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 <[email protected]> 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 > <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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, by letting smaller territories each have their own > > admission standards and determine independently with whom they will > > associate on their own territory and with whom they prefer to cooperate > > from a distance.Hoppe's assumption is, of course, that large states bound > > by democratic processes are unable, by virtue of the heterogeneity of their > > populations, to reach uniform conclusions that please everyone. The > > populations, then, would actually be better served by splitting themselves > > into a series of smaller populations, in order that any methodology of > > collective decision making might better approach the true will of the > > citizens. > > > As units of decision making get smaller and smaller, the variability > > between these increasingly small states is likely to rise, and the varied > > interests of a collection of diverse populations are increasingly better > > served. "Secession," Hoppe elaborates, "increases ethnic, linguistic, > > religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have > > stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures." And, so long as citizens are > > able to "vote with their feet," these increases in diversity actually put > > pressure on communities to fashion themselves (and their policies, marriage > > related or otherwise) in as appealing a manner as possible. > > > There is a caveat that must be recognized here, and that is that, under > > such systems of decentralized decision making, policies such as Amendment 1 > > would undoubtedly come to pass in many communities. It is true that, > > without the constant threat of forceful intervention by state and federal > > governments, certain communities might choose not to > > ... > > 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.
