[QUOTE=Christenson;271681]Paywall, $#%^&!*!!![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271684]That is lame. There was no paywall when I first read that story.[/QUOTE]When you get a link to a WSJ, NYT, or FT story, try this: search Google with the title of the article and try the first link or two. Those news sites (and maybe more) allow Google in to get their stories indexed, and will usually also allow people with referer strings from Google to read the stories. Here's the Google search [URL="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Ban+on+Gay+Marriage+Gets+on+N.C.+Ballot&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq="]string[/URL]....if you click the first link, voila, most of the time you get a so-called "Article Free Pass".

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271671][url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576569193270225576.html[/url][/QUOTE][quote=WSJ]North Carolina voters will get to decide next May on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage after the Legislature gave final approval to the question Tuesday, despite protests that the question promoted intolerance and discrimination.

[COLOR="Red"]The proposal also would bar the state from sanctioning civil unions.[/COLOR][/quote]I think that this is the money quote from the whole article:[quote]He [[B]Sen. Jim Forrester (R., Gaston), who filed the proposal[/B]] said the bill [U]wasn't designed to single out gays and lesbians[/U].

[B][U]"This wasn't a slap in the face at them," he added. "It was just something I thought we needed to do to continue to have a strong family structure here in North Carolina."[/U][/B][/quote]So not only would gays and lesbians be banned from marrying, but they would also not be able to form a civil union. But this law is not a slap in the face to them......

Here's [URL="http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/09/14/its-time-for-the-we-need-to-protect-marriage-con-to-die/"]one commentator's take[/URL] on North Carolina's initiative for a vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage and similar initiatives in other states. This writer attributes these moves to scare-mongering, side-tracking and spreading of lies by organisations which have enormous financial backing by anonymous donors. But the article ends on a positive note:
[QUOTE]They say that a lie travels around the world before the truth has time to put on its shoes. What they always forget to mention is that when truth does put on its shoes, it usually makes up for lost time.
In the case of these phony “protect marriage” votes, I have a feeling that truth is just about to slap on its sneakers.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;271702]Here's [URL="http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/09/14/its-time-for-the-we-need-to-protect-marriage-con-to-die/"]one commentator's take[/URL] on North Carolina's initiative for a vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage and similar initiatives in other states. This writer attributes these moves to scare-mongering, side-tracking and spreading of lies by organisations which have enormous financial backing by anonymous donors.[/QUOTE]Gasp! Anonymous donors!!! That means we can't target those people to make them lose their jobs, like in California. How dare the laws allow for anonymous donations!! [end sarcasm]

To be frank, it doesn't surprise me that a blogger dedicated to the gay marriage cause would raise accusations of lieing and scare-tactics. What does surprise me is that you think this might be a reputable and nonbiased source of information.

I'm still waiting to hear why the article I linked to from the [b]Harvard Journal of Law[/b], on the other hand, is "extraordinarily bigoted and blinkered".

The problem with anonymous donors is that it allows a single individual, as head of a corporation (or a billionaire, for that matter) an extraordinary ability to carry out a campaign that overrides the democratic process, without taking any responsibility for the actions involved.

That is, anonymous donations are at odds with an informed electorate, and very much at odds with the vaunted idea of "taking personal responsibility" you seem to champion.

As for targeting individuals, that is something that has no real place in a democratic process....just read "fair game" by Valerie Plame on the subject.

[QUOTE=schickel;271693]So not only would gays and lesbians be banned from marrying, but they would also not be able to form a civil union. But this law is not a slap in the face to them......[/QUOTE]Nobody is banned from marrying. Rather, same gender couples cannot legally call their partnership a marriage. Such people never wanted a traditional marriage, they just wanted to call a different type of relationship a marriage. Anyone who finds a partner of the opposite sex can still be married.

Similarly, specific groups are not banned from forming civil unions. Everyone is banned from it.

The relevant legal question is whether this is meant to target certain groups who are the most affected, or whether the proposal was sincerely an attempt to protect the institution of marriage and the family. Rest assured that the Supreme Court will eventually rule on that question (probably in about 2 years).

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271706]To be frank, it doesn't surprise me that a blogger dedicated to the gay marriage cause would raise accusations of lieing and scare-tactics. What does surprise me is that you think this might be a reputable and nonbiased source of information.[/QUOTE]
Then I have news for you which may help you escape from your perplexed state. I [I]don't[/I] consider the source to be nonbiased: its starting point is obviously an opinion (which I happen to share, but that is by the by). And I have no idea whether it is reputable or not because I've never read anything on that site before. I merely offered it as a something which might generate some more discussion.

[QUOTE]I'm still waiting to hear why the article I linked to from the [B]Harvard Journal of Law[/B], on the other hand, is "extraordinarily bigoted and blinkered".[/QUOTE]
That description was a throw-away remark by me, Zeta-Flux, which maybe I could better have left unsaid. I don't honestly have the time or the inclination to take the article apart section by section. Any more than you had any inclination to comment on the human story I cited beyond some general remarks about care-giving, immigration and the law which did not really tackle the issue of federal recognition of marriage. You, and the legal article you cited, are so far removed from my views on the subject that we should probably agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[QUOTE=Christenson;271709]The problem with anonymous donors is that it allows a single individual, as head of a corporation (or a billionaire, for that matter) an extraordinary ability to carry out a campaign that overrides the democratic process, without taking any responsibility for the actions involved.[/quote]No it does not. Our courts ruled on this very question, and decided it did not override the democratic process, but in fact protects it.

[quote]That is, anonymous donations are at odds with an informed electorate, and very much at odds with the vaunted idea of "taking personal responsibility" you seem to champion.[/quote]The electorate is informed of the amount of donations from such companies. They do not have a right to all of the financial records of such companies. That is irrelevant to the issue.

I don't know where you see me as a champion of taking personal responsibility, but regardless I don't view that as negating the protections of the law. If I choose to make a contribution to a company, and that company chooses to contribute that money to a political cause, I feel it *protects* the democratic process for my identity to be protected. And my feeling was shared by the Supreme Court of the United States.

[quote]As for targeting individuals, that is something that has no real place in a democratic process....just read "fair game" by Valerie Plame on the subject.[/QUOTE]The issue is, and this was discussed recently by the supreme court when they decided this issue, that even though bullying does not belong, that is exactly what public reporting does. It prevents people from being free to exercise their rights, as there are more powerful organizations that can crush individuals and cow them into submission. It happened in California.

[QUOTE]Any more than you had any inclination to comment on the human story I cited beyond some general remarks about care-giving, immigration and the law which did not really tackle the issue of federal recognition of marriage. You, and the legal article you cited, are so far removed from my views on the subject that we should probably agree to disagree and leave it at that.[/QUOTE]But I did comment on the human story. I said that I favor changing the law so that caregivers can remain in the country. And I think you will agree that this position, while responding to the story, says nothing about the gay rights movement.

On the other hand, the article does express a good part of my position on the topic of marriage. If you really are interested in talking about that issue, feel free to read and respond.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;271711]Then I have news for you which may help you escape from your perplexed state. I [I]don't[/I] consider the source to be nonbiased: its starting point is obviously an opinion (which I happen to share, but that is by the by). And I have no idea whether it is reputable or not because I've never read anything on that site before. I merely offered it as a something which might generate some more discussion.[/quote]I personally find that irresponsible.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271712]No it does not. Our courts ruled on this very question, and decided it did not override the democratic process, but in fact protects it.

The electorate is informed of the amount of donations from such companies. They do not have a right to all of the financial records of such companies. That is irrelevant to the issue.

I don't know where you see me as a champion of taking personal responsibility, but regardless I don't view that as negating the protections of the law. If I choose to make a contribution to a company, and that company chooses to contribute that money to a political cause, I feel it *protects* the democratic process for my identity to be protected. And my feeling was shared by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The issue is, and this was discussed recently by the supreme court when they decided this issue, that even though bullying does not belong, that is exactly what public reporting does. It prevents people from being free to exercise their rights, as there are more powerful organizations that can crush individuals and cow them into submission. It happened in California.[/QUOTE]

Our courts have ruled nonsense before....

And I said that wrong... *I* just read the book "Fair Game"....

As a *small* individual, we certainly recognise the need for protection when you vote anonymously, for example. But as your influence (and the size of your contributions) grows, so should the responsibility -- likewise, a corporation *is not* a person. If a corporation is making political contributions, fiscal or otherwise, the fact of the political contributions should be public...as well as some basic statistics on who the contributors are. Hershey Chocolate, for example, should have to disclose all of it's political contributions, as those giving it money are not doing so for political purposes. Warren Buffet, or your favorite billionaire, by the mere size of his potential contributions, should not have the same protections of anonymity that you, as an individual of much more modest means, should have.

And as for those doing the targeting, Ms Plame makes a persuasive case that it is conservatives doing the targeting. I think there's a good case to be made that the targeters should themselves become the targets, for the general welfare, and that the abject failure to properly support those targets is an abject failure of democracy.