And today, as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted to maintain the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still guaranteed those same identical rights that you and I have. Nothing's changed, other than North Carolina chose not to grant a certain group of people more rights than I have, or that you have, because of their behavior.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 ยป > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
