some French guy said that, but damned if I’ll look it up.
Totally Aynal.
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.
Your argument fails at point 2 because gay people are not a “discrete and insular minority.” 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 person’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 “sexual orientation does raise EP concerns.” You are free to have that opinion and it 's not something I would argue about.
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. It’s called “freedom of association”.
Having your marriage recognized by the state is not a right.
This is the type of non-argument drivel I’m choosing not to respond to. Make an argument that I am being a hypocrite or whatever and I will respond.
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 “the Bible says marriage is one man and one woman.”
I don’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 we’re debating in fine detail here, never mind actual understand them and apply that understanding to their voting decision.
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.