• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

Here is a scenario for you to consider:
John and Jane get married
Somewhere along the way the relationship goes south
Before Jane leaves John she gets pregnant
John refuses to give Jane a divorce because it's against his religious convictions
Jane leaves and gets a job as a waitress at some local diner without group coverage
Jane meets Mike
Mike works for Mecklenburg county and provides for Jane
In time Jane gives birth and Mike acts as a surrogate father to Janes child
John still will not sign those papers
Even though Mike has been a parent to Janes child from the start, Jane and Janes child are no longer insurable under Mikes policy because .......
 
Here is a scenario for you to consider:
John and Jane get married
Somewhere along the way the relationship goes south
Before Jane leaves John she gets pregnant
John refuses to give Jane a divorce because it's against his religious convictions
Jane leaves and gets a job as a waitress at some local diner without group coverage
Jane meets Mike
Mike works for Mecklenburg county and provides for Jane
In time Jane gives birth and Mike acts as a surrogate father to Janes child
John still will not sign those papers
Even though Mike has been a parent to Janes child from the start, Jane and Janes child are no longer insurable under Mikes policy because .......

Jane needs a lawyer.
 
Now that marriage has been defined I will support any legislation that helps to provide health insurance to anyone that wants it and can afford it.
 
Now that marriage has been defined I will support any legislation that helps to provide health insurance to anyone that wants it and can afford it.

the idiotic thing about this post is that this was already the case. marriage in NC was already only allowed between a man and a woman. amendment 1 did not affect THIS- it just made it the only legally recognized union, taking away the domestic/civil unions that gave people the opportunity to have health benefits.
so basically, by voting "for" you changed nothing about marriage, took away recognition of all other unions... and now want to support legislation that gives benefits back to these people? what if that legislation was reinstating civil unions as acceptable relationships to get partner benefits? what was the point in voting 'for' then?
 
Now that marriage has been defined I will support any legislation that helps to provide health insurance to anyone that wants it and can afford it.

Excellent. We appreciate your support in repealing amendment 1.
 
Now that marriage has been defined I will support any legislation that helps to provide health insurance to anyone that wants it and can afford it.

You're either the stupidest person on this board, or a magnificent troll. You can't be both. "Can afford it". I wish someone would provide you with a boot to the ass.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/10/gay-marriage-three-key-factors-voting-bans
Counties were less likely to vote for a ban if their voters were better-educated, more Democratic, and less religious. Importantly, equations such as these control for the fact that some counties might be quite Democratic and less religious, but have a high percentage of less well educated folk. In that case, these counties are more likely to vote for the ban than those counties that are highly Democratic, less religious, but (on average) more highly educated.
 
Here is a scenario for you to consider:
John and Jane get married
Somewhere along the way the relationship goes south
Before Jane leaves John she gets pregnant
John refuses to give Jane a divorce because it's against his religious convictions
Jane leaves and gets a job as a waitress at some local diner without group coverage
Jane meets Mike
Mike works for Mecklenburg county and provides for Jane
In time Jane gives birth and Mike acts as a surrogate father to Janes child
John still will not sign those papers
Even though Mike has been a parent to Janes child from the start, Jane and Janes child are no longer insurable under Mikes policy because .......


If they're neither legally separated nor divorced, it's likely she's still on his health plan, unless her pregnancy fell during an open enrollment period in which John dropped Jane. Some insurance plans don't recognize separation as a valid life event for changes, so even with a separation, it's possible he'd carry her until the next enrollment period which could be after the baby was born in this scenario.

ETA: Jane eventually ends up screwed because John can drop her during his company's enrollment season regardless of whether or not that's during or after the pregnancy which mean's unless she can buy her own plan or get on Mike's she's uninsured.
 
Last edited:
Great piece on CNN about this issue.

The 2 lawyers who argued Bush vs. Gore (opponents) are now arguing together on the California law.
 
Great piece on CNN about this issue.

The 2 lawyers who argued Bush vs. Gore (opponents) are now arguing together on the California law.

Yeah, that's history. They're the reason it got overturned. Despite the amendments in states, limiting gay marriage has been already decided. It just has to make it through all of the systems.

You're either the stupidest person on this board, or a magnificent troll. You can't be both. "Can afford it". I wish someone would provide you with a boot to the ass.

I'll give you a hint. If you ignore him, he'll go away.
 
Now that marriage has been defined I will support any legislation that helps to provide health insurance to anyone that wants it and can afford it.

And the generous posters here can help provide charity for those who need insurance but cannot afford it through no fault of their own. The first step is to lower taxes so that successful people will have more to give.
 
The following is by a friend who is from Mt. Airy:

"I feel that not weighing in on this would be very wrong of me. For years I have watched this debate, at first as an unaffected individual before I came to the realization about myself, and later as a young man dealing with the ramifications of being gay and growing up in rural North Carolina. Today I have so many mixed feelings.

Just over a week ago I proposed to my lover of almost three years. He and I have shared our lives together: our hopes, dreams, needs, wants, bills, bonuses, families, happiness, sorrows, our lives. I know that there is no other person on this earth who can bring out the goodness and the positivity that he found hiding deep in the heart of this bitter cynic. Because of him, I believe in happiness, in hope, and in true love. One day i am going to marry him, legal or not, whether I am told by some elitist politician that it is acceptable for me to be joined to the only person who has ever made me believe in my future or not.

My feelings are mixed because I am deeply ashamed of the way my people behave, all of my people. North Carolinians should be ashamed! Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, the amendment that passed is completely unacceptable. For the over one million people who voted for it, if you made your decision based on the gay aspect without looking into how it affected every other person in the state you do not deserve the right to vote. And to all of those that did not vote, some 4 million individuals, the right is there to be exercised and the only acceptable reason to not vote on an issue of this magnitude is the absence of knowledge, something very easily remedied considering you are reading this on the internet.

Homosexuals combat the Bible with hateful taunts and claiming that depending on just the Bible to defend a particular view point is small minded, but do we do ANYTHING to fix that? Why should anyone listen to us if all we are doing is trying to scream our message louder than anyone else? Fuck, I don't even want to listen! One of the things that I see most often is a powerful sense of condescension when we address objections to gay marriage. I ask all my gay family, do you listen to people when they condescend to you? And in my head I hear all of your voices saying FUCK NO! So why should ANYONE listen to us if that is all we are doing?

I love my life, I love my gay family, I love my straight family, and God help me I still love my state and I still love my God. But I also love my Fiance. I love the man that will one day be my husband and it is my fervent wish that I get to call him that without looking around to make sure I'm not going to offend anyone, and that I get to do that in my lifetime.

To answer [redacted]'s original question: How does gay marriage affect someone's livelihood? Marriage in general is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. The marriage market and the housing market are the two largest indicators of the state of the economy, not just in America, but world wide. Weddings are directly related to food service, clothing production, botanical industry, furniture, travel, music service, cleaning crews, officiates, stationary, the list goes on and on. The average cost of a wedding is $20,000 (www.theknot.com). The number of gay people in the country really cannot be determined due to people not being able to be open about themselves, however there were 18,000 same sex couples married in California before the passage of Prop 8. Imagine if JUST those couples had traditional sized weddings. Now multiply that by 50...that ladies and gentlemen comes to 18 billion dollars. Also, that doesn't even include wedding registry. I bid you all good night."
 
Yeah, that's history. They're the reason it got overturned. Despite the amendments in states, limiting gay marriage has been already decided. It just has to make it through all of the systems.



I'll give you a hint. If you ignore him, he'll go away.

Was just stating that I viewed the interview today.
 
Why is it that when it's on a ballot it passes state by state? Even Cali for cryin out loud! Silent majority speaks loudly.
 
Anybody who draws conclusions on the impact of this amendment the day after it passed has no understanding of how the law works.

I read this several times and its still makes me laugh.
 
Back
Top