As election day approaches, both sides debate marriage amendment


Tags: , , , ,

Submitted: Wed, 04/25/2012 - 9:05pm
Updated: Fri, 04/27/2012 - 5:25pm
By:

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY)– The most heated race this primary season may not be among any candidates at all, but between two ideals, on the subject of same sex marriage.

From now until election day on May 8th, we’ll be offering you profiles of many of the candidates you’ll see on your ballot. We begin though with Amendment One, a measure that would define marriage in the state constitution as between one woman and one man, and banning any other type of domestic union.

“Marriage was put in place by our creator. God is the one that defined marriage. Our Savior in the gospel of Matthew said for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife,” said Berean Baptist Church pastor, Ron Bailey.

“It’s just one of those doors that could be open that could cause so many problems for so many people, not just gay and lesbian families, said Jennifer Scott, with Wilmington Pride.

Although gay marriage is already illegal in the state, if passed, the amendment would also make it illegal in the state constitution, which would make it even more difficult to reverse.

The amendment would ban both gay marriage and civil unions. Even if you vote no, it would not legalize gay marriage.

For those who plan to vote against it, they say its not just a gay rights issue.

“Even unmarried straight couples, engaged couples, single parents who may have established previously accepted child custody agreements with their long term straight partner it affects those, impacts those, takes away those rights that have previously been established,” said Scott.

Dr. Baity is from Winston-Salem. He has traveled across North Carolina holding rallies and meeting with other pastors to share his message of approving the amendment.

“Marriage is a commandment of God, not of the legislature, not of the judiciary, not of the people,” said Baity. “It is a commandment of God and we believe that God will bless the people that will stick by, stand by and uphold his eternal word.”

Both sides are confident that they are supporting what’s best for the state and that they will prevail come May 8th.

81 Comments

  • Guest 10101 says:

    For thousands of years, regardless of the language, the word marriage defined a relationship between a man and a woman. The overwhelming majority of the world’s population already owns that word. A minority population group doesn’t have the right to assume ownership of something that isn’t theirs just because they’re a minority. That’s hubris multiplied by infinity. It may not be politically correct to say it anymore, but majorities have right too. If same-sex couples want some type of civil union that offers all the same rights as marriage,fine. Just don’t call it “marriage”.

  • BDog says:

    1. I guess our state legislature has fixed everything else that needs to be done for our state.
    2. If you don’t approve of gay marriage, don’t marry someone who is gay.
    3. If God condemns homosexuality then NC must also condemn it, is mixing church and state. And I can’t find empirical evidence on the Internet that demonstrates that gays cause armageddon.
    4. We ALL have the right to persue life,liberty and happiness with the understanding that we do no harm to our fellow humans.

    Namaste

  • Hyhybt says:

    …for abandoning all pretense of a belief in the separation of church and state. If this amendment is not stopped outright, you’ve at least made its inevitable removal all the easier.

  • Hyhybt says:

    The ONLY reason to insist on a separate name for the same thing is to mark those who must use the new term as inferior.

    And it *is* the same thing. Legal marriage, in this country, is a union of equals, and the *relationship* between a gay couple is the same type as that between a mixed-sex couple. So there’s no legitimate reason not to treat it the same… including one of the biggest rights of marriage, which is the terminology itself.

  • Hyhybt says:

    The claim that there is no separation of church and state is ludicrous, and requires an extremely tortuous reading of the First Amendment.

    Whatever you wish to call it, the government of our country is not allowed to take sides on religious matters, which denying marriage licenses to those who believe marriage is the morally correct choice for gay couples as well as straight ones solely because the majority holds a different religious belief runs afoul of.

  • Truthseeker says:

    I already early voted and voted for the amemdment. Marriage is a sacred ceremony under God and intended for male and female. Since gays are so active in trying to subvert this we have to set legal issues to prevent it. If you want to marry someone of the same sex move to a State that approved it. The laws of God are to be obeyed and North Carolinians intend to support his will. We already know what the moral grounds are, now we make it legal!

  • Truthseeker says:

    I already early voted and voted for the amemdment. Marriage is a sacred ceremony under God and intended for male and female. Since gays are so active in trying to subvert this we have to set legal issues to prevent it. If you want to marry someone of the same sex move to a State that approved it. The laws of God are to be obeyed and North Carolinians intend to support his will. We already know what the moral grounds are, now we make it legal!

  • Truthseeker says:

    I already early voted and voted for the amemdment. Marriage is a sacred ceremony under God and intended for male and female. Since gays are so active in trying to subvert this we have to set legal issues to prevent it. If you want to marry someone of the same sex move to a State that approved it. The laws of God are to be obeyed and North Carolinians intend to support his will. We already know what the moral grounds are, now we make it legal!

  • The Informed says:

    There are already laws in effect that make illegal for people of the same sex to marry in North Carolina. This amendment doesn’t really have anything to do with gay marriage. This amendment hurts/takes away rights from children, elderly, and single parents. That is what you are voting for if you vote to approve the amendment. Please inform yourself before you vote for it.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    “The laws of God are to be obeyed and North Carolinians intend to support his will.”

    Nice to see that you’re identical to those Islamo-facists trying to impose Sharia law, because you have a common goal – you want your religion to be codified into law. Hey, maybe if you’re lucky, you can get the right to stone them passed, too.

    Jesus stated without reservation, “Render unto Caeser the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” While their homosexuality is an issue between them and God that they will have to answer for, the civil rights of gay people is a Caesarian issue between them and the government.

    If the amendment simply banned gay marriage, I’d be standing in line to vote for it. When it says that the state will not recognize a domestic partnership and thus keep denying rights to gays and Lesbians that heterosexuals enjoy, it becomes vindictive and discriminatory.

    I guess that “hate the sin but love the sinner” is all a bunch of crap, huh?

  • we are all equal says:

    Laws and amendments should be made to protect our safety. That is it. If something is not hurting me, you, or anyone else, then it should in no way shape or form be made against the law or put into the constitution. So tell me, how is 2 men or 2 women getting married going to hurt anyone??? Who is going to suffer because of it??? I don’t agree with many things that other people do but I don’t think there should be laws or amendments making it impossible for people to do those things. Its a free country and as long as we are not hurting ourselves or anyone else we should be allowed to do whatever we want. Its absolutely ridiculous that in some places abortion is legal but gay marriage isn’t. So I can kill a baby inside me but I can’t marry my partner? Thats absurd. Its extremely sad that I am not allowed to have the same rights as married couples because they have the right to marry and I don’t. There is no reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to have the same rights, I am a law abiding citizen who pays taxes, volunteers in the community, works in the healthcare system taking care of dying individuals during their last days alive, coaching youth sports, supporting charities and good causes such as cancer research, and many other things. It is so sad that I may have to explain to my daughter or son one day why his/her parents aren’t married. Then again I may not have to explain it since over 50% of his/her friends’ parents will be divorced. The incredibly high rate of divorce alone proves that the meaning of marriage has sadly diminished.

  • heidi says:

    Congratulations on performing your civic duty. I hope, however, that when you voted you fully understood what you were supporting.

    First, I hope that you understood that the amendment does not only ban gay marriage, it also bans domestic partnerships and civil unions.

    Second, I hope you knew that the non-partison commission charged with the task of explaining the implications of Amendment One concluded that the amendment’s affects on custody, visitation rights and domestic abuse cases are unclear and will have to be determined by the courts.

    Finally, I hope you knew that Arizona voters rejected a similar amendment because they deemed it too vague and later approved one that banned gay marriage

  • Guest987 says:

    All men were created equal, this includes women as well (obvioulsly). A man and a woman can get married why can’t a man and another man? Equal? I think not. I believe same sex marriage should be LEGAL. If you don’t like it, ignore it. God has nothing to do with the way a person votes. God can stay up in heaven. The people have a right, they were, after all, created equal. A persons sexuality should not define their love in a relationship. The passing of this would be so hard to undo once all you Republicans realized times have changed, people don’t need to get married to have kids, they don’t have to get married to have sex. For crying out loud a man and woman can marry for 72 days but a happy gay couple can’t marry for one?

  • Guest2020 says:

    You are the one who needs to be informed. The amendment doesn’t take away any rights from the elderly, children or single parents.

  • Guest2020 says:

    There is no separation of church and state. As a voter I have the right to vote according to my personal beliefs, just like you have the right to vote according to your personal beliefs.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    Should the vote go No, it will be claimed as a vote for same sex marriage.
    Followed by similar action currently going on in Kansas
    The city of Hutchinson, Kan., is mulling over a proposed law that would force some churches in the community, regardless of their religious convictions, to rent their church halls to gay couples for events.

    It is the church that decides what is acceptable for itself under its religious doctrine and it is not the government’s role to force a church to violate that doctrine,”

  • aloneinnc says:

    It has been difficult reading the tabloids regarding the upcoming vote with the many opinions for and against the “marriage amendment”. I recently lost my partner of 13 years due to complications following open heart surgery. Regardless of the State or Federal government’s opinion, and a majority of the citizens, I consider him my spouse. However, neither of us prepared ahead of time and had Wills, or Power of Attorney, or any other so called legal representation; I was utterly helpless as I watched him slowly die in the hospital without any legal rights making decisions while he was incapacitated. It has been a few months now and I am slowly trying to get my life back to somewhat a normal state; however, dealing with estate and legal implications is like looking into a window from outside, feeling helpless and alone.

    Now my heart is gone, the love of my life is gone, and I feel lost and alone. I would have gladly switched places with my partner to this day to allow him more time with his family. It is traumatic going from a two income household to a single income. Luckily we each had a good job with our own benefits; however, I think of the many people in relationships, gay or straight, that may not be as fortunate.

    The vote on the amendment will never stop couples from forming their own personal, emotional, and loving bonds with commitments to one another; however, having the same equal legal opportunities as the majority of the population would provide the diversity you would expect of our great nation. I know that education, information, and even experience will not change the narrow minds of many people within our community.

    I believe each and every one of us deserves the same equal rights and opportunity as anyone else; however, there is much inequality, bigotry, and disrespect within our community. Unless you walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, then how can you possibly know what their life is like? I will be voting NO.

  • GuestMan says:

    Well said, Commonsense.

  • Guest2020 says:

    If you would actually read the amendment, you will see that it does not interfere with contracts entered into between private parties. This amendment would in no way affect custody issues. According to NC law part of the definition of domestic abuse includes, but is not limited to, abuse of someone living in the same house. Therefore, the amendment should not change the way that domestic abuse issues are handled. According to NC law part of the definition of domestic abuse includes, but is not limited to, abuse of someone living in the same house.

  • Jon Edwards says:

    (See this? I observed it on the amazing net!)

    GOD TO SAME-SEXERS: “HURRY UP!”

    (written by a friend in 2003)

    Even the God of the entire Bible is behind the gay rights movement—-and I’ll prove it.
    (Although this paper focuses on lost persons in the “Northeastern Bermuda Triangle” outlined roughly by New York City, Montreal, and Boston, I’m sharing it with everyone everywhere.)
    You who identify with GBLT (no, not Gay Bacon Lettuce & Tomato!) already know about your own history. So for the unlearned I’ll include some info on it, much of which is on the internet.
    Gay activist John McKellar has stated: “The major media are all nonstop advertisements for the gay lifestyle, so how far are they prepared to go in denying free speech to Christians, Muslims, and Jews?….No major world religion has ever accepted homosexual behavior. And if [gay] activists had any sense of history, they’d realize their own lifestyle is a symptom of an overurbanized, relativized culture heading into decadence.”
    Thomas Jefferson revealed that in Virginia, “dismemberment” of the offensive sex organ was the penalty for sodomy, and he himself authored a bill penalyzing sodomy by castration. The same internet article, “Homosexuals in the Military” by David Barton, also stated that sodomy , homosexuality etc. were regarded as felonies in early America and were even punishable by death in New York, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Vermont!
    You GBLTs have traveled far. You are now helping to fulfill two big signs that Jesus said (in Luke 17) will characterize life on earth just before His return to it: “days of Noah” (physical violence) and “days of Lot” (your GBLT ancestors).
    Even the New York Times has expressed amazement over the suddenness and pushiness of today’s campaign for legalizing same-sex marriage, and Prof. David M. Halperin wrote that “lesbian and gay studies scholars” have led the way in fighting against policies that “criminalize gay sex or limit access to abortions.”

    I said early on that the Bible’s God is behind you GBLTs. Yes, He’s behind you and even pushing you down the dead-end road you have insisted on taking. Several scary Bible passages show that God will actually “program” those whose motto seems to be “HELL-BOUND AND HAPPY!”: “the Lord God…gave them up to desolation” (II Chron. 30:7); God “gave them up to uncleanness,” “gave them up to vile affections,” “gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:24,26,28); “God shall send them strong delusion” (II Thess. 2:11); and “he which is filthy, let him be filthy still” (Rev. 22:11).
    Now that you GBLTs have invented strange architecture (closets opening on to main streets instead of bedrooms!), have traded limp wrists for clenched fists, and are fighting for shame-sex marriage, I wonder if you will be happy when you’ve turned New York into New Yuck, Boston into Bah!-ston, and other places into Messychoose-its, Nude Hampshire, Vermin, and Cana-duh (where at least the maple leaves will be blushing!). And of course I should include Hell-A and San Fransissyco which, appropriately, are in Quake-ifornia!
    So what are you waiting for? Since you’re bent on fulfilling the predicted end-time Noah/Lot days (your way of helping to make the Bible even more believable!), and since seemingly you’d rather discover the “wrathful Judge” side of Christ instead of His “merciful and loving and forgiving” side, can’t you speed up your role and get it over with? You’re holding up the true and everlasting peace that God wants to give to the whole world!

    (You’re free to reproduce and distribute this non-copyrighted paper everywhere including the internet. You’re also free to use a different title with it, if you wish.)

  • bill byrd says:

    I hope that the people of n.c. do what’s right & VOTE 4 the Amendment 1….

  • heidi223 says:

    I have read the amendment. I also, however, know that our legal system is a very complicated and sometimes unintuitive animal. Wills, arrangements about child custody and hospital visitation rights are NOT necessarily considered contracts (this is bizarre, but so many things about our legal system and tax code are in fact bizarre). Employment agreements are considered contracts, so Amendment One would not impact the ability of private employers to offer benefits to unmarried couples. Because wills and custody agreements are not contracts, it very well might impact these things. Indeed, this is precisely why the non-partison commission in charge of explaining the amendment concluded that the full impact of the amendment will be decided by the courts.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    For your lose, prays to you

    However you bring up an issue of personal responsibility.

    “neither of us prepared ahead of time and had Wills, or Power of Attorney, or any other so called legal representation”

    Do not expect society to do for you what you should do for yourself

  • Just Some Guy says:

    For your lose, prays to you

    However you bring up an issue of personal responsibility.

    “neither of us prepared ahead of time and had Wills, or Power of Attorney, or any other so called legal representation”

    Do not expect society to do for you what you should do for yourself

  • Just Some Guy says:

    The 1st Amendment Right of Religion to associate or not associate applies to the tax payers wallet as well as the individuals belief. The Religious tax payer cannot be Forced to support against their beliefs. You would have to throw out the U.S. Constitution to eliminate that standard.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    “First, I hope that you understood that the amendment does not only ban gay marriage,”

    What it will do is prevent a repeat of what happen in California. Some town mayor (SF) taking it upon himself to declare the State Statue unconstitutional and causing to be issued same sex marriage licenses.

    It will stop activist politicians and judges from enacting measures against the will of the people.

  • GuestKitKat says:

    the marriage amendment is not based on same sex marriage! it is based on domestic partnership! which, of course, will affect so many!!!! health care is an issue! childcare is an issue! and the protection of domestic violence….. IS AN ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!

  • Hyhybt says:

    It’s one of the basic principles our system runs on, whether you acknowledge its existence (usually excused by harping on those *precise words* not appearing in the Constitution, despite the concept being very obvious and explicit) or not.

    If you value your religious liberty, you are not willing to take the same away from others. Even on points where they believe in things you don’t.

  • tired of ignorance says:

    I am so tired of the bantor adn ignorance spouted by people in ” the name of God”. first off marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, dn the US is one of the few countries in the world that interject religion into it. Secondly, what ever happend to the seperation of church and state? I respect everyone’s opinion on God and marriage, but then you must respect my right to mine adn not try to legislate your version of God down my throat.
    I really thought our country had advanced beyond this level of ignorant bantor, I guess we havent advanced as much as we thought. What group are you going to single out next to force your opinions on?

  • GuestNow says:

    Right….and if you really believe that, there’s a bridge in San Francisco I would like to sell you.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    “If you vote FOR, it STRIPS EXISTING RIGHTS AWAY from every unmarried couple,gay or straight. ”

    Not even close to the truth. Every unmarried individual still can choose to marry another consenting individual of the opposite sex.

    The only change is that some town mayor of NC cannot decide to issue same sex marriage licenses followed by some activist State Judge (Walker)forcing the State to accept SSM as happened in California.

    Moves any question to the Federal court system where matters of U.S.Constitution query’s are duly served.

  • Guest61246 says:

    Marriage has nothing to do with God. It is simply a social arrangement for the benefit of children and government to deny individuals benefits that they would get if they were single, not to mention to millions spent on divorce lawyers.

  • Guest2020 says:

    What rights are being stripped away by this amendment? The amendment clearly states that private parties can still enter into contracts with other private parties and it gives the courts the authority to adjudicate said contracts.

  • Christi says:

    Out of curiousity… to quote Dr. Baity

    “Marriage is a commandment of God, not of the legislature, not of the judiciary, not of the people,” said Baity. “It is a commandment of God and we believe that God will bless the people that will stick by, stand by and uphold his eternal word.”

    So why are we having legistaion write into our constitution anything. It’s not a legal issue, it’s a belief.

    If you vote FOR, it STRIPS EXISTING RIGHTS AWAY from every unmarried couple,gay or straight.

    If you vote AGAINST, NOTHING AT ALL CHANGES, the gays cannot all of a sudden get married, there is already a law in place banning such marriages.

  • GuestReal says:

    Are you one of those violent “Christians”? No one wants to “beat up” people like you; they just want you to leave them alone and let them live their life. Isn’t that what everyone wants?

  • GuestOpinion says:

    Amen. Christians should have spoken up long ago. Never be ashamed to voice what you believe in…even if it’s not popular. It’s still America, and we can still voice our own opinions.

  • Heidi says:

    I hope you know that Amendment One bans civil unions as well as marriage. Also, it is worth noting that Arizona voters rejected an amendment banning civil unions and then subsequently passed one that banned marriage, but allowed civil unions. If you primarily concern is about making gay marriage unconstitutional, you should vote against Amendment One and then get the legislature to approve a more narrow amendment.

  • DisGuestedly says:

    Amen. I hate it when someone wants to defend what is in the Bible and be branded a “hater”. Marriage is defined in the Bible as one man and one woman. If homosexuals want some type of civil union that offers all the same rights as marriage, fine. Just don’t try to call it marriage.

  • GuestReality says:

    Equal protection of law…OK, so what protection do they NOT have now? Don’t they already have equal protection under the law as individuals? The same equal protection that all of us have, gay or straight? What would this add? I know what it will subtract; money from my pocketbook when they start applying for all the Social Services they can get out of the system. Let’s face it; they’re in it for the benefits, which will come out of all our pockets. Everybody says no, no right now; but just wait, it will happen. And my viewpoint has nothing to do with religion; it’s just my own viewpoint.

  • Guest6858 says:

    Common, usually I agree with you but on this one we part company. I understand your trying to give an analogy and make a point, but please do not compare the Bible with the Taliban. Thank you.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    Each consenting Individual may choose another consenting individual of the opposite gender to enter “As a Pair” into Marriage.

    As A Pair Race alike are given “Equal Treatment.”
    As A Pair Gender alike are given “Equal Treatment.”
    As A Pair Ethnicity alike are given “Equal Treatment.”

    Sexual Orientation is not an immutable condition

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    …but not as a coupled entity.

    For example, while I’m a big fan of doing away with taxing income and instead taxing consumption (such as The Fair Tax), until we do that it’s wrong to afford heterosexual couples a reduced tax rate that gays or Lesbians cannot achieve through a registered domestic partnership.

    The best example of probate issues I know of is a guy who died up in Wayne County. He had specific wishes regarding his funeral and cremation, had even written down his wishes, but his long-term partner had absolutely no legal standing to bring about those wishes. The guy’s estranged daughter came in like gangbusters and his partner was frozen out completely. Nothing the guy wanted was done. He wanted to be cremated and have his ashes scattered off Beaufort, he wound up getting buried in a cemetary up in Lenoir County.

    The easiest way to solve the issue of gay rights is for the states to get OUT of the marriage business. The states/counties should register domestic partnerships, only, be they man-woman, man-man, woman-woman. People should then go see their priest, minister, rabbi, or imam to get “married.” It should be the clergy that throws you out of their office, not the clerk of the court.

    I blame two groups for this controversy: The GLBTXYZ community, for wanting to get “married,” when that’s plainly ridiculous, and the Christian Taliban who simply can’t accept that the Bible is secondary to the Constitution when we discuss the rights of citizenship.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    I’m comparing those who choose to ignore the Constitution because of the Bible with the Taliban.

    This isn’t rocket science – the most effeminate queen or frightening butch you can dig up downtown is entitled to every single right as a citizen that you or I are entitled to.

    Do I appreciate or encourage their lifestyle? No. The Bible is quite clear regarding God’s view of homosexuality. Our country, however, is not governed by the Bible. We are governed by the Constitution and sinners are protected by that Constitution. people have a right to sin.

  • GuestReality says:

    And my viewpoint is that they SHOULDN’T have it as a coupled entity, only as individuals.

    To Christians, the Bible should never be secondary to the Constitution or anything else. To us, the Bible is the Word of God and will always come first.

  • Erlkoenig says:

    Commonsense, again you document your ignorance of American history. We are a nation very much founded on Christian principles. And to compare us to the Taliban is just pathetic. Please site the exact reference in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to stop states from protecting traditional marriage.

  • Office Fan says:

    He is making a perfectly valid comparison. The Taliban believe in Sharia law, where laws are based on the teachings of the Quran. All the right wingers are clamoring for this Amendment because they want marriage to be defined solely by what is written in the Bible. Plain and simple, they want everyone in this state to live by laws based on the Bible. Sure sounds like a step towards Sharia Law to me. Common is right, you are no better than the Taliban when you try to institute religious-based laws and force everyone to live by your Bible.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    “This amendment insures that we will be denying gays and Lesbians rights that heterosexual married couples retain.”

    You make the assumption that heterosexual couples have a right to marriage.
    Marriage itself may be a civil right but those that approach this right must meet the qualifying condition that society has set.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    Let’s go over this again for the slow ones. The amendment doesn’t only address marriage. It addresses rights and privileges that we give married couples but want to permanently deny to gays and Lesbians.

    I’ve been married and I thing gays and lesbians are NUTS to even want to get married! I’ve stated numerous times that I’m totally opposed to letting them “marry.” A marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Gays and Lesbian couples do, however, have a legitimate right to ANYTHING the government grants to married heterosexual couples, to include equal tax treatment and probate rights.

    If the term “equal protection of law” confuses you, then you will simply never understand why many conservatives are opposed to this law. It simply goes too far. It codifies some perceived inferiority and second class status to citizens of the Unites States based upon their sexual preference….

    …and that’s wrong.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    Society sets the laws for marriage, and when you bar someone from getting married, you have to find another way to insure that they enjoy all rights married people enjoy.

    A man and a woman shacked up cannot file a joint tax return, but they can get married and file a joint tax return if they want to.

    Two gay guys who are shacked up cannot file a joint tax return under any circumstance and by law, have no option for correcting that.

    That’s a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A gay man should have every single right you have. You may look down on his lifestyle, you may be disgusted by his actions, he may offend every single aspect of your basic core and religious values, but he’s a citizen of the United States and deserves to be treated as such.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    “cannot file a joint tax return,”

    Is no “right” to pay taxes, paying taxes denies the individual to keep the product of their labours, if you want to go there.
    However no one is stopping you from filling out the form and sending it in.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    You have absolutely no right to impose YOUR religious beliefs upon others and deny their rights in the process, Mohammed.

    It’s a shame you can’t behead them, huh?

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    Every state is bound to provide every citizen EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW.

    This amendment insures that we will be denying gays and Lesbians rights that heterosexual married couples retain. If you don’t want them to marry, fine. If you tell them that they are inelegible rights relative to taxation and probate, then I have to step over and join their side. You see, I HAVE read the Constitution.

    We have the Bible and we have a Constitution. Try not to mix them up. When you try to govern by the Bible you’re no better than the Taliban.

  • Wade Griffis says:

    How few people sign their own names to these posts. I would not ever state anything on here that I would not be willing to debate with you down at Java Dog.

    You might win the debate. After all, I am an old man and my brain is not as fast as it used to be. I always put my name on there.

    How about you?

  • Just Some Guy says:

    “Correction”
    If you want to follow California and have the homosexual lifestyle taught in your public school system with you as the parent having “NO” right to OPT-OUT of such teachings then vote No.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    If you think this amendment is going to stop the propaganda war, you’re being very naive. They are going to push their agenda regardless, because nothing in this amendment will stop them.

    If anything, its passage is going to whip them into a frenzy.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    “If anything, its passage is going to whip them into a frenzy.”

    Yes, then the true colour of the homosexual cause will show itself

  • GuestHfbbd says:

    ‘Marriage’ is the union of two human beings.
    ‘Other’ is anything else.

    Pretty simple, isn’t it?

  • where does it end says:

    So where does it end then?? Why do some think it’s okay for same sex people to marry but bigamy is not okay. Slippery slope I say. The States have to draw a line as to what is a “marriage” and once you open the door to all manner of “other” it’s hard to close it.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    “Because state supports religious marriage and because those communities have a place in defining public policy,” “it is imperative that religious liberty claims be considered.

    ‘Marriage’ is the union of two consenting individuals of opposite gender.

    Pretty simple, isn’t it?

  • Guest 10101 says:

    ‘Marriage’ is the union of a man and a woman.
    Anything else is ‘Other’

    Pretty simple, isn’t it?

  • Guest2020 says:

    You act as if we are the only state to take this kind of measure. You are right in that North Carolina already prohibits same-sex “marriage”. This amendment just cements it so that the federal government cannot override the state. I don’t think that prohibiting same-sex “marriage” will affect businesses being here. There are plenty of straight people in the state who are qualified to work.

  • John Bartlett says:

    This amendment is a disgrace the state of North Carolina. It serves NO purpose other than to put this state up to national ridicule. Some of us have to work in this state and when companies start looking at alternative states for their headquarters, then I have a big problem. The fact is, I don’t care who does or does NOT get married, but I do care about keeping my job and keeping business in North Carolina. We have enough economic problems in this state without bring more on ourselves through sheer stupidity. Same sex marriage is NOT legal in North Carolina NOW, so why antagonize the entire country and major corporations by voting an amendment into law that does NO good and likely will harm people. If you care anything about business and jobs in this state, then vote NO on this idiotic amendment.

  • GuestReality says:

    You listen to too much propaganda.

  • heidi says:

    The non-partison state convention charged with explaining the Amendment said that the bill very well might affect custody arrangement, depending on how judges interpret it.

    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.

    See http://www.harnett.org/elections/offical-explanation-of-amendment-one.asp

  • Guest2020 says:

    Jennifer Scott is wrong. The amendment does not in any way affect custody arrangements. In fact, it completely protects those kinds of agreements. Don’t take anyone’s word for what the amendment says. Read it for yourself.

  • heidi223 says:

    Yes, 30 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. But far fewer states have amendments banning civil unions and domestic partnerships. Indeed, if Amendment One passes, North Carolina will grant fewer rights to non-married couples than Mississippi. Do we really think that being less tolerant than Mississippi is going to attract businesses and tourists to our state?

  • GuestReal says:

    Marriage started as civil unions and the only part the church had in it originally, was saying a prayer. In NC common law marriage was legal until the 1950’s and all that is, is people shacking up for 7 years and then saying they were married. You could also jump over a broomstick and you were married. Where is the religion in those rites?
    Everybody knows this is another non-issue smokescreen by the the religious Right hoping to divert the public’s scrutiny of the real issues. Everyone should mind their own business. If you think your marriage is compromised by letting same sex people get married then you don’t have much of a marriage anyway.

  • GuestWondering says:

    So, does that mean that you are another non-issue smokescreen by the non-religious Left hoping to divert the public’s scrutiny of the real issues? Just wondering….

  • Wade Griffis says:

    I am pretty sure that I am straight. Last time I checked anyway. I was also, last time I checked 73 years old. It would not matter much whether I was gay or straight. . At my age, the main reason for going to bed is to get a good nights sleep.

    “Howsomever ” I do not see how it is anybody’s business what any two people do to each other in privacy as long as both are willing.

    NC already has a law against gay marriage. This is much ado about nothing. I do not care about your politics. Let me give you a short list of things that do matter: 1. The climate is warming. It is undeniable to all sane people. 2. Crime continues. There are not enough prisons to hold all the bad guys. 3. The parole system obviously does not work. The same bad people end up right back on the street. 4. Most of this crime is drug related and would not exist if Yuppies were notout there every night buying the stuff.

    Have a good day!!

  • Guest28470 says:

    It’s nice to hear someone with some actual common sense. Gay’s being allowed to marry affects no one but them. And just because some find it offensive, does not mean it should be illegal. I find people shoving the bible down my throat offensive, but I don’t think it should be illegal. If marriage was strictly a religous union, then you would have to get married in a church, and we all know that is not the case. Bottom line, this is a BAD Ammendment, and if it doesn’t pass, that won’t make gay marriage legal, but if it passes, it will surely take away alot of rights, whether or not your gay or straight.

  • Guest7969 says:

    a like me wanting people to mind their own business that are trying to get prayer banned everywhere and crosses taken out of site…the time to sit back and get beaten up for being a Christian is OVER…

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    I’d have no hesitation about voting for it. Marriage IS between a man and a woman and political correctness cannot re-define words.

    Unfortunately, this amendment goes far beyond banning gay marriage and basically says that gays and Lesbians are not entitled to the same legal rights that you or I enjoy relative to taxes and probate.

    If you truly respect the work of our Founding Fathers, if you believe in the Constitution, please vote “No” on this amendment.

  • Phyllis Guberman says:

    First, this amendment is unnecessary as we already have a law against gay marriage in NC. Second, this law affects many unmarried couples who are NOT gay. It can negate health insurance protection, child care provisions, medical emergency decisions, domestic violence protections, just to name a few “unintended” consequences that will result from passing this amendment. I am a happily married heterosexual person whose marriage does not need “protection” from gay people!

  • Erlkoenig says:

    If you know the Constitution you will know this is a state’s rights issue and perfectly constitutional. If NC wants to prevent the sactioning of perversion it can. Commonsense, read the document; educate yourself.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    If you want to follow California and have the homosexual lifestyle taught in your public school system with you as the parent the right to OPT-OUT of such teachings then vote No.
    if you feel that the sexual upbringing of your child is best served based upon your values then Vote yes for this amendment.

    The red herring diversion of what may happen when this amendment passes is just that, nonsense diversion. None of the States that have passed similar measures have experienced the scare tactics used by the homosexual agenda.

  • Guest1946 says:

    This is a very dangerous amendment. Not only does it have far-reaching effects which will not be known by many until it it passed, but it is just more intrusion by the government into our lives. Voting “NO” is not a religious matter, it is a common sense one. It is none of the government’s business who we see, who we live with, interact with or marry.

  • Guest555555 says:

    Please explain why it is dangerous and what far reaching effects you are referring to. Please be more specific instead of generalizing. It will help us to make a decision.

  • Just Some Guy says:

    As California has shown, from Civil union to Marriage is but a court case away.
    Voting Yes takes the issue out of the State court system. Also prevents the Homosexual agenda from “buying” your elected officials vote.
    It is your First Amendment right to define marriage as 1 man 1 woman. It is yours and your neighbours money that supports 1 man 1 woman marriage and the children’s upbringing free from teachings that ALL sexual orientations are allowable to explore, regardless of risk.

  • Dios says:

    Once you realize that your values belong only to 1 person (YOU!) then you will be a much happier person and benefit to society.

    Supporters – see definition below.

    prej·u·dice 
    noun
    1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
    2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
    3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group

  • Guest555555 says:

    Bitness? Learn to speak English and then we’ll talk. In the meantime, it doesn’t mean someone is prejudiced just because they disagree with you. It just means they disagree. In THIS country, we’re still allowed to have an opposite viewpoint. I’m sure that’s discouraged where you come from. By the way, you’re far from being “Dios” (God).

    These values of which you speak don’t belong to just one person (me). They belong to many, many people. But down the road, I can eventually see many, many “partners” dipping into my pocketbook if their “marriages” fail through Social Services (Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) There’s far too much of that already. I also think numbers 1, 2 and 3 of your definition can be applied to you also. You don’t seem to have a good opinion or “favorable opinion” of anyone who disagrees with you.

    Adios, muchacho.

Leave a Reply