NORTH CAROLINA HAS VOTED "NO!".
It is an issue that doesn't have to interfere with the 2012 general election.
There are blogs that support North Carolina's Amendment One; and their reason being that the word "marriage" is a name that does not require a name change, as it has been done in New York State and a few other places in the country.
There are those (blogs) that oppose the amendment, which is being voted on by the people of that state, NC.; and they, blogs, have every right to do just that, as the freedom to choose to associate with any group is permissible under the United States Constitution.
The controversy of differentiation between the two factions has occupied the mind of the general public for quite some time. Yet, it (differentiation) can be said to fall under a singular natural law, that the only creatures that do not marry are animals, because they do not know what it is, let alone the meaning of it.
A cat in heat is a cat in heat, and there is nothing to stop its natural instincts to sexually becoming involved with any frisky, male alley cat. Dogs can even be the worst type, when it comes to that.
However, in regards to humans, the idea transforms into an institution with the title "marriage", and to take that name away will be like taking one's life savings; with it (savings) being separated from one, knowing fully well that one will die from starvation without any money.
Not only the starvation that causes a problem, but the stigma of dying poor and leaving the family unprotected does bring the manifestation of a great deal of shame both to the dead as well as to those left behind. Therefore, it is one of the hardest things to encounter in life, and that is to lose all the possessions that one has. Why? Because everything else becomes inconsequential after that, including, of course, one's name.
More than 60% of North Carolina voters think that they are losing their name; a name that they cherished more than any other, marriage, and they will not let it go or be made meaningless, especially when that name has a biblical explanation.
Their religious faith will not allow them to have any kind of change to what they believe to be the basis of family life; because there is no other way under the sun to start a family, except when there is a man and a woman in copulation, whose end product will have a child being born, in 9 out of 10 cases.
That relationship is the only one that has a purpose for humans to be alive; their existence will not have happened in any feasible manner, if they, humans, are of the same gender or sex. Some other arrangement may be happening somewhere in the Universe, but in this world, a man and a woman are the only instruments that can reproduce its replica, when they decide to come together and love each other. It is called "procreation".
From time immemorial it (relationship) has been given a name as "marriage", and so any different form of coupling between other humans does not have to copy the same name. If it is allowed to do so, then there will not be the necessity of having names at all, as they, names, will be baseless.
As it stands in society now, it is heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals fighting over a name. The name has been assigned to heterosexuals, but the other faction wants to have the same name, and that will tend to create a whole lot of confusion.
It will be like a roll call at a military parade, when the captain will call out, "Officer Smith, step forward," and then eight or nine people will come out of the group, each named "Smith". It will just be hilarious, to say the least.
It will also be like going on the computer and choosing a username or password, and the system will say, "It is taken."
Will any sensible person force himself or herself on the computer to change that? Hell, no. He or she will find another nomenclature to give the computer, for him or her to be able to access the system.
There is "marriage", "civil union" and "domestic partnership". They are the names that society is fighting over. However, the name "marriage" is taken, and so, the stipulation will be that any other commitment of people loving each other and wanting to form a family can have no alternative to choose any of the remaining names.
Will not that be satisfactory to all concerned? After all, that is what society is so mad about; the meaning of a name that will change its (society's) nature forever, if that (name) is allowed to change.
North Carolina is saying "NO" to that change, knowing the confusion it will bring. They are only saying that what people do in the privacy of their homes is nobody's business; however, they will not agree to a name change or the meaning of it, just for the sake of the sexual orientation of some people. The approach to everything imaginable will also change after that, including how people view murder, whether it is right or wrong.
Who on earth can say "Yes" or "No" to anything like that?