make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

ONLY ON 3 & THE BIG TALKER FM: Lawmakers voted on amendment to "end" marriage in NC

READ MORE:

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- A gay marriage amendment for North Carolina's Constitution has made headlines this week, but you may not have heard about a failed amendment to that amendment that would have ended marriage licenses in the Tar Heel State.

Speaker of the House Thom Tillis told Chad Adams and 'The Big Talker FM' about the vote this morning.

The proposal would have changed the Constitution to say, "Marriage belongs to the dominion of God under the authority of the church. Licensure of marriage is prohibited in the state."

The amendment, proposed by Republican Rep. Glen Bradley, failed along party lines with most Democrats, including Rep. Susi Hamilton of New Hanover County, voting for it.

Rep. William Brisson, who represents Bladen County, was one of seven Democrats to vote against the measure.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

It would appear that the

It would appear that the Anti-Establishment clause of the US Constitution would have been violated by the failed amendment.....but,then, since when does the US Constitution apply in NC?

Marriages should be like

Marriages should be like driver's licenses. Have an expiration date. If not renewed, the marriage is automatically dissolved. I'll drink to that!

Only?

I read about this on a lot of news websites the day of the vote.

FAIL

That is UNREAL !!!! So the non believers couldn't get married either never mind the homosexual community !! PUSH YOUR RELIGION DOWN OUR THROATS. I cant believe they even tried that.

Let's try again...

Das, I did an earlier post that hasn't shown up.

You misunderstand the intent of the amendment. It would not have required people to have a religious ceremony to achieve the benefits that are now associated with marriage.

The amendment was introduced by a Libertarian and many Democrats backed it. The Republicans killed it.

So-called christians

Now you have to remember that a poll was taken a few years ago, and t was determined that only 13% of the people polled considered themselves "Active" christians, and went to church on a regular basis, and these people wanted to shut down ALL business and recreational activities in New Hanover Co. On Sundays! Even the restaurants would be forced to close, and Blue Laws re-activated. For 13% of all of New Hanover County to tell everyone else what to do is Un-American!

You totally misunderstand the proposed amendment, Das

It basically said "marriage is a religious issue," and removed the government from dealing with the issue of marriage completely. It did not require you to go get married in a religious ceremony to attain any benefits now reserved for married couples.

It was a good idea put forth by a Libertarian who votes with the Republicans, but it was killed by the Republican majority.

Yes, I was listening to the Carolyn Justice Show this morning

...and heard her and Chad talking about how bad this would have been....

...to which I ask, "WHY?"

How is it any business of the state with whom you spend the rest of your life? (And that right there is a joke, since the majority no longer stay together until death do us part.)

Now, I'm fully on board with the idea that gays and Lesbians can't "get married"...BUT the government intruded into the marriage game a long time ago and specific benefits ranging anywhere from taxes to child custody to probate have since attached themselves to a state or county issued "marriage license."

So since gays and Lesbians are obviously entitled to those exact same benefits under our federal constitution, you either A) let gays get married, as ridiculous a notion as that is, or B) get the government OUT of the marriage business and return it to the realm of religion, where it belongs.

The government needs to register domestic partnerships ONLY, for every couple, be they man-woman, two men, or two women. If a brother and sister want to register a domestic partnership, how is that the government's concern? If a man is so twisted and warped as to want more than one boat anchor annoying him to death, let him register multiple domestic partnerships.

Hey, the clerk can still collect the same fee, but as long as this nation links legal and financial benefits to that marriage license, you are going to LOSE when you say that gays and Lesbians can't get married.

Avoid the whole issue by ending the concept of marriage "licenses." It's should be the priest, minister, rabbi, or imam that tells them, "Are you crazy? You can't get married! You can live happily in sin, but I'm not marrying you."

No such benefits are

No such benefits are guaranteed by the Constitution.

How about "equal protection under law?"

Care to argue how a married hetersexual couple can get a tax break, but a gay couple can't?

That's fair, to you? That's equal treatment?

As far as probate, our laws (in 49 states) are based upon English common law. That means that a child who hasn't seen her father in forty years has a greater claim to her father's estate that his partner of the last thirty years, and there have been successful challenges to wills when children were passed over for gay or Lesbian lovers.

We can't keep pretending that the Constitution doesn't apply to them. They are American citizens and entiitled to every single benefit that we are entitled to.

It's not a religious debate. All major religions are clear in their condemnation.

It's a secular debate about whether we follow the Constitution or we don't.

I agree with commonsense.

I agree with commonsense. Have couples, heterosexual or homosexual get a state issued civil union certificate that cover all legal issues. Have a religious facility issue a marriage certificate if the couple meet their requirements. No more marriage licenses. The state is responsible for civil unions and a "church" is responsible for marriages.

......

What about atheists? We want to be in a union with a partner to show our commitment to each other. We do not need a god to do so. If I was not married to my husband I wouldnt have any legal rights to insurance, social security (later), medical matters etc. Also if there are no legal records kept of marriages how will anyone know if you have 10 wives?

This isnt Puritan England.

There WOULD be records

The whole purpose is to get the state OUT of the marriage business and create registered domestic partnerships. For legal benefits and matters, that would be the same thing as a marriage certificate.

For that sick weirdo that wants ten wives, he registers ten domestic partnerships....but only ONE can be used for tax purposes. (Once I'm Emperor, the whole tax code gets scrapped anyway, and there will be no joint returns.)