Government has zero bsiness in marriage. ---- I agree. On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > But (some of) the people of NC chose to use Government to secure advantage to > SOME while REFUSING those advantages to others. > Government -- legitimate Government -- secures right <period>. > Providing advantage is NOT securing rights. > Government has zero bsiness in marriage. > Regard$, > --MJ > "Of course, the most important argument for the legalization of prostitution > services is that such prohibitions violate one's most basic and inherent > rights. Prostitution is the voluntary sale (or rental) of a labor service. > Individuals own their own bodies and their own labor services and have the > absolute right to decide how those labor services should be used. As long as > the prostitution transaction is voluntary, there is no justification for > governmental interference. Indeed, such interference constitutes an > infringement of the privacy and personal liberty of the individuals > involved." -- Paul ArmentanoAt 03:45 PM 6/18/2012, you wrote: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 wasdiscriminatory toward a class of > people. This was not an actionagainst areligious group, or a class of people > such as blacks.---homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the > religious andthe blacksThis was areferendum against a certain behavior that > the majority of NorthCarolinians find to be at odds with their > beliefs.---their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the > courtsdecisionsOn 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... > > 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.
