Greenville Off-Topic

[Spartan]

Voting NO does not allow these marriages to occur. It does not make them legal. All it does is not make them illegal. Nothing would change from the way it is today.

[Chickenwing]

I am voting yes on my Christian convictions. I believe that marriage is a sacred compact between one man, one woman, and God.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

When God created Eve from Adam, he said in Genesis 2:24, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife and they shall become one flesh." Thus giving us the first marriage and creating for us the Biblical model of marriage, i.e. one man and one woman, a monogamous heterosexual relationship.

[gs3]

What harm can gay people do to marriage that straight people haven't already done?

Haven't posted in forever, but had to weigh in on this. The above sentence says it all.

As a gay man in a 17 year monogamous, committed relationship, I hear the terms "sacred", "sanctity" batted about for marriage. But how can this "sacred" institution that allows people to wed, divorce, wed, divorce, wed, divorce, etc be "sacred". Sacred got thrown out the window many divorces ago by heterosexuals.

As a gay man, am I for gay "marriage".....not really. I care about commitment (straight or gay). My partner and I have a comittment......in our hearts......and no slip of paper, gold band, or ceremony, changes that commitment for good or bad. Do I want equal rights on taxes? You betcha. As two white collar professionals, we have a large tax burden......a good chunk which goes to education and since we don't have children.....you get the point. The government should acknowledge these civil partnerships and give the same tax breaks as heterosexual couple receive. Thats all I ask.

Funny thing, in my neighborhood, my partner and I have watched 2 straight couples get divorces in the last year, to the detriment of their children. If people really want to "protect" and "save" marriage, then vote to outlaw divorce, not to discriminate against consenting adults.

[goodbye]

Haven't posted in forever, but had to weigh in on this. The above sentence says it all.

As a gay man in a 17 year monogamous, committed relationship, I hear the terms "sacred", "sanctity" batted about for marriage. But how can this "sacred" institution that allows people to wed, divorce, wed, divorce, wed, divorce, etc be "sacred". Sacred got thrown out the window many divorces ago by heterosexuals.

As a gay man, am I for gay "marriage".....not really. I care about commitment (straight or gay). My partner and I have a comittment......in our hearts......and no slip of paper, gold band, or ceremony, changes that commitment for good or bad. Do I want equal rights on taxes? You betcha. As two white collar professionals, we have a large tax burden......a good chunk which goes to education and since we don't have children.....you get the point. The government should acknowledge these civil partnerships and give the same tax breaks as heterosexual couple receive. Thats all I ask.

Funny thing, in my neighborhood, my partner and I have watched 2 straight couples get divorces in the last year, to the detriment of their children. If people really want to "protect" and "save" marriage, then vote to outlaw divorce, not to discriminate against consenting adults.

Hello, old friend! It is great to see you are still alive and well.

I agree with you 100%. You made a very good point there at the end as well.

[distortedlogic]

Haven't posted in forever, but had to weigh in on this. The above sentence says it all.

As a gay man in a 17 year monogamous, committed relationship, I hear the terms "sacred", "sanctity" batted about for marriage. But how can this "sacred" institution that allows people to wed, divorce, wed, divorce, wed, divorce, etc be "sacred". Sacred got thrown out the window many divorces ago by heterosexuals.

As a gay man, am I for gay "marriage".....not really. I care about commitment (straight or gay). My partner and I have a comittment......in our hearts......and no slip of paper, gold band, or ceremony, changes that commitment for good or bad. Do I want equal rights on taxes? You betcha. As two white collar professionals, we have a large tax burden......a good chunk which goes to education and since we don't have children.....you get the point. The government should acknowledge these civil partnerships and give the same tax breaks as heterosexual couple receive. Thats all I ask.

Funny thing, in my neighborhood, my partner and I have watched 2 straight couples get divorces in the last year, to the detriment of their children. If people really want to "protect" and "save" marriage, then vote to outlaw divorce, not to discriminate against consenting adults.

But we should not use irresponsible marriages and horrible decisons by heterosexuals to justify doing more harm to the institution of marriage. It is true that heterosexuals often divorce. Most often, they married for the wrong reasons, were immature, or whatever. And you are correct, divorcing and remarrying takes away from the sacredness of marriage. The only justification Jesus himslef gives for divorce is in cases of infidelity. And then only when it has done so much harm to the relationship that it cannot possibly be a trusting and safe environment again. Money problems, old age, boredom, or everyday disagreements were not grounds. Jesus and the early Christians took marriage very seriously. Modern day divorces do make a mockery of what was originally intended, and people often divorce and remarry as it suits them, without any thought to how it affects them, their children and families, or society. But again, this in no way justifies changing the foundational parameters of marriage. We cannot say, "since it is already messed up then..."

[upstatecommuter]

I am voting yes on my Christian convictions. I believe that marriage is a sacred compact between one man, one woman, and God. Changing the parameters would alter what marriage is about. While it may or may not weaken my particular marriage, it would weaken the institution of marriage, which would inevitably change what it stands for and means. That would impact my marriage. As for personal rights; there are many things we do in the name of personal rights, that could or should be called into question. But if this is truly a civil rights issue, then we (as a country or gov't) have no right to interfere with any marriages; including group marriages, adult family members, ect. It would even bring into question the age issue. Who is to say a 13 or 14 year old is not "mature" or "old" enough not to get married to an adult if they want to. There are planty of teenagers out there who are more mature than 40 or 50 year olds. In some countries it is very common for "kids" of that age to marry. I think we are doing it the right way for the people of the country. Let the people speak through their votes. If it is voted no, and these marriages are allowed, then that will be part of living in this country, even though I personally would still be opposed to it. Since we are voting, I am voting for what I believe.

If I understand this correctly, you believe that a marriage is a sacred commitment between one man, one woman and God. If this is your belief what does the State of South Carolina have to do with it? I guess the point that I am trying to make is this:

If you didn

Edited November 2, 2006 by upstatecommuter

[krazeeboi]

So why do we have marriage to begin with?

[Spartan]

Funny thing, in my neighborhood, my partner and I have watched 2 straight couples get divorces in the last year, to the detriment of their children. If people really want to "protect" and "save" marriage, then vote to outlaw divorce, not to discriminate against consenting adults.

I think this is an interesting point for all to consider.

BTW, welcome back gsupstate! I hope you will continue to share youre ideas with us.

[distortedlogic]

So why do we have marriage to begin with?

The institution of marriage predates any governmental involvement, as chickenwing pointed out.

[distortedlogic]

If I understand this correctly, you believe that a marriage is a sacred commitment between one man, one woman and God. If this is your belief what does the State of South Carolina have to do with it? I guess the point that I am trying to make is this:

If you didn

[whitehourseview]

The institution of marriage predates any governmental involvement, as chickenwing pointed out.

It would be interesting to get a legal scholar with time on their hands to dig into it, but I would guess that a huge proportion of the state of South Carolina's laws have to do with marriage and its regulation.

Going back to a point I made earlier, the early settlers to our fair state didn't believe marriage was a religious function, that it was to be regulated by the state, which is largely why laws are set up the way they are across the United States, and most of the former British Empire. The early Scotch-Irish settlers had Presbyterian parsons who refused to conduct marriage ceremonies, believing that was entirely a state function.

While I agree, out of my religious conviction, that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that for years it has been a weakened institution from all sides, SC or any other state allowing same sex marriage, at the end of the day will not affect me, my church or denomination. So that argument is really a non-starter for me.

Remember, that the Federal Government sent a small army to the nascent Utah territory to stop the LDS church from forming a government where polygamy would be enshrined by law, and that was one of the benchmarks of the entry of Utah into the Federal Union, monogamous marriage. Regulation of marriage didn't start just recently, has been that way since folks arrived.

From a legal standpoint, marriage is and probably will always be a massive interest of the state, as the family structure, and its success remains a near constant government concern. Any lawyers want to guess how much of the SC legal code has to deal with marriage? 25% 33%?

Again, it's better to vote on this rather than have it be decided by judicial fiat. It's important to me to not be affected by chronological snobbery, the idea that just because I live at the latest date, my ideas must always be the best. So I have to ask, why if the state is extremely concerned with marriage, has it been the unanimous idea in the West since, well, Constantine, for no other type of marriage to be allowed than one man with one woman? Sure, it's great to debate and dig into the matter.

Krazeboi asks a great question, "So why do we have marriage to begin with?" Granted, we may be the first generation in history to even think that is a question that is capable of being asked, but at least its a good starting point. Why? Sure we gotta weigh the interests of personal and a couple's desire for a stable relationship, but is that the only question? What is marriage? Is it public? Private? Both?

Seriously, as you decide how to vote on this, ask yourself some questions, weigh history and all sorts of events, be rational, think about individuals, the community as a whole. Again, this is something largely new in human history to consider, at least in 2,000 years or so of Western history. Slow down, think about things, and be considerate of folks who come to opposite conclusions, and watch out that we don't use information as a weapon, instead use it as something to illuminate a matter.

[monsoon]

I have come to accept the fact that about 1/3rd of the country is bigoted against Gays. It has been this way for as long as I can remember but the big difference now is that most won't say it anymore as they did when I was growing up in the 70s. Instead they hide behind words like protecting the family, religion, and the other usual excuses for bigotry. This message isn't for that bunch.

For those of you with an open mind, the issue about Gay marriage for Gays and Lesbians isn't one of children, nor does it have anything to do with religion, nor the status of the marriage of straight people. It is one of legal position. The civil government bestowes many rights such as survivorship, inheritance rights, entitlement rights, and who gets to make medical decisions based the marriage status.

For example if one of the parties in a married couple becomes critically injured and goes to the hospital, the spouse automatically gains power of attourney and medical power of attourney over the condition of their spouse. They have the right to go and sit with their spouse in the hospital. In contrast, a Gay spouse does not have these rights and there have been many cases where they have been denied access to their lifelong partner in a hospital by families who don't agree with homosexuality. I personally know a couple who had been together for 20 years. One of the couple got cancer went to the hospital, and then his sister stopped the spouse from having anything to do with his partner at that point. The law was on the sister's side. The guy died without his partner there. It was a heartless and cold act but one that could have been prevented if the government recognized the rights of gay partners to get married. (they can call them civil unions, I don't really care about that)

There are many other examples of where the civil government bestowes these kinds of rights to spouses and the only thing that Gays and Lesbians are asking for with Gay marriage is the same legal standing. Nobody is asking that Churches be required to perform these marriage ceremonies.

Now the 1/3rd that I mentioned above, the ones who claim they are protecting traditional marriage, don't care about that. What they do care about is that government does not recognize gay marriage because this would establish a classification that can't be discriminated against. Right now in SC, it is perfectly legal to fire someone, deny housing, in fact deny almost anything simply because they are Gay. This is the real reason there is an amendment on the SC ballot to deny a group of people rights.

I fully expect the measure to pass in South Carolina. The state has had a long terrible history of bigotry, discrimination, and backwards thinking and the supporters of this amendment either are not thinking or they fit into this category. It's one of the reasons that I don't hold SC in high regard anymore even though I was born and raised there, and measures like this are not going to do anything but drive talented people out of the state.

[monsoon]

BTW, I will add one more thing to this. Even though it is right next door, sometimes as it is with this issue, NC and SC might as well be on other sides of the country. The NC Legislature has rejected placing a similar measure on the ballot here. It serves no good for anyone (Gays are a threat to no marriage) and it hurts a lot of people. Bigotry serves no one but the bigots.

Furthermore here in Mecklenburg county (Charlotte), county employees are granted domestic partner benefits. Despite the county council passing this into law a few years ago, the divorce rate has not gone up, the ground has not opened up and dropped the city to hell, and people still go to church as it made not one iota's difference in the relationship between the truely faithful and God.

People ask many times on this forum why NC is so far ahead of SC economically and I would say this difference in attitude has a lot to do with it. SC has a lot of other things it really needs to focus on than putting a measure on the ballot that is only going to serve to divide people.

[NYTransplant]

If you were to meet me on the street you'd probably take me for someone who'd vote yes. I'm a straight guy, a conservative (usually), and that ever stereo typical "WASP" but I think "NO" on this one is just common sense.

Infact, I have yet to see any valid reason why I should to vote yes... not just from you guys, but from the general public. I heard a "vote yes" ad today on the radio, and I just laughed at it. Its arguement was very weak. I don't buy the arguement that our kids will suffer from a NO vote, and thats really the only reason that anyone can give me. If you raise you kids right, they won't be confused or suffer undue mental anguish. I'm more than willing to give any idea consideration, but this one just doesn't add up.

Despite the so called "divide" between religion and politics, the two are very much entangled. People who are religious are likely voting on this bill for their beliefs, and for that they should be respected, if not commended for practicing what they preach (no pun intended!).

However, I think its important to consider the fact that it is not, and should not be, the government's responsibility or obligation to impose religion on people, particularly in matters of the home. I don't see it as my responsibility to require the government to put a law into place that is based purely on spiritual beliefs, and one that one actually affect the general public. I also don't see anyone's relationship with God or lack thereof as my business, or the government's for that matter.

Besides all of that, voting NO is not supporting gay marriage. All it will do is not ban it. Like I said, if you can convince me that voting yes is the better choise I will definitely consider it, but I think you will be hard pressed to make that arguement.

They tax it. Hah, there is another reason to vote NO... extra income for the government! (they would have to make it legal first, which a NO vote here would not do)

Well put Spartan, this is generally how I feel about it. This does not have any effect on my life, my marriage, or any other part of my life. Why should I have the right to place restrictions on those who have a legitimate argument and a real reason to want "marriages" recognized for legal, financial and other reasons. I feel that those who are using the religious argument are trying to force their values on others and have no right to do so. To me this is a dangerous mix of religion and government.

Great to hear from you again gsupstate.

[NYTransplant]

Despite the county council passing this into law a few years ago, the divorce rate has not gone up, the ground has not opened up and dropped the city to hell, and people still go to church as it made not one iota's difference in the relationship between the truely faithful and God.

^

[distortedlogic]

I'm voting "NO" on Amendment 1 on Tuesday. I just don't see what the big deal is whether gay people are married or not. It's their right. If they want to marry each other, I say let them. I hate it when people feel embarrassed when they see gay people together. It's also sad that we Americans can only think about gay marriage and abortion when were at a war. Distortedlogic, how is it hurting you physically in any way to see gay people get married?

It isn't. And I never said it was. But I have already explained my reasons for voting yes. And if we are talking about rights, is it not my "right" to stand up for something I believe in? I am suprised that some of you here are so charged up about my comments. I have remained very genuine and have said nothing disrespectful. I have only stated what my opinions and values are. Isn't that what this forum is for? If someone wants to label me a "bigot" then that is fine, but that becomes judgemental and closeminded on it's own, which apparently is what they think I am. I have said absolutley nothing negative about gay people at all, and I have friends who are gay. As for trying to "push" values, since when did someone voting for something they believe in become pushing? Is that not what voting is about, people putting their say on what happens in their state or country? And further, have you ever thought that changing the parameters of marriage might be "pushing" the values of others on the institution?

[monsoon]

It isn't. And I never said it was. But I have already explained my reasons for voting yes. And if we are talking about rights, is it not my "right" to stand up for something I believe in?.....

If you believe that voting for an amendment that is designed to specifically deny your fellow citizens of rights then yes that is your right. Is it the right thing to do? I don't think so. If you really have friends that are Gay, how do you look them in the eye, as a friend, and say that you voted for this amendment? I don't know of any Gay person that would choose to be friends with someone who cared so little for them that they would vote for something that would deny them the possibility of having the legal right to sit with their dying spouse. It's cold, heartless, and I don't know anyone who is really Christian that would wish that demise on anyone.

[krazeeboi]

BTW, I will add one more thing to this. Even though it is right next door, sometimes as it is with this issue, NC and SC might as well be on other sides of the country. The NC Legislature has rejected placing a similar measure on the ballot here. It serves no good for anyone (Gays are a threat to no marriage) and it hurts a lot of people. Bigotry serves no one but the bigots.

If NC did place this on the ballot, you'd better believe it would pass.

Furthermore here in Mecklenburg county (Charlotte), county employees are granted domestic partner benefits. Despite the county council passing this into law a few years ago, the divorce rate has not gone up, the ground has not opened up and dropped the city to hell, and people still go to church as it made not one iota's difference in the relationship between the truely faithful and God.

The city of Columbia has the same statute in place.

People ask many times on this forum why NC is so far ahead of SC economically and I would say this difference in attitude has a lot to do with it. SC has a lot of other things it really needs to focus on than putting a measure on the ballot that is only going to serve to divide people.

This measure has passed in other states, such as Oregon, one of the bluest states in the Union. The highest courts of New York and Georgia ruled recently that same-sex couples are not entitled to marry. Other states that have a similar measure on their ballots this year include Virginia and Tennesee (which are more or less NC's economic equals), where they are expected to pass. I don't foresee any of these states stalling economically anytime soon because of this. SC's issues go way beyond this one issue and can largely be attributed to lack of vision and foresight and keeping the "good ol' boys" in power IMO.

At any rate, an interesting op-ed piece on the matter from The State newspaper can be read here.

Edited November 3, 2006 by krazeeboi

[GvilleSC]

If you believe that voting for an amendment that is designed to specifically deny your fellow citizens of rights then yes that is your right. Is it the right thing to do? I don't think so. If you really have friends that are Gay, how do you look them in the eye, as a friend, and say that you voted for this amendment? I don't know of any Gay person that would choose to be friends with someone who cared so little for them that they would vote for something that would deny them the possibility of having the legal right to sit with their dying spouse. It's cold, heartless, and I don't know anyone who is really Christian that would wish that demise on anyone.

It's out of line, IMO, for you to question someone else's faith.

[monsoon]

It's out of line, IMO, for you to question someone else's faith.

When someone chooses to make their faith 'the issue' on this forum, then it is not out of line. There is absolutely no reason for this amendment to be on the SC ballot, except to further bigotry in the state.

[monsoon]

If NC did place this on the ballot, you'd better believe it would pass.

The point is they felt it would be bad for the state and did not do it.

The city of Columbia has the same statute in place.

I am not so sure. Do you have a source?

[TREY]

Here is some information from the South Carolina Equality Coalition.

Amendment: Danger to the Constitution

SC State Amendment

Article XVII of the Constitution of this state would be amended by adding:

A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. This State and its political subdivisions shall not recognize or give effect to a legal status, right or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. Nothing in this section shall impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State. This section shall not prohibit or limit parties, other than the State or its political subdivisions, from entering into contracts or other legal instruments.

What It Means

South Carolina will directly violate one of the bedrocks of our Constitution and country, "equal protection under the law."

South Carolina same-sex couples and their children will be relegated to second class citizens and denied rights accorded to every other South Carolinian.

Government will tell state institutions and private corporations that they may not offer benefits to same-sex couples and their families.

South Carolina will directly violate "the full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Same-sex couples who have been married in Massachusetts or another country will find their legally recognized marriages nullified in our state.

Common law marriage will be eliminated.

Domestic violence laws, protections and support systems will fail to include same-sex couples.

The bottom line? Constitutionally sanctioned discrimination and inequality.

Learn More

Want to learn more about this Amendment, get the in-depth facts, and download special SCEC Publications?

[Greenville]

The point shouldn't be whether someone is for or against gay marriage, or whether they personally want to marry their partner, but rather what the Constitution says. Unfortunately, the Constitution has been manipulated for years so that people can get what they want. The crazy thing is, people tend to use it when it helps them and cite how "outdated" it is when it doesn't. How hypocritical!

I already stated that I don't think the government should be involved in marriage. People should be free to seek whatever type of consentual relationship they wish, and have the freedom to draw up a contract between themselves. Since the government has already overstepped its bounds and decided what is and is not permissible for everyone in terms of marriage, it's time that it step back and realize that they have been wrong about gay marriage.

What's funny, though, is that a lot of the people supporting gay marriage (and who cite the Constitution as proof that it should be permissible) are the same one who are for huge government programs, taxation, and spending. Please do some research to see that such a government is not at all Constitutional. Or is that one of the "outdated" parts that don't "apply" anymore?

[whitehourseview]

Anyone reading the stories of the three missing cows in Greenville?

http://www.greenvillenews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...EWS01/611030371

Apparently, they have caught two of the three. Honestly, this is the funniest local story I've read in a long time, mainly because the articles about it are written in such a serious tone.

Great stuff!

[monsoon]

The point shouldn't be whether someone is for or against gay marriage, or whether they personally want to marry their partner, but rather what the Constitution says. Unfortunately, the Constitution has been manipulated for years so that people can get what they want. The crazy thing is, people tend to use it when it helps them and cite how "outdated" it is when it doesn't. How hypocritical!

The constitution has always promised equal rights to everyone in the United States. This amendment does exactly the opposite. If you are really concerned with manulipation, then you should vote against this amendment as this is further manulipulation to deny a group of people of their equal rights.

I already stated that I don't think the government should be involved in marriage.

Then you have not been listening. This issue is all about rights that goverment grants through the insitution of marriage.

What's funny, though, is that a lot of the people supporting gay marriage (and who cite the Constitution as proof that it should be permissible) are the same one who are for huge government programs, taxation, and spending. Please do some research to see that such a government is not at all Constitutional. Or is that one of the "outdated" parts that don't "apply" anymore?

Its amusing that your only defense for supporting this amendment is to insult the supporters by accusing them of "huge government programs, taxation, and spending. " and with "fooling" with the constitution. As I said above the only people fooling with the constituition are the bigots that support this measure. It can't be more simple than that and his the only hypocracy being presented here.