- Beachbook
- Coastal Review Online
- Dare County
- Duck
- Island Free Press
- Kill Devil Hills
- Kitty Hawk
- Manteo
- Nags Head
- Nighthawk News
- Southern Shores
- Bill's OBX Beach Life
- N.E.S.T Online
- Natural Outer Banks
- Red Headed Beach Girl
- Rosie Hawthorne
- See more local blogs »
Wrong amendment, wrong time
Amendment 1 factors heavily into Steve Melov’s plans to retire on the Outer Banks.
read his story »
From the time we enter elementary school, we are taught to revere and respect our federal and state constitutions.
We learn these constitutions were created to guarantee, enumerate, expand or grant rights to our citizens. Apart from housekeeping and budget issues, our constitutions codify the unique freedoms and civil rights enjoyed by all Americans.
Thus, any attempt to amend a constitution should be taken with great care.
Gov. Beverly Purdue echoed those sentiments in a statement this past Friday.
“Our constitution is for guaranteeing rights, not taking them away,” she said. “ And no matter what religious or moral background you come from, no one has the right to put discrimination of any kind into our constitution.”
The governor was referring to Amendment 1, which will be on the ballot for the May 8 primary and early voting. The amendment, as it appears on the current sample ballot on Dare County’s Board of Elections website, is worded as follows:
[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.
In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court declared marriage a civil right. In Loving vs. Virginia, the Court’s majority opinion told us “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
That particular case struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage.
The state Constitution is the ultimate source of law in North Carolina, inferior only to the U.S Constitution. Amending a constitution is serious business, reserved for correcting egregious violations of individual rights.
If Amendment 1 passes, all state courts, including the North Carolina Supreme Court will be bound by its terms.
Amendment 1 would also bind future legislatures.
For example, civil unions, a marriage-like legal vehicle has been adopted in many states as a way for non-traditional couples to reap many of the automatic legal benefits bestowed by marriage would appear to be unconstitutional in North Carolina if Amendment 1 is passed.
Another red flag is the mere action of placing a civil rights issue before the general public in a popular vote. Historically, expansion of civil rights has been the preserve of our elected representatives and the judiciary.
If the general public had been permitted to cast ballots on the enfranchisement of women and black men, or the citizenship of slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War those civil rights might still be non-existent.
The General Assembly’s decision to place the amendment on the ballot during May primaries, when voter turnout and attention is notoriously low is also suspect.
While no civil rights issue should ever be left to the whims of popular opinion, if the General Assembly felt this issue needed to be decided by the voters, the amendment should have appeared on the November ballot.
2012 is a presidential election year, and many congressional and state offices will also be up for grabs. Turnout will be exponentially higher, especially among Democrats and independents in November.
Choosing a lackluster May election to amend our state Constitution appears to be a deliberate attempt by the amendment’s legislative supporters to stack the deck in favor of adoption. A handful of voters motivated against “gay marriage” may well decide the issue for the rest of the state.
The language of the full amendment passed by the legislature also appears to be ambiguous. The state’s Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission offered the following official explanation, which proponents and opponents have criticized.
The Commission’s explanation is as follows:
“The term ‘domestic legal union’ used in the amendment is not defined in North Carolina law.
“There is debate among legal experts about how this proposed constitutional amendment may impact North Carolina law as it relates to unmarried couples of same or opposite sex and same sex couples legally married in another state, particularly in regard to employment-related benefits for domestic partners; domestic violence laws; child custody and visitation rights; and end-of-life arrangements. The courts will ultimately make those decisions.
“The amendment also says that private parties may still enter into contracts creating rights enforceable against each other.
“This means that unmarried persons, businesses and other private parties may be able to enter into agreements establishing personal rights, responsibilities, or benefits as to each other.
“The courts will decide the extent to which such contracts can be enforced.”
Thus, in addition to the red flags already present, the rarely used state commission whose purpose is to explain constitutional amendments to the public is unsure of how this amendment might affect existing arrangements having nothing to do with “one man, one woman” marriage — or how judges will apply law in lieu of Amendment 1 if adopted.
All of which provides good reason for conservatives, libertarians and those concerned about the reach of state power to vote against Amendment 1.
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
- MOST READ
- MOST DISCUSSED
- Beach nourishment is a go in Kill Devil Hills
- Reward increased for fugitive Luis Rodriguez
- Three arrested after theft of safe from Stumpy Point
- Tourism board told grant denial flouts free speech
- Catch a good meal at Armstrong's
- Gamefish legislation: Control or conservation?
- Community News & Announcements
- Forum focuses on pending flood insurance changes
obxdad says:
Just one more reason why, with all their faults, I will continue to support Democrats over the bigots on the right wing who would seek to limit the freedom of others to love and live with whomever they choose.
Which is the party of live and let live? Vote NO, then vote these jokers out of office and replace them with people who will improve our government rather than using it to force their twisted values on everyone.
chaser says:
Please keep religion out of the government, science class, and doctor’s office.
ComfortablyBum says:
Thank you for this well thought out and reasoned article. Unfortunately the people who will vote for this amendment are thinking about it in this mindset. They are people who think being gay is wrong, and so it is okay to deny them rights. We deny rights to convicted felons, so why not open sinners? It is plain discrimination based on entrenched bias. They think if they can marginalize the gays, they will cease to exist or go back in the closet.
Even if you don’t have sympathy for your fellow citizens who are LGBT, you should think twice about the idea of voting to take someone else’s rights away. If the religious right can say gays can’t get married because they are not inline with their belief about what God says is right, then what is to stop them from banning marriage between Muslims, Atheists, and Mormons?
If marriage is a right it can therefore not be up for vote. Rights are not lost or denied. They are inalienable. That’s the point.
Allan says:
Thank you, Russ, for this cogent piece of common sense. The most telling point of all the good ones here, is that the constitution is a means of establishing rights, not denying them.
The formulation of the ballot proposal is also needlesly confusing. If you’re for gay rights, you have to vote against Amendment 1. One the other hand, some voters may think “this is a gay rights or gay marriage thing, and I’m against everything like that, so I’m voting NO.”
Comfortablybum, I’m with you in spirit, but your last paragraph (while philosophically persuasive) ignores the sad history of recent centuries: rights DO get denied, rights ARE taken away, in every material sense that matters. “Inalienable,” alas, does not in practice mean “undeniable by the powerful.”
Kevin Gray Conner says:
“Our constitution is for guaranteeing rights, not taking them away,” she said. “ And no matter what religious or moral background you come from, no one has the right to put discrimination of any kind into our constitution.” ~ Governor Beverly Purdue.
What hypocrisy! Governor Purdue had no problem with discrimination in 2010, when she proposed suspending Federal elections! I thought the right to VOTE was a Constitutional guarantee!
Nickrite says:
Surely it is better to let the populace decide if this amendment passes rather than a small handful of such as the politicians. Notable is that all those published so far are opposed to the amendment and the first is abusive to those who would vote in favor using pejorative terminology, not I would have thought the best to persuade others to your opinion. If there be complaint that because the question is on the ballot at primary only a few voters will decide, don’t complain, get off your duff and vote! No, I didn’t think you would.
Linda says:
Russ – well done. Kevin, As for Governor Purdue’s suspending federal elections, that pertained to the legislature’s failure to come to a consensus on redrawing the districts. Had that not been completed, voting would have been invalid anyway. The Federal Courts would have nullified the election. Why would a cash-strapped state go through with an invalid election?
Lynne Downs says:
“Granting” rights is what all politicians use, no matter their stripe, to hold power over the people…Each party has legislated and continues to legislate to deny rights that are intrinsic to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”…and not theirs to “grant” in order to maintain their power over the people…Einstein said that believing in the ability of the same methods that created such a mess to fix that mess is insanity…
Virtualguy says:
I believe gay couples in NC should be given “civil union” status in lieu of marriage. Doing so would inherently preserve the institution of marriage as being between a man and woman. It would also not deny gay couples of the same legal rights as traditional man/woman couples. The proposed constitutional amendment is undeniably prejudicial and born purely of the narrow-minded, homophobic fears of the religious right. Allowing civil unions for gay couples does not take away anything from the people of NC and prevents discrimination against law abiding citizens in our state who happen to be something other than heterosexual.
fd says:
I thought O’Bama was already doing that
fd says:
forcing his values on everyone
Bill says:
Good article. Thank you for adding a voice of sanity to this issue.
Rodger says:
Whoever wrote this – well done – and everyone who posted before me – way to go – go out and EARLY vote!
KDH Rezident Evil says:
Nothing to add except “like”.
LocalOB'er says:
There are several points not brought up in the comments which I would like to bring up. If you read the article, you will see that the editor has brought up the fact that if the Amendment is put into the constitution it leaves North Carolina wide open for a collection of lawsuits that will put a financial burden on an already overburdened state. Singles who are living together (yes, one male and one female) will be punished financially as well. Children of unwed couples will lose benefits. Unwed victims of domestic violence will not receive any help whatsover if this goes through. It is not just about gay people, it is about the rights of ALL people. Your son or daughter living with his/her partner will suffer. Young people will suffer. Children will suffer. Why on earth would anyone vote for this amendment?
Lynne says:
Thank you for your great article. I was just thinking today “I bet OBV will have a well thought-out and reasoned assessment of this issue and of the other issues on the ballot”. And look! There you go! Thank you.
Big Daddy says:
The rediculously unfair thing about this referendum is that it was set for the primary election when the Democrats don’t have to vote in said primary. I absolutely believe it was intentional, so it would have a better chance of a “yes” vote. It should be in the general election where everyone that votes will be making the choice. And I’m a Republican! Not a proud one about this.
Michael O'Brien says:
So how’s that One Man and One Woman marriage thing working’ out…
KHer says:
How is it that we can re-define something that has been the same since creation? Are we that arrogant?
I will be voting for the amendment.
Prince of Peeps says:
To all liberals who are posting here:
It never ceases to amaze me that the party of tolerance and diversity is so intolerant of opinions that differ from their own, and that anyone who disagrees with a liberal is a moron, a bigot or a racist, fringe right-wing kooks, etc. …or worse, a backwoods, Bible thumping Christian. Apparently there aren’t any educated people who aren’t liberals.
Well, I have news for you. There are a lot of well educated, thinking folks, Christian and non-Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., who have a different opinion that is just as valid as yours, and based on just as good or better premise than your personal subjectivity. Most of the world believes that homosexuality is deviant behavior. Most of the world believes that adultery and unmarried sex are wrong, and even if they don’t live up to the standard, they still will admit that it is wrong. Even if you take religion and morality out of it, and look at from a purely scientific perspective, anyone would have to admit that homosexuality is unnatural by design.
Another thing that cracks me up is the duplicity of those who want to defend our unalienable rights, but want to keep God out of government, out of the classroom, and out of the bedroom. Where do you think those unalienable rights come from? They come from God! Those are the rights that cannot be taken away by government or man. Rights given by man can be taken away on a whim. If there is no God, there are no unalienable rights. Life is a free-for-all, and anything goes. No one has any right to impose any laws or rules. The only law is the Law of the Jungle.
I have three other points that I would like to make. Granted that a majority rules democracy is not fair to minorities, and that an honorable representative government can do the right thing to protect minority rights, but legislators who are less than virtuous (say someone who is more interested in getting re-elected, becoming a professional politician, rather than looking out for the good of the people) can also do the WRONG thing, leaving the people no recourse but to vote them out, and with a 90%+ rate of re-electing incumbents, that can be very difficult. Government “…of the people, by the people, and for the people…” seems to be the fairest way. Let the people vote, and if they make a mistake, creating unconstitutional law, that’s what the Supreme Court is for.
In regards to the sly move of placing this issue on the primary ballot, rather than the general election, that’s just a shrewd political move by the Republicans. You cannot tell me the Dems wouldn’t do the same thing if they had the chance. When was the last time you heard a Dem say, “No, we can’t do that. It wouldn’t be fair to the Republicans.” The party that wins the election gets to make the rules, whether congressional procedures, committees, gerrymandering, or whatever. It has always been that way.
Finally, THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY ANYONE’S RIGHTS!!! Nothing will be different from what it is now. All it does is clarify law that currently exists. Homosexuals and unmarried couples do not now have legal marital status or related benefits, and they will not have any after this law passes, so stop with the false claims that this is taking away people’s rights. All this amendment does is to preempt laws from being created in the future that will change what the law is now.
George Mendelson says:
Bravo:
The right editorial at the right time. It’s good to see courage in a news medium these days. Too many corporate wusses.
Keep up the good work.
Master SGT OBX says:
Making sure that this amendment is on this ballot and not in November shows the divisiveness of the people wanting this issue forced upon the entire citizenry. The real issue here, and it seems to persist across the country, is that there are select groups that are determined to force their “values” upon all of us.
Perry says:
The Amendment is on all ballots, Democrat, Republican and Unaffiliated. Look for it on the back page.
Perry says:
In 1996, then Senator Beverly Perdue, voted for G.S. 51-1.2 – Marriages Between Persons of the Same Gender Not Valid. “Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.”
This is the current law in North Carolina.
bbc says:
this is a personal choice issue and the government should keep out of it. period.
MichaelAP5 says:
KHer, there are many things that we are all thankful are not “the same since creation.” How about it’s ok to own slaves and beat your wife. It’s not ok to eat shellfish.
Island Safety says:
Radical Christianists at it again. Read international coverage– we make ourselves more reviled and ridiculed all the time. Using fanatical religious justification to restrict the rights of our citizens, using violence around the world to impose Western values and law. Science deniers being treated as credible. Refusal to invest in education, infrastructure or research because of widespread corruption and bribery advancing private agendas–approved by our highest court. Torturers who still feel they set an example for human rights.
Change the same scenario to Muslim and you begin to see why we are often portrayed as tone deaf and a has-been laughingstock. Mr Connor, you are running for office, yes?
Thank you for the transparency that reveals a reactionary with little intellectual curiosity but plenty of judgement.
Perdue in a Rotary Club address made a wry comment in response to frustration with the endless energy suck of campaigning that begins at election and detracts from performing in the job to which elected. This paranoid and self-righteous amendment is an embarrassment to our state and our nation in this second decade of the 21st century.
NagsHead2 says:
For the record, I’m an unaffiliated conservative voter and I believe this amendment is not necessary, as the State of NC already prohibits gay marriage by law; however I have to laugh at the comments made by those who are clearly liberal in their views and politics.
God forbid conservatives take a stand against what we/they believe is an affront to our beliefs. Every day I open the newspaper and read about a new or ongoing liberal initiative to take away a conservative right or privilege. My right to own multiple firearms has been under assault for as long as I’ve been alive, religion is being forced out of everything imaginable, which is particularly humorous given the fact that marriage is a bond made before God, and the list goes on and on.
I’m simply sick and tired of the hypocrisy demonstrated by liberals who profess to have a do as you wish attitude, all the while fighting to destroy the rights of others, which they do not agree with. When liberals can accept and respect my rights and views, I’ll be more than happy to respect theirs, including the right to LGBT marriage.
Maria Rosales says:
The Amendment goes beyond what is currently law–they had the opportunity to say that marriage between one man and one woman was the only marriage that would be recognized (that was the language in the House) and instead went with the broader language that said marriage between one man and one woman would be the only “domestic legal union” that would be “valid or recognized” in the state. That means that domestic partnership benefits offered by several cities will definitely be taken away, and that the proposed amendment could have many other effects as well, as similar amendments have had in other states.
Bill says:
Good work bringing this “Amendment” to light. I see the campaign posters around town, ironically located at or very near most churches in the county. Ironically, the posters only read to “Vote For Amendment 1″ while not noting on the poster what the amendment is. Devious politics and as mentioned, hosting this vote on an off election cycle date, fuels to corruption of this attempt.
I usually do not vote in May, but this year, will be and against this nonsense.
Allan says:
Lessons from 1-L:
Rights are conferred by the polity.
Concepts such as “natural rights” and “inalienable rights” and “human rights” are culturally conditioned mental constructs, not artifacts or phenomena of the material world.
Every discussion about rights is a political argument, so it is naive to ask that “politics” be kept out of such conversations about prfoposed legislation.
A wise man of the 19th century, weary of his country’s insistence that everyone had a right to do exactly as he or she wanted, said: “The more I think about it, the more certain I am that there are no natural rights at all–only natural responsibilities.”
KDH Rezident Evil says:
So, ye people of The Book who believe homosexuality is some biblically proscribed abomination, please explain to me why we should not have Amendments against eating animals without split hooves, sex until 33 days after birthing son or 66 days after birthing daughter, planting of fields with different kinds of seeds, and masturbation, to name a few. Why do gays get singled out? Why don’t you support laws forbidding all these things?
Please, please, please explain this to me: as I understand it, God doesn’t have a sentencing structure when it comes to sin. If it is against His word, it’s wrong. So why do you not push for all of these issues to be on the ballot to be outlawed?
I await an intelligent answer, but won’t hold my breath.
civil discourse says:
To those of you that have seen the signs up around the area the say vote “yes”-at least they are still standing. Two signs in Manteo that were placed asking to vote “against” were stolen-one was even replaced with a vote “yes” sign. This was near a church. Seemed very unchristian like to me. Didn’t Jesus preach not to steal or to judge others. By the way this editorial was excellent and points out real facts. Oh yeah, there is a second amendment for a reason. We do not live in the middle east and we do not have a theocratic government.
Michael O'Brien says:
the thing that bothers me…
this is all our Elected Officials could bring to the plate…
people out of work… infrastructure in shambles…
and we get a Amendment about Marriage…
What’s next… no littering… way to tackle the hard ones…
ComfortablyBum says:
Yes lets all take a moment of silence for the poor conservatives who have had their rights to be discriminatory bigots impinged on. It takes balls to crawl out of your caves to cry about how people think you are jerks for openly discriminating against someone according to their sexual orientation. Do you read what you write before you hit submit?
You argue that liberals are hypocrites for saying let gay people love each other, but wanting to regulate guns? So what does that make you for claiming to be the party of individual freedoms while trying to dictate who and how people should engage in sex and partnership?
Inalienable rights do not come from God. If they did, they would really be protected. God oversaw plenty or rape, slavery, and murder in the bible. It wasn’t until the enlightenment the rights we hold dear now were so important. Christianity existed for 1700 years up until that point, and no where in it did it say that freedom of speech and expression were protected rights. In fact it did a good job at doing the opposite of that.
If we were in the 60′s you would be arguing about how blacks need to stay in their place, and saying God made them inferior for a reason.
If you wanna talk about someone forcing their beliefs on someone else, ask a woman getting a mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound.
Jeremy D. Adams - Candidate for NC House 6 says:
I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But also to note, that God gave us the right to be married and it is an unalienable right of the likes of which is mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. (Unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.)
Question: Is marriage an unalienable right?
Answer: Yes. Marriage is an Unalienable right.
Question: If marriage is an unalienable right, then how can governments require that people get marriage licenses?
Answer: Governments cannot. Our unalienable rights are established by natural law; therefore, marriage exists outside and beyond the realm of government control. Statutes can only recognize and protect our inalienable rights. Statutes can not establish, authorize, regulate, or infringe upon our unalienable rights and any statutes which attempt to do so are automatically void and must be ignored. The marriage license is a clear violation of our unalienable rights.
Question: So how did marriage licenses come into existence?
Answer: The marriage license is something for which we can thank the racists. After the civil war, the white southerners wanted to prevent mixed-race marriages, so they passed local laws requiring a license for all black people to get married, but of course licenses for mixed-raced marriages were never granted. Within a short time, it became illegal for the clergy to marry blacks without a license. The license required a fee of course, and this worked so well that it wasn’t long before the licensing requirement was extended to everyone. The politicians realized that it was a wonderful source of revenue. Within a few decades, corrupt governments all over the world were requiring people to get marriage licenses. Now, more than a century after marriage licenses were conceived, the clergy, who fear the government more than they fear God, refuses to marry anyone without a license.
Question: So how do corrupt governments justify marriage licenses today?
Answer: The same way that corrupt governments always violate our rights – by deception. In the 21st century, governments refer to marriages without licenses as common law marriages. The deceptive implication is that common law marriages are less valid than marriages for which the government has granted licenses. What the government doesn’t want you to know is that all marriages are common law marriages, with or without a license. The term common law refers to natural law, which is unwritten, while the statutes that governments create are referred to as statutory law. Marriage is an unalienable right and all rights exist independent and immune of statutes. As I’ve said before, statutes can only recognize and protect unalienable rights, they can not establish, authorize, regulate, or infringe upon them. All marriages are established by natural law, which is God’s law, and can not be re-established by statutory law; therefore, marriages with licenses are not statutory marriages. To say again, all marriages are common law marriages and they don’t achieve moral or legal status because they have a worthless stamp of approval from the government.
Question: So if marriage licenses have no effect on the legal status of marriage, what do marriage licenses really do?
Answer: A marriage license is a legal certificate of transfer of rights. That’s what all licenses are. When you apply for any license, you declare that you require continuing government evaluation to ensure that you are qualified to do something. When you apply for the marriage license you unknowingly declare that you are incompetent to conduct your own familial affairs and require a third party, namely the government, to evaluate and supervise your marriage. You willfully renounce God’s dominion over your marriage and you give that dominion to the state. You give supervisory authority and control of your marriage and all products of your marriage – such as your children – to the government. This is not an exaggeration. For example, in court cases where the government seeks to take custody of a child away from the parents, it often uses the marriage license as the establishing contract of statutory and subject-matter jurisdiction.
Question: So what legal significance does Amendment One have?
Answer: None. As we’ve already discussed, no marriage can be legalized by statute, or judicial decision. Neither can any marriage be outlawed. Any statutes, or judicial decisions which attempt to authorize, or outlaw marriage in any way, including homosexual marriage, are automatically void. The state simply has no jurisdiction over the matter and any attempt to seize jurisdiction over a common law right is a color of law, color of authority violation.
In this article on the Beaufort Observer the author points out that a government (and I would go further and say a Republican form of government) has the duty to protect children from terrible harm. But as the author also wisely points out that if one man/one woman was the law and the only dynamic allowed then widowed mothers might be at risk of losing their child.
I am a single father, so does that mean that the government comes and takes my child because I’m not married? No. It does not.
I see Marriage Amendment One in this light:
We are guaranteed the right to contract one with another because we maintain an unalienable right to free association. Anyone of a legal age to contract can make any contract with any other person of the age of majority and call it whatever they want. (An adult cannot legally make a contract with a child or person mentally incapable of understanding what they are doing.) The contract can even be called marriage. (Although I personally believe in a marriage that is much more spiritual than that and is given by God with rewards far beyond this world, but since the government recognized marriages among people who have no faith in any God whatsoever, clearly the government’s definition of marriage remains the civil contract previously mentioned.)
Here is where the problem comes in. Right now, certain civil contracts (whether they are done by secular judges or by clergy before God) are given certain special privileges. Many of these are tax-based benefits. These tax-paid benefits are paid for by everyone. Even by people who have similar civil contracts that aren’t recognized by the government, but also by single people and divorced people.
So here is why both sides of this argument are incorrect.
The marriage one protectors want to keep the special interest benefits. The gay marriage proponents want to gain the special interest benefits for themselves. And all the while the rest of us get to pay for them.
Now I am not against families and marriage. Far from. I would be married except the girl I asked said no and I never want to get divorced so I want to really be sure future girls I ask are in it for the long haul. Furthermore, I think it is a crying shame that both society and many government programs actually encourage people to NOT become a family. Families are generally good for everyone involved. But this debate isn’t about families, it is about legal status for government paid benefits.
So I am neither for nor against the Marriage Amendment as I do not want to see one class of people (married) able to get benefits that other decent (but unmarried) people have to pay for. If the government wanted to honor a civil contract as they currently do the secular marriage, without any tax-paid benefits, then I’d support that notion in the cases of being able to see your family in the hospital and other such measures that other people are not paying for but where a legal familial status is required. (Although I question the notion that many of such of these laws & regulations should even exist.)
Marriage belongs to God. It does not belong to government.
Captain Terry says:
Civil discourse,your powers of deduction are amazing! Someone, replaced a sign you agreed with for a sign you opposed, and from that you drew the conclusion that a nearby church had something to do with attacking your beliefs. Take a vacation, you’ve obviously been educated beyond your intelligence. Either that, or your on meth. Hard to tell the difference…
While your busy playing capture the flag, the local church congregation will be voting “YES”.
Sue says:
It’s really pretty simple. Constitutional amendments should never be made to take away rights.
fd says:
civil discourse, everybody who would yes is not necessarily a christian. before you judge, know the facts please.
fd says:
should read vote for the amendment.
Jimmy Woodson says:
Treat others how you wish to be treated.
Well articulated points from many points of view. Some would have been even more powerful if not anonymous.
And if you are tax exempt…don’t broadcast your political opinions.
Sound Mind says:
Get out and vote on May 8th!
I am against this amendment and will be going to the polls specifically to cast my vote against this draconian nonsense. This state is backward enough without dragging us down further into this quagmire of “non issues” during a time of economic crisis.
flagdog says:
Interesting discussion. I will vote no to this just as I voted no to the previous incarnation. For those that will vote yes, just so you know who will vote no, I have been married to my opposite sex partner for 32 years, raised 3 heterosexual kids in the church, vote every time I can, and am near the top part of the tax bracket. Hmmm. I must be a bleeding heart anti-religious liberal under my conservative appearing feathers. Maybe, but I truly oppose using political means to determine life styles when no ones life or liberty are in danger. Yes, you can tell me I cannot commit murder but you cannot tell me who to spend my life with by politically denying me economic benefits that are granted to others. That is morally wrong.
But the reason I love this nation is the right of all of us to disagree. I will not vilify you because she choose to hold views different from mine. However, you are just wrong.
junkman says:
Thanks Sue, I don’t know a better way to say it. “Constitutional amendments should never be made to take rights away.”
Its sad that some people use religion as a basis for anti gay sentiment. For anyone who does, take a look at the following link. You may find it interesting………….
tinyurl.com/matthewvines
Stewie Stewington says:
I hope this amendment passes! It’s time to take a stand and try to keep and return to the values that this country was founded upon!!
First – “they” took away the God-given right for white men to own black people.
Second – “they” took away the God-given laws preventing women from voting.
Third – “they” took away the God-given laws preventing white people from marrying black people.
Now, “they” want to take away the God-given laws preventing folks of one gender from marrying someone of the same gender!!
Well…that is the last straw!!! NOTHING is more important than preserving the sanctity of marriage. Why some of our most important conservative voices/thinkers of the day think marriage is such an important institution that they want to have as many of them as they can. Thank you Newt and thank you Rush for being such great conservative role models and showing us how sacred marriage can be.
Thomas Jefferson use to talk about how someone using his candle to light their candle took nothing away from his. He was referring to an issue other than marriage but I have always been extremely puzzled by those that feel that their “traditional” marriages are somehow lessened or threatened by allowing same sex couples to marry.
It is also rather puzzling to see that the red “bible belt” states have higher divorce rates than most of the “blue states”, especially Massachussetts where gay marriage has been legal for many years.
My advice to those that are opposed to same sex marriage is simple:
If you are a man then you shouldn’t fall in love with and marry a man.
If you are a woman then you shouldn’t fall in love with and marry a woman.
If you just worry about your own beliefs then it shouldn’t bother you if some others feel differently.
Simple yes?
102 says:
Folks, I’ve been reading the comments. Sounds to me like some people need to get there heads out of there posteriors and understand that we live in a dynamic environment, that means it’s always changing. The Constitution of the United States of American, signed in 1776′ gives us several inalienable rights. There are several amendments to the “Constitution” that have been made over the years since it was signed. Most of them were we thought out and provided for the “good of the people” except prohibition, which established organized crime in the U.S.on a scale never seen before it happened
The division of church and state was set forth because the Founding Fathers realized that history had shown time and time again that combining the two caused serious issues. If you are current in current affairs you will realize what problems fundamentalists can cause.
This is the United States of America and we brag about how fair and open minded we are. I am “Not” a liberal, I’m a registered republican. Please keep the “Constitution” of the U.S.A. in mind and vote “NO”
on the lighter side says:
What I want to know is why anyone cares what consenting adults do with their private parts. I mean I care about mine and my wife’s because we share, but anyone else’s is outside my purview. That is the bottom line: stop worrying about what is none of your business, America. Why do we need to waste valuable time and government money on playing private part police.
How about a compromise:
If the Gay community can’t get married, the Cristian community can’t get divorced!
KDH Rezident Evil says:
@Jeremy Adams: Politicians like you are why we are in this position in the first place. Fence sitters trying to please everyone who wind up pleasing no one.
hawk says:
To the conservative who posted that homosexuality is a deviant behavior and and relates it to pre-marital sex and so forth… you’re entitled to your own opinion, however, it’s a scientifically proven fact that homosexuality is just as much a part of genetic composition as the factors that cause a person to have blue or green eyes.. therefor, it isn’t a choice.. it isn’t a deviant act against society, it is how some people are born, as well as some of 450 animals that exhibit natural homosexual behavior amongst their species. Believe me, If I could have chosen not to be gay when I was a child, I certainly would have to avoid cruel intolerance from close-minded people with piss-poor values their parents have passed down from a time when we white Americans discriminated against blacks as well. OH, you’d be quite surprised to find how many gays and lesbians are die-hard republicans.. I’m assuming you learned the assumption that we were all deviant godless heathen liberals from the same place you learned that we are unnatural and an abomination of nature. I am not questioning your intelligence.. I just ask that you think of it in a different light. What if the government told YOU one day that something that is a supposed “god-given right” is no longer applicable to you. How would you feel in such an instance? Certainly you wouldn’t feel that the nation is working in everyone else’s “best interests”. You don’t have to be a “flaming liberal” to see the consequences this sort of legislature can carry. Keep an open mind, and keep yourself informed.
hawk says:
& For all of you who post ignorant comments filled with hateful rhetoric and garbage rather than a legitimate argument for reasons why we North Carolinians should pass amendment one using supporting facts and some form of intellect/basic common sense, we will pray for you in church. God bless.
Prince of Peeps says:
@ Hawk: You’re jumping the gun claiming that it is a scientifically proven fact that homosexuality is caused naturally, ie. they’re born that way. There have been studies that SUGGEST natural cause, but there are just as many studies that suggest nurture as leading to homosexuality. In fact most analyses end by saying that both could be contributors, and admit that no one really knows the full answer. Google “Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture” and you’ll get a long list of sources that support what I just wrote.
You know, it never ceases to make me chuckle when libs ask conservatives to keep an open mind and keep informed, a requirement they never place upon themselves, because they are so right and are not ignorant and filled with hateful rhetoric like conservatives. You always demand tolerance, but give no credence at all to opinions that differ from your own. It has been my experience that it is the liberal who is filled with vitriol, and resorts to vile name calling because he cannot debate the issue in a substantive manner. Such behavior is a sign of mental weakness and lack of emotional control, (regardless of which side it is on.)
Since your are apparently a church goer, here’s a link with a religious perspective on homosexuality. Let’s see just how open-minded you really are. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homosex1.html Basically it says homosexuality is a sin no worse than a whole list of others that we all struggle with (but still a sin, none the less.) As Christians, we are exhorted to hate the sin, but love the sinner. It’s when the sinner refuses to repent, or tries to justify their sin that they run into trouble, (and that’s all inclusive.)
HI Resident says:
First off, to those who claim that the timing of this vote is a devious act by the Republicans, the truth is quite the contrary, this was the only way the conservatives could get this to a general vote as the Democrats would not allow it on the November general election as they were afraid that it would create unusually high conservative voter turn-out for the general election, go figure. Secondly, one man/one woman marriage is already the general statute law of the state of North Carolina, this amendment would only serve to protect that law from the whims of any activist judge from interpreting that law according to his/her own personal convictions instead of basing decisions upon the nature and intent of the law as it was written and passed.
Prince of Peeps says:
Liberals demand tolerance for all opinions, but then are shocked to find that anyone would have an opinion different than their own.
Kevin Gray Conner says:
The idea of same sex marriage is a perverse vision of a country that has lost all sense of religious morality and common sense. Of course, that doesn’t stop progressives from attempting to indoctrinate those of us that prefer to pursue a lifestyle guided by our faith. Unfortunately, progressives are critical of those that seek to live according to the principles set forth in the Bible and are all too quick to view people of faith as bigots, because of our refusal to embrace a worldview that contradicts the faith we honor. Religious faith is viewed with contempt in America today, but thankfully, those of us that are true to our faith refuse to cower in the face of societal adversity. Whether or not, I’m viewed as a bigot as a result of my opposition to same sex marriage is inconsequential to me. I believe that scripture is the infallible word of God and under no circumstances am I going to turn my back on that belief. I’m unapologetic about how my faith influences my life and the choices I make. Our society has embraced every vice known to mankind without any respect whatsoever being given to the laws of nature. The attitude “If it feels good then do it” fits our society perfectly, no matter the absurdity of that philosophy. Moral recklessness and a lack of self-discipline defined this generation with precision. Character has been replaced by decadence and faith has been exchanged for disbelief. We must not abandon principle because our contemporaries condemn us; we must face adversity with courage and take a stand for what is right, even when it means we stand alone.
KDHguy says:
All great opinions, unfortuately some are wrong. I am a gay conservative, and will be voting against the amendment. I will go on the record to say I vote conservative, and never made a consious choice to become gay. It disgusts me that so many “Americans” and “Christians” and “Humans” can pass such judgement on things about which they are severely uneducated and unempathetic. Since hearing the radio commercial repeatedly broadcast regarding this issue several times, I had to let our congressman know my thoughts. Unfortunately, I have not been provided the courtesy of a response. I encourage everyone, however, to contact him:
https://jones.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
And kudos, Dr. Woodson on your comments
Prince of Peeps says:
@ HI Resident: You are exactly right.
@ Kevin Gray Conner: You are not alone.
@KDHguy: What bothers you is that people who ARE educated about this issue don’t agree with you. You refuse to acknowledge any value in any opinion that differs from your own. You denigrate anyone who does not accede to your desires. Are you the smartest man in the world, a dictator, God, what? that everyone should agree with you. Can no one have a differing view without being labeled uneducated? Could it ever enter into the realm of possibility that YOU are the one who is wrong. In the face of logic, common sense, Biblical evidence, and whatever (the jury is still out on science,) you cling to emotional appeals (the worst thing in the world on which to base an opinion,) to justify your desires.
Perry says:
Don’t believe that our present marriage laws can be overturned by a court? Same sex couples in Asheville went to the Courthouse for two weeks last fall seeking to obtain marriage licenses. A lawsuit was filed by the Register of Deeds of Guilford County in December challenging our state’s marriage laws and asking the Court to declare them unconstitutional because they don’t allow same-sex partners to “marry”.
Present law passed by a Democrat legislature in 1996 by both houses and signed by the Democrat majority Governor bans same sex marriages. The Marriage Amendment, if voted by the people of North Carolina will prevent any suit from progressing through the courts, costing thousands of dollars for the people.
Maria Rosales says:
Those court cases challenging the marriage laws were thrown out, and weren’t nearly as expensive, anyway, as the court cases testing this broad language of the proposed amendment would be.
Sue says:
Kevin: “Of course, that doesn’t stop progressives from attempting to indoctrinate those of us that prefer to pursue a lifestyle guided by our faith.”
Kevin, I’m not sure that anyone is trying to thwart you from a lifestyle guided by faith. You are free to practice the religion of your choice in this country.
“Unfortunately, progressives are critical of those that seek to live according to the principles set forth in the Bible and are all too quick to view people of faith as bigots, because of our refusal to embrace a worldview that contradicts the faith we honor.”
The problem is, all too often, people of faith do not uphold the very words which their holy book teaches. It is very convenient to be forgiven and “saved” by grace while sinning all the while. You must admit there is an element of bigotry present in this mindset.
I was raised to attend church three times a week, never questioning anything regarding my religious upbringing. But my own personal observation, since childhood, was/is that most people who call themselves Christians simply cannot measure up to their own proclaimed gospel standards. It’s this hypocrisy that fuels “progression”.
Think about that and ask yourself, also, “who was the most liberal character in the Bible”? I believe He also mentioned something about being liberal and abrading not.
There is a whole lot to say on these points, but I will leave that much with you for now. By the way, I appreciate your well-constructed, thoughtful posts, honestly.
Hawk says:
@ Prince of Peeps: I would defend your right to state your opinion and your right to support Amendment One to the death, as our great nation has given us the precious commodity of free speech, and the right to question our government’s motives. However, I do not agree with your logic, as I have said before. I can assure you that if you ask a gay person why they chose to live through such hardships imposed by their families/loved ones, their churches, their schools and class mates, from strangers, etc…(or as you may put it “a deviant lifestyle”). As I have said before, I am not insulting your intelligence or anyone else here who provides legitimate reasoning as to why North Carolina should concentrate on passing this amendment. For all I know, you may very well be an incredibly gifted, talented, and educated individual. However, I strongly disagree with you on the thought that there will be no harm to gays, women, unmarried families, and children due to negligence from this law, and furthermore to bring the religious aspect into light; if God’s creation is flawless, yet the bible (“an open interpretation of God’s word”) deems homosexuals as abominations of nature, then by default, he hated me from the time I was born; he hated me when I was a confused 12 year old child being ridiculed by family while looking up to him desperately for answers, former “friends”, classmates, church-members, so forth. By that logic, God’s creations are NOT PERFECT. I am gay, but first and foremost, to many I am a son, a friend, a student and a classmate, a Christian, a former volunteer worker for local charities such as HOTLINE, and the Humane Society… I think you get the point. I am not here to insult your intelligence…I cannot emphasize that enough. I just want you to realize what this law is doing. It was only in the 60’s that our country began to allow blacks/African Americans to marry whites. In fact, no one could marry a Caucasian except for another Caucasian. It’s a baby step, but before you know it, we could be living in the past, and it wouldn’t only be the gays who are left standing empty handed, but perhaps all of us. You want to vote to take an INCREDIBLY VAST group of people’s rights to happiness away from them. So let’s say that happens, and we write discrimination into our constitution. Then what’s next? You tell me… actually, quite frankly, I wouldn’t even want to know. As I said before, not that this is relevant, but I am a gay man, and choose not to get married. I have no desire to get married. It’s the principle of it that bothers me. One day they come along sneaking an ambiguous piece of legislature under your nose when most people pay little attention to the May 8th ballot (particularly here on the Outer Banks), waiting in anticipation for the upcoming presidential elections. It’s a way of manipulating people to push a radical agenda without them even knowing it. Why should you have a right to happiness with a lover, but not I? I am a hard-working, tax paying, voting American, why should I deserve less than you? On that same note, why should you deserve any less than me? You don’t. That’s my point.
KDHguy says:
Hawk: Thank you so much for your comment. I could not agree more. I think people are under the impression that we gay people decided (as children) that we wanted to become persona non grata in this society and deal with all of the associated consequences. They will continue to try to dicate our lives to justify their own. Perhaps they will come to their senses and realize God just wants us all to love each other.
charles d. coppage says:
Truly amazes me that the people who shout most loudly about freedom and “Too much government” are the first to want to limit individual rights and liberties. They see government having no authority to rgulate or lomit business and practices and total authority to limit what individuals can read,write,watch on television at the movies.Government and they have the absolute authority to tell me what to teach my children and who and why I and we can love. According to these people,government should only regulate the actions and morals of individuals,and not of entities.
I am also told that Leviticus prohibits eating shellfish. Like to see an amendment to prohibit that.
Prince of Peeps says:
Very impassioned plea, Hawk, but as I stated earlier, based on emotion and nothing else. I’m glad that you backed off from asserting that anyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant hater. You make several other mistakes, though, misinterpreting the Bible and putting words into other people’s mouth.
Just to get the little things out of the way first, all this business about eating shellfish and stoning women is just a red herring that has nothing to do with us as Christians, and nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is simply an attempt to sway people’s emotions and sympathies. Those laws were Old Testament applying only to the Jews, not the rest of the world, and God had his reasons for them. Just because you or I may not understand them doesn’t mean that God was misguided. Such an assumption would negate the point of even worshiping such a God. Thankfully, Christ ushered in a new covenant for us. Stick to that, and use the Old Testament more as a historical reference to show how we got to where we are, as a foreshadowing of what was to come.
Second, I haven’t heard anyone say that you “chose” to be homosexual. Who but a masochist would make such a choice? The two most common theories are nature (you were born that way) or nurture (outside stimuli influenced you during your formative years,) but in either case, you did not wake up one day and choose to be homosexual. God never hated you for something that was not in your control. (And furthermore, He doesn’t even hate you for what you do that IS in your control, but he does have a mechanism for making it right — repentance.) Personally, I think nurture is the more likely cause, though I believe that most homosexuals cling to the nature theory to excuse and justify their actions. After all, you can’t be held accountable if you were born that way, right? To date, there have been no scientific studies able to prove anything one way or another.
That aside, every day we all wake up and choose our actions; whether to get up or to lie in bed a while longer, what we want for breakfast, whether or not to go to work, etc. Throughout our lives we make all kinds of choices, some good, some bad. One of the most difficult choices in our lives is to resist the temptation to do what we know is wrong. Regarding sexual encounters, this applies to ALL people. My impression is that most seem to fail at some time or another, and it is more difficult today than in the past. Society has changed so much over the past 50 years, that people have become desensitized to what they knew was wrong back in the days of Ozzie & Harriet. “Living in sin” has become normal and accepted, and most people see nothing wrong with it, but it is still sin in God’s eyes. Homosexuals have come out of the closet and are pressing for acceptance, though 50 years ago everyone knew it was wrong and shameful.
Hawk, stick to the New Testament scriptures, you know which ones I mean. However you choose to interpret them will determine the course of you everlasting life. If you make the right choice, repentance and forgiveness are open to you. If you make the wrong choice, that’s where the “reprobate mind” scripture comes in.
Prince of Peeps says:
@ charles: This isn’t an issue of freedom. It’s an issue of right and wrong, and since God is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, it only matters what He thinks, not man. Should bank robbers campaign against discriminatory bank robbery laws. After all, people with bank accounts go in and take out money all the time. There is obvious discrimination against people who don’t have bank accounts.
BTW, the same is true about the abortion issue. It isn’t about the rights of the woman and her body, it’s about whether it’s right or wrong to take an innocent life. Many issues are framed in the wrong manner to elicit the wrong response.
Prince of Peeps says:
And once again, NO RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY by this amendment. How can you take away from someone something they don’t have. (Only the government understands that kind of logic. They give tax “rebates” to people who never paid any taxes. Raising taxes only 5% instead of 8% is a tax cut. Go figure.)
KDHguy says:
dude, get a life.
Maria Rosales says:
In the New Testament, there are verses that I see people ignoring all the time while they claim that, based on a Bible verse, being gay is a sin. For example, I Timothy 2:9 says don’t wear gold jewelry or braid your hair if you are a woman, but women wearing gold wedding bands tell other people that their interpretation of the Bible is the only one that matters.
Maria Rosales says:
Also, there are far more Bible verses about not being greedy than there are about sex, but no one seems to want to make laws against being greedy.
civil discourse says:
To Prince of Peeps-are any rights added? No! This amendment is based on religious belief or homophobia and it is being forced on others. Not to mention the violation of the second amendment-separation of church and state. Also we will be paying for the ridiculous enforcement of this amendment big time monetarily through our taxes as it is continually challenged in court. Half of the amendment is left off the ballot so that will be the first legitimate court challenge. How many of you readers know that you are only voting for or against half of what the state is intending to use as the amendment. Another sneaky move by the politicians who put this on the ballot. This whole issue is a mess and as a non-Christian, rights loving, spiritual American I am embarrassed for out state. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, Ronald Reagan and Martin Luther King would must likely be appalled if they were alive today. By the way I have a degree in history and taught US History for many years so I am very familiar with their actions and believes. Also the homophobic statements in the Old Testament came from practical behavior developed 2000 years ago to help prevent the spread of disease and encourage population growth in the desert tribes who wrote the Torah. This is also a historical fact.
Prince of Peeps says:
@ civil discourse: You are wrong on every count. I don’t even know how to respond to your rambling post, other than to say that it doesn’t make much sense. So you don’t believe in the Bible. Do as you please then. Hawk will be praying for your salvation.
Richard says:
Prince of Peeps:
Given your personal thoughts on nature vs. nurture, you’ve pretty much just admitted that homosexuals are not at fault for their sexual orientation. Feel free to back-pedal.
Also, you continuously make up claims you’ve somehow read in others’ statements simply so you can demonize them. Neither of the people you accused said anything about people who are for Amendment 1 being unintelligent. Ignorant, maybe, but that doesn’t mean the same thing as unintelligent.
You can talk about God all you want but the final fact is is that religion doesn’t belong in government. Unalienable rights has nothing to do with rights given by God. Morality is not a religious creation.
You are free to practice your religion. Just like the Church of Satan is allowed to practice theirs.
If I want to marry my partner, allot him my assets when I die, adopt a child JOINTLY with my partner, or anything that same-sex partners can do, the government should defend and protect me and my family and make us feel secure just like same-sex parent families.
Sue says:
Maria, cherry picking the scriptures is par for the course among mainstream Christians. What if everyone took it absolutely literally? I would have long hair, never wear gold bangles, never question my husband about his decisions, not speak to the congregation in church, focus exclusively on rearing children, only visit the sick and attend to religious matters on Sunday, and heaven forbid NEVER eat too much because the sin of gluttony is mentioned more in the Bible than the sin of drunkenness!! How many church dinners could I really enjoy???
It’s all become antiquated and absurd in this modern world we live in. Trying to really LIVE IT makes you a cultist weirdo. The Mormons come close but have their flukes too. Anti-depressants are very common among Mormon women. Both adultery and pornography addiction are common problems in these suppressed congregations. Anywhere there is cultural isolation and sexual expression is suppressed, various perversions emerge in that society.
Christians should be more worried about these matters than gayness, which has a definite genetic component. And I don’t want to hear the “animals aren’t gay” argument. That was long ago debunked.
So yeah, trying to uphold this cockamamie amendment on religious premise is both dangerous and insane.
civil discourse says:
Prince of Peeps-Have you read the full text of the proposed amendment? Tell me what it says, and I don’t mean just the part printed on the ballot, then tell me I am not right. Also, have your read the second amendment and do you even understand what it means. Also, you are showing your lack of education by not knowing the role of the historical figures I mentioned and by appearing not to know that the Old Testament is taken from the Hebrew “bible” the Torah.
Prince of Peeps says:
You are correct, Richard, in general I do not hold homosexuals at fault for their sexual orientation (and as I stated above, I don’t believe God does either.) Nature or nurture, whether formed at birth, or raised to be that way (which I tend to favor,) it wasn’t their (your) choice. I don’t blame a child for being born with Down’s Syndrome, and I don’t blame a child for being abused (sexually, physically, or psychologically) by a parent or relative. However the choices that we all make subsequently in life and the actions we take ARE on us. What we choose to do or not to do IS ultimately our responsibility. If you choose to act on desires that you know are wrong, it’s on you, and that is true for everyone.
I haven’t “made up claims,” not one, certainly not “continuously,” nor have I demonized anyone. I don’t believe I ever used the word “unintelligent” nor claimed anyone else did in any of my posts. I did respond to being called “ignorant” and “hateful.” As for the derogatory language aimed at those who disagree with you, I was going to make a list of what other posters have said, “right-wing bigots,” “twisted values,” “crawl out of our caves,” “jerks,” etc. but the list just grew too long. I think your side has been much more proficient in hurling nasty epithets.
Now, Richard, this is where you really lost it. Your claim about unalienable rights has to be one of the most ignorant statements made in this string of posts (someone else alluded to the same thing and sounded just as ludicrous.) Check this out from the Declaration of Independence: “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,…” Follow this link http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr3.html to an essay about our unalienable rights being God-given. Our government was based on Natural Law, nature being the creation of God (not Gaia.) Too many liberals believe in the fallacy of “separation of church and state.” That is nowhere in the Constitution. It was mentioned in one of the Federalist Papers, but liberals have twisted it totally out of context, to make it something 180 degrees from what it was. It means that the government cannot establish a state church, such as was the Church of England was, but in no way was it ever intended to mean that there should be absolutely no interaction between the secular and religious. In fact, the Constitution guarantees the government CANNOT RESTRICT the free expression of religion. That includes opening prayers in Congress, “In God We Trust” on our coinage, prayers at school football games or graduations, or morning prayers in a circle around the flagpole before school starts (though government has erred in attempting to restrict such expression.) We are guaranteed religious freedom, even in public situations and official government actions. Our religion is not restricted to our homes and churches (synagogues, etc.)
Morality and moral authority are indeed established by God, and only God, and to believe otherwise is to totally deny any need for morals at all. We become nothing more than animals, free to do anything, anywhere, anytime, no restrictions at all. Man has no authority to grant rights (except in the case of slave masters over their slaves.) As animals, there would be no right by anyone to impose any restrictions or ordinances on anyone, nor any responsibility by anyone to observe any such restrictions or ordinances. Just run free as the wind! Woohoo!
Richard, you are free to live with your partner and do anything you like, (within the law.) Like all of us, God gave you a free will, but with that comes the responsibility for your choices and actions. Our government may not be perfect, and society may not be perfect, but when Judgement Day comes, and you stand before your Maker whether you believe in him, or not. He IS perfect, and He is righteous. You won’t be able to argue with Him. What you sowed, you will reap.
That’s about all I have to say on this subject on this string. See you again in a global warming article, or drunk driving, or some other politics, whatever.
Prince of Peeps says:
Civil discourse, your last post is just as discordant as the one before. How did you ever become a teacher? I guess that says a lot about why our public schools are in the shape they are in.
This is the text, already established law, that would be added to the NC Constitution:
“Sec. 6. Marriage.
“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
Nothing there that changes anything from what it already is.
Cd, I know who all those “historical figures” were, and I know what the Old Testament is, and I know what the 2nd Amendment says. You are a deluded ass for jumping to conclusions without any basis for doing so. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are ignorant, and it doesn’t mean they are wrong, either. A shock to you libs, but it’s true. My father had a saying about people like you. “If one could buy you for what you’re worth and sell you for what you think you’re worth, one would be a very wealthy man.” Probably even be a 1%er.
Now I’m done.
KDHguy says:
@Prince: Your pious rant is getting a little excessive. Do you not see the big picture here? This is exactly the kind of religious opinion that should be kept out of government.
The world would be better off if you just worry about your own life, although it seems you do have alot of time on your hands.
Luke:6:37: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
I think everyone should check this out to see how extreme it can get:
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/video-north-carolina-pastor-advocates-violence-against-kids
civil discourse says:
“Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident” to quote Rick Warren, a minister I admire for his good works, although I don’t necessarily agreed with a lot of his social stands.
Peeps, thank you for printing the amendment in full. Readers, notice that on the May 8 primary ballot only the first sentence “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” is the only part that appears on the ballot, so obviously my previous statement was true. Sorry Peeps, you have proved me right.The rest of the amendment “This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.” was left off for reasons that can only be speculated on. Most legal experts feel this is to try to placate NC business interests that are unhappy with the amendment’s affect on their recruiting efforts to hire quality out of state employees. What this means to us NC taxpayers is that by leaving this part off the ballot it will be immediately contested in court, which we citizens will have to pay for with our tax dollars. Good lawyers don’t come cheap.
The only thing I have concluded Peeps is that your mind is made up and no amount of factual evidence or historical references will change it. There are a lot of people out there who have not made up their minds because they have not had the change to hear the facts to this very complex issue. I am trying to give them the opportunity to see what this amendment actually says and the affects that it will have on all citizens. Do vote on May 8 though. I would never attempt to take that right away from another citizen, or any other hard earned right, such as our freedom of religion.
Richard says:
Prince of Peeps,
You said:
“Richard, you are free to live with your partner and do anything you like, (within the law.)”
I am NOT free to live with my partner and do anything I like. I am not free to secular rights with my partner. That’s the premise behind this entire discussion. Why should I not be allowed to live a peaceful life with a family I’ve created, protected by my government?
“Like all of us, God gave you a free will, but with that comes the responsibility for your choices and actions.”
Whether free will was given to me or I came upon it naturally (NOT through some almighty being), I would STILL be diplomatically responsible for my actions and choices. If one were to kill an atheist’s family member or a Christian’s family member, the reaction would still be the same! No sane person would say “Well, there’s no God anyways, so I’m just going to slaughter a bunch of folks.”
“Our government may not be perfect, and society may not be perfect, but when Judgement Day comes, and you stand before your Maker whether you believe in him, or not. He IS perfect, and He is righteous. You won’t be able to argue with Him. What you sowed, you will reap.”
I think you might’ve started out with a point but you got side-tracked halfway through your sentence. It’s okay, happens to all of us. But I agree, you do reap what you sow.
Say what you want about unalienable rights, but those moral rights were created based on empathy and pure humanistic regard. You don’t need a God to recognize what those rights are, you DON’T.
Richard says:
Side note: When I say moral rights were “created,” I’m referring to when they were TRANSCRIBED and put into American government legistlation, NOT “created” meaning out of magical fairy dust and omnipotent will.
KDH Rezident Evil says:
“If the general public had been permitted to cast ballots on the enfranchisement of women and black men, or the citizenship of slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War those civil rights might still be non-existent.”
Yep. And while many of those people who opposed emancipation and enfranchisement probably did so into their graves, their children, or at least their grandchildren, probably came around to accept the idea that the world was not going to end as a result of this sort of radical social engineering. I doubt Peeps and his ilk have any desire to bring back slavery or take away women’s rights to vote. We can only hope in fifty or sixty years when Meeps, grandson of Peeps, is contesting the social conservative issues of his future day (probably human-dolphin relations), he’ll think of opposition to gay marriage as a slightly quaint and mildly distasteful historical oddity.
Steve Melov says:
In a comment on my article on Amendment One – “A Personal Perspective”, BAR asked how I decide what of God’s Word is valid, given my focus on the Golden Rule and not on “homosexuality as a perversion”. I have read all of the comments on both the Voice’s editorial and my article and as a result I think that my response to BAR might be instructive from both a tonal and educational perspective.
To BAR. Thank you for your question. Because it is a good question I’ve pondered it for a couple of days as it deserves a thoughtful response. It appears that, no matter what I say here, we would never be able to be on the same page on this issue. However, I hope that you will be respectful enough to at least read my response and give it the same amount of thought that I gave to your comment/question.
First of all, there are many religions, denominations and faith traditions in our great country. The greatness of this nation and its founding documents is that no single religion, denomination, or tradition has hegemony over any other. This happily distinguishes us from theocratic “democracies” such as Iran. In our nation, only some of these many faith traditions profess that God’s word is inerrant. In fact, based on Gallup polling, some 69% of the American public do not believe in the inerrant word of God. Per today’s population clock that would be 216,295,806 people who do not believe as it appears you and others who have posted comments may believe.
I do not want to, nor am I qualified to argue theology. However, it is a fact that God’s Word, as you refer to it, has been translated from its original ancient Hebrew. I may not be conversant in Hebrew as I once was, but I do know that there was no word in ancient Hebrew for homosexuality, period. You asked how I, or perhaps it was a more universal “you”, decide what is valid in God’s word and what is not? For me, if the original Hebrew text of the Pentateuch did not and does not include the word “homosexual”, then it is simply not possible that God’s Word said or says that homosexuality is an abomination. I find it fascinating that the Old Testament is cited, incorrectly as I’ve noted, to focus on the purported “abomination of homosexuality”, but is ignored (thankfully) on the correctly translated admonition to stone to death the mother who bears a child out of wedlock and the child as well. Also, how did one decide to ignore, at least in the 20th century, again thankfully, the word of God on slavery and how to be a good master to one’s slaves.
So I ask you the same question you asked of me about deciding what is valid in God’s word and what is not. Again, thank you for your question.
I thought that you might find interesting the following testimony given by my now deceased mother before the Maryland State Senate in 2007 when she was nearly 88 years old on a proposed (and failed) bill to amend the Maryland Constitution to define marriage. She said:
“When my son or his partner is sick do they care less for each other than they would if they were a man and a woman? When one was hospitalized did the other worry less than he would have if they were a man and a woman? When one, decades from now, dies before the other will the survivor grieve any less copiously than he would if his beloved was a woman? The answer to these questions is as plain as anything I have seen or known in the nine decades I have been privileged to witness. It is as plain as the basic respect that we owe to one another if we hope to continue to live in a civil society. Let religious communities determine whether to accept or reject same-sex marriage as a religious blessing or sacrament within their churches, synagogues, temples, shrines or mosques. Do not, however, sully the Constitution of Maryland by putting up for a vote the right to equal justice under the law.”
I know that if my mother, of blessed memory, was here in North Carolina today she would say the same thing about Amendment One.
obxdad says:
Well said Steve Melov.
Bob Samuels says:
The current General Assembly, who campaigned on the promise of creating jobs, has done little to follow through with that promise. They have been consistent with their right wing philosophy, pushing their unwanted agenda down our throats.
IT”S TIME TO VOTE!
Not only against this unnecessary amendment but to get these Teabaggin’ fools out of Raleigh and the legislative process.
friday says:
“bigot”, a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group- example – dbxdad and his obvious intolerance
Kevin Gray Conner says:
We will indeed vote and the roar of those that up-end the progressive ideals of North Carolina will be thunderous!
KDHguy says:
@Kevin Gray Conner: We won’t be voting for you, that’s for sure. You are not even making any sense.
Kevin Gray Conner says:
KDHguy if you’re opposing the Marriage Amendment I don’t want your vote. If I’m not making sense to you then there are plenty of folks in Dare County that more than understand my position and they are supporting my candidacy!
Island Safety says:
Thank you Steve for your thoughtful reply. Mr Conner, I’m sorry there is so much hate and fear in your soul, perhaps you should turn to Christ for answers.
Maggie says:
Mr. Coonor, you are so full of hatred for others, it is a little hard to believe that such vitriol comes from a true Christian. We are all God’s children. Have you forgotten that? Please, keep your religion out of my family, my church, and my government.
Hawk says:
Oh, yeah, the nature vs. nuture argument… when a woman has multiple children, her body can naturally feminize the foreign object in her body (the fetus), yet you can say homosexuality is caused by an overbearing female figure/lack of a stable father figure, or being gay is a choice, or being gay is genetic. I am an only child, I had equal influence from both parents.. and perhaps even moreso of an influence from my grandfather, who was an ultra-conservative. Nuture wasn’t the cause of homosexuality in my case, perhaps it is in others. I don’t know. Frankly, I don’t care. The point is, WHO CARES!? I don’t care if you disapprove of a gay “lifestyle”, as this is America, and that is your opinion…be thankful you’re allowed to have one..hopefully we as a nation don’t revert to a “One Nation Under God, OR ELSE”. By that logic, no other ethnicities/religions or women would have any rights in America either. Just saying. I CHUCKLE at the thought that some of you are under the assumption that because I am gay, than certainly I must be a liberal. Like I said..thankfully you can express your opinion and I can express mine.
Kevin Gray Conner says:
In all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility ~ Titus2:7
Sue says:
For those who want to mix religion and government and have a “truly moralistic” (in reality, theocratic and monolithic society), please stay in Saudi Arabia a while and see how you like it. Because that is the type of world these right wing nuts are gearing us for. There is a lot to be said for certain old sayings, and one of them is “Moderation is key”. Must we all find out the hard way?
civil discourse says:
I am so glad that many people are learning the facts and realizing the many problems with this amendment. On April 27 I posted about the few “against” signs that were up in Manteo being stolen and even replaced with a “for” sign. This last week it has been wonderful to see many more “against” signs springing up all over town and they have not been removed. A couple of the “against” signs even had some of Jesus scriptures written on them in support of voting against the amendment such as “loving thy neighbor” and “judge not least ye be judged”. Another one said “keep religion out of our constitution” and another had “save the children”. Sounds like non-homophobic Christians have figured out that they can follow Jesus and do the true “Christian” action. I am also feeling much better about my fellow Manteo residents. One of the reasons I love living here is that the people are kind, neighborly and open minded.
KDH Rezident Evil says:
Well…back to the drawing board.
Amendment supporters, enjoy doing everything that the Constitution and the Founding Fathers warned against, including mixing religion and government, invasion of privacy, and not discriminating.
Wish I could slip into a cryo-tube for about 50 years and wake up when the country has grown past its pubescent fear of gay people.
Scared Straight says:
Congratulations all you bible-thumpers on your successful march back to the Dark Ages. One question I’d like to ask: How do you really know that your god is not (“god-forbid”) LGBT? I suppose you’ll know it if all of us: gay, straight or other blasphemers who voted against Amendment One get struck by lightening bolts. Until then, don’t be so sure.
civil discourse says:
Take heart all of you who support civil liberties and freedom of or from religion(second amendment) At least Dare went against the amendment, so at least we live in an area where people respect others rights and support the intent of our Constitution. It may not happen today or tomorrow but eventually this amendment will be gone and civil liberties and rights will be upheld.
KDHguy says:
If you are against the amendment, please consider signing the petitions below:
http://www.change.org/petitions/1-million-against-amendment-1
http://www.change.org/petitions/democratic-national-convention-committee-move-the-national-convention-out-of-north-carolina#share
Thanks!! Equality will previal!! (eventually)
Sue says:
I propose an amendment to the marriage amendment. If anyone who is married commits adultery, then the marriage should be dissolved and said parties should never be allowed to marry again. Adultery defiles the sanctity of marriage. Once you are divorced, you should not remarry. Once you are married, you should not divorce, unless adultery has been committed. Check out the Bible. It says so. After all, we are all very worried about the kind of characters getting married these days. They are some very base people. Case closed, and hallelujah.
Just Sayin... says:
KDHguy, why should the DNC move the convention out of NC? If you think all Democrats are pro gay marriage, you’re in for a rude awakening.
KDHguy says:
@justsayin: I know, I’m conservative and gay and pro-equality, which is rare but exists. I don’t have the time or energy to explain myself to you. If you don’t agree with it, then don’t sign it.
liveoak says:
Can someone explain to me why conservatives supported this? I thought one of the fundamental platforms of the conservative – thinking political parties was to reduce government intervention in our lives? Dictating the form, definition, nature and legality of marriage is government intrusion into our lives in the most intimate of ways.
Steve Melov says:
In October 1984, as my very conservative Republican aunt lay on her death bed, she made certain that I was going to vote in the upcoming election. She did this even though she knew that my Democratic vote would definitely cancel out her vote. In the spirit of my beloved Aunt Sylvia’s belief that everyone has a civic and patriotic duty to participate fully in our democracy, I thank all North Carolinians who got out, registered, and voted in the primary regardless of how you voted. I particularly want to thank the 51% of Dare County voters who cast ballots against Amendment One, with a special shout out to the five Bodie Island precincts and Colington where a composite 58% voted against the amendment.
May 8th was disheartening for me to say the least. However, May 9th, the day of my partner and my 37th anniversary, which began with the bittersweet election results, ended in joy. Frankly, no matter the vote, the anniversary of our commitment, dedication, and responsibility to and for each other is always joyful as is every single day of our lives together. This is something that the votes of 61%, or even 99% of our fellow citizens can ever take away from us. I will always fervently believe that the most personal and private freedom and liberty rights of consenting adults and minorities should not be subject to a popular vote. Be that as it may, the majority in North Carolina have spoken and the entire state will have to live with this vote for the foreseeable future whatever the consequences may be.
To those who voted for the amendment, I will not tar and feather you with a charge of bigotry and hatred. Undoubtedly, some who voted “for” truly harbor animus and bias against the LGBT community. On the other hand, many, if not most of you cast your “for” vote on the basis of strongly held, immutable religious convictions and I have to consider your beliefs even though they are not mine. I will say, however, on the basis of my career in upholding the civil rights laws of our great nation, that under the strict scrutiny standards of such laws it is not the intent, but rather the effect of actions that matter. Sort of the proof is in the pudding. When the result of an action is discriminatory and biased, legally (or personally to the object of the action, usually an “other”) it doesn’t matter how pure you may consider your heart or soul to be, the action still remains discriminatory and biased.
On a much more personal note, I will quote my dear, wonderful, North Carolina Republican neighbor who told me last weekend that, as she sees it, my sexuality is only a small part of who I am and that I am so much more than that one aspect of my being. If I am to face the judgment of a loving, good and just God, I am ready to face that judgment based on the totality of my life. I know that I am far from perfect and that I constantly can work on becoming an ever better person. That said, I am willing to be judged today on the basis of my love and dedication to my partner and our family; on my providing a place for my aging mother to live in our home for 23 years and for the care-giving I provided for the last six years of her life as aging and dementia took its toll; on my dedicated service to the United States of America; on my community volunteer work; on my kindness to friends, neighbors, animals, and strangers; on my sense of civility and good humor; and, on my active engagement in the world. To those who believe and say that I will be damned on the basis of my sexuality or acting thereon, I forgive you for deeming yourselves fit to judge and cast the first stone. Would that we all would attend to our own shortcomings and just live our lives rather than focus on those of the “others” among us. In the shorthand of the social network world, a fair bit more MYOB would go a very long way to healing and repairing our broken and increasingly tribal and antagonistic world.
Thank you to “The Outer Banks Voice” for providing a forum in which to exchange views on matters of public policy and interest.
Hawk says:
Live life happily,disregard any negativity, and lead a good example, treat others as you yourself would want to be treated, and make your own choices.
Sue says:
Hawk, probably the most Christian way one could believe.