It is never OK to allow people to vote away others' civil rights.

[MineralMan]

Never. These anti-marriage amendments should never appear on the ballot. There must be some sort of constitutional argument that could be made that it is never acceptable to vote about civil rights issues. This should be part of the US Constitution, I think. In reality, I think it actually is part of the Constitution, and all of these state amendments should be fought in Federal Court on 4th Amendment and 14th Amendment grounds.

Our Constitution was designed to protect civil rights from being usurped by the majority. What happened in NC should not even be allowed a vote.

[HockeyMom]

1. It happened a few years ago in Florida too

I agree on the Civil Rights issue. The ballot in Florida was orchestrated by a RELIGIOUS group. Who else? It wasn't enough that in Florida too, their constitution banned gay marrage, but that was not enough for these people. They wanted Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships banned also. Nothing even resembling a marriage between one man and one would be recognized. This also means that straight couples with domestic partnerships, especially Seniors, these states will not recognize them either. Since Florida has a LOT of Seniors, their Domestic Partnerships aren't recognized either. "Let them MARRY and stop living in SIN" is what these religious bigots said to them. Sin, sin, sin. Everybody is a sinner to them. They make me sick.

Civil rights should NEVER be decided on the the "will of the people". Imagine what this country would look like if it was? I shudder to think of that.

[MineralMan]

2. There's one of those ALEC-originated anti-marriage

amendments on the Minnesota ballot in November. A lot of us will be working to get Democrats to the polls to defeat it.

GOTV 2012!

[YellowRubberDuckie]

3. We're establishing religion just by allowing it.

Who cares what the bible says about marriage? We are a secular nation. Marriage should not be defined per religious perimeters. In doing so, it violates the first amendment. Anyone who thinks this is not the case is just being ridiculous and doesn't understand the law.

[MineralMan]

4. Another very good point that could be used

in Federal court. The more amendments this violates, the more likely these laws can be overturned. In the end, it may require a Supreme Court decision to change these discriminatory laws and state constitutional amendments.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I believe it's also a violation of the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thanks for the thread, MineralMan.