Politico's Morning Score this morning:
POISED TO PASS: Public Policy Polling, the Democratic firm based in North Carolina, released fresh numbers overnight that show that the anti-gay marriage amendment ahead by a 55-39 margin. "The final yes percentage will likely be somewhere in the 57-59% range depending on how the undecideds break," pollster Tom Jensen writes. [...] Nate Silver blogs that the measure is likely to pass and rounds up past results for gay marriage bans in a handy graphic: http://nyti.ms/J92Eui.
STRONG SUPPORT IN RURAL AREAS: The Charlotte Observer reports that "it's the rural regions - where homemade pro-amendment signs share roadside space with mass-produced ones - that are expected to carry the amendment to passage...The base of support includes churches, GOP groups and boards of commissioners in several counties, including Caldwell, Catawba, Gaston, Union and Lincoln, which passed resolutions in favor of the amendment. In rural areas, signs of support for the amendment are common, like down a stretch of N.C. 27 in Iron Station in Lincoln County. Anti-amendment signs are more dominate in urban areas, including several of Charlotte's neighborhoods." http://bit.ly/Jb5rSb
12 Comments
Too bad Politico calls it an "anti-gay marriage ban," because there is no ban on a "gay" person getting married. All consenting, adult males and females are already permitted to marry. The real issue revolves around whether marriage will maintain its sex integrated status, as opposed to being neutered and sex segregated. Neither sexual orientation (SSA) nor political affiliation (gay) are legal deterrents in getting married.
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
It's wonderful that the institution of marriage is open to any one man and one woman, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation or political identity.
I am so dammed sick and tired of these Gays and lesibeans ramming their sick vile agenda down all our throats and our childrens throats,......Keep This Vile Crap Out Of Our Schools,.......SchoolsAre Not ForTeaching Social Brain Washing Communist Agendas
DoE:
Can you at least stop pretending that your implication isn't demeaning or insulting? You are claiming that, straight men and women to marry for love, mutual attraction, and desire to build a life-long relationship together in the ultimate pursuit of happiness is somehow equal to a gay man marrying a woman or a gay woman marrying a man - whom he or she has no romantic love, attraction, or mutual desire to build a life together.
There isn't equality. Implying that gay men and women are already equal because they can marry without love is pathetic.
Creighton, please feel free to choose not to take offense. It's an option you've not exercised.
DoE,
It's difficult not to when strangers like you play on words in order to convince yourself that gay men and women in this country do not experience discrimination and are already equal.
You do it with a smile on your face. It only makes me feel a very deep sadness for you - that you continue to act in a way that causes very real, measurable, and avoidable harm to others who are different than you simply because you can.
Poppycock, Creighton. You have yet to produce a coherent argument, as to why we-the-people should neuter marriage. You have yet to produce a coherent argumeent as to what gay identity politics has to do with defining marriage, or with marriage eligibillity laws. You have yet to demonstrate causality in "harm to gays" by maintiang the man/woman definition of marriage.
DoE,
Check some other posts. You can choose to look at a coherent argument and pretend it is incoherent. You have yet to exercise that choice, however.
I believe I cited enough harm to gay couples. Denied hospital visitation, unable to sponsor foreign-born partners, inability to co-adopt children, inability to share health insurance, inability to secure inheritance rights due to estranged family members, etc. etc. They've been listed for you countless times before. Are you too daft to recognize that this constitutes financial and emotional harm for gay couples?
DoE, for your reference:
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/some-tax-breaks-unavailable-to-same-sex-couples/#more-67571
Tax breaks for unmarried couples?
Ridiculous.
Such a practice would de facto destroy the preferential benefits we reserve for married couples.
After all, society derives a unique benefit from married couples.
No same sex couple can provide this benefit:
The next generation, nurtured by their very own Mom and Dad.
Marriage corruption is lunacy, and its adherents' argumentation is completely incapable of overcoming this simple truth.
RJ, all those issues can be solved without resorting to neutering marriage. So, once again, why should we neuter marriage, which serves only the gay sub-set of same-sex couples, yet which leaves other same-sex couples out, while at the same time undermining all paternity, maternity, and child rights, of all individuals, or any or all sexual orientations?
Consider:
reciprocal beneficiaries
powers of attorney
hospital policy
employment policies,
wills, trust, etc.
And one last thing--what does "gay" have to do with marriage law?
To Frank Keen in post #3, I am with you man.