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

The definition of marriage could be re-written so same sex unions won't be recognized

READ MORE: The definition of marriage could be re-written so same sex unions won't be recognized
A bill moving through the state legislature would define marriage. The bill ultimately states that any marriage other than that between a man and a woman will not be recognized in the state of North Carolina. Some people say this is discrimination. "I don't think I've ever met anyone who makes me feel the way he makes me feel. It's like my cup of life was full, then it ran over when I met him." Woody and his partner, Jacob Lewis, met a year ago. The men say their love for each other will never be defined by the law, but some republican lawmakers want an amendment in the state constitution, that would define marriage solely as being between and man and a woman. The bills in the house and senate are called "Defense of Marriage" bills. Senator Julia Boseman, the state's first openly gay legislator, wants lawmakers to focus on fixing the economy instead of reiterating something that is already written as law. "I think the laws in North Carolina are very clear. It's very clear how marriage is defined,” Boseman said. Representative Bonner Stiller supports the bill. "A definition of marriage is a biblical term, and it was created by god, and I’m not in charge of changing any rules that god has made, it's just that simple for me." Woody and Jacob say they don't need paperwork to define their relationship; they plan on showing their commitment to each other in front of their family and friends in July. St. Jude's Community Church offers holy unions between homosexual couples, although North Carolina state law still does not recognize it. "It's a celebration of love, and it's to be able to stand in front of the family and friends that we have created here in Wilmington and show our love to each other and be able to celebrate and rejoice that,” said Jacob Lewis. If the bill passes, a proposed constitutional amendment redefining marriage would be on the ballot for November’s election.

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.




To me gay marriage is no

To me gay marriage is no different than the majority of heterosexual marriages out there. Are the individuals who enter into marriage without thought or consideration, the same individuals who's foolish decisions we have to thank for our 50% + divorce rate in America, any different from homosexual couples? If you base your decision of whether or not to support gay marriage on any sort of religious basis, you might want to consider that. Personally, I believe that the true value of marriage is found when considered from a faith standpoint. I could care less about legal documents or tax cuts or any other benefit resulting from technical marriage. Any marriage without God as the third partner is a sin, gay or otherwise. Sin is sin... gay or straight... it makes no difference. So instead of persecuting the homosexual community, why don't we take a look around at all the mail order bride marriages or those military couples who get hitched for the pay increase while under deployment or those drunken Vegas mishap marriages... believe it or not these dont make God too happy either, at least that's the way I see it....

Y does it matter, what you

Y does it matter, what you do is what you do. it was not long ago that they said that a white and black should not get married. So who cares what they are and who are you to tell someone else what they can and can not do.

same sex unions won't be recognized


Some quotes of interest.

While I still stand behind the point that the First Amendment prohibits the legal system from respecting any one religion over another, here are a few quotes I came across in doing some other time wasting... er... playing around on the internet. ""The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -John Adams, Second President of the United States, Treaty of Tripoli, June 10, 1797" Hmmmmm... So much for the Representative's claims. Here is one place that references the "seperation of church and state" that many believe was actually in the Constitution: "“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” -Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States, January 1, 1802" Prove or disprove "God"? Try this: ""We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very, very improbable." -Professor Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist" In regards to claiming that legal marriage and religious marriage are one and the same, in violation of the First Amendment, and arguing that legal marriage being defined to include homosexuals would result in a negative economic impact, I argue that defining law by religious terms will grant me the following: ""Every taxpayer can claim a personal constitutional right not to be taxed for the support of a religious institution." -U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stewart" Andrew

Other quotes of interest

"If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed." Patrick Henry "That Book (the Bible) is the rock on which our Republic rests." Andrew Jackson "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man." Abraham Lincoln "The existence of the Bible is a book for the people. It's the greatest benefit the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity." Immanuel Kant "The secret of my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible." George Washington Carver "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." - Samuel Adams, 1776 (at the signing of the Declaration of Independence)

the economy

is in the crapper; unemployment is on the rise. More posts are made over some irrelevant topic which has no bearing on whether unemployed folks facing foreclosure have any hope of relief from Washington or Raleigh. Why not focus on some of the really important issues facing our society and economy than over some bill that Senator Boseman will find some way to nip in the bud.


Contrary to your beliefs, this is a very important issue. "More posts are made over some irrelevant topic which has no bearing on whether unemployed folks facing foreclosure have any hope of relief from Washington or Raleigh." - SurfCityTom I thought you right-wingers didn't want the government in your lives

I don't.

I don't.

What it comes down to is

What it comes down to is this. No where in the US Constitution is anyone guaranteed the right to marry. The Federal Government decided when it was formed to leave laws concerning marriage to the states. The founding fathers had more important things on their mind than the citizens' love lives. We elect lawmakers and they make the laws. Majority rules in both houses of government. If the lawmakers choose to write laws based on their personal religious beliefs, that is the way it is. If the majority agrees to the proposals, whether also on their religious beliefs or a based on the opinions of their constituents, then it becomes the law. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee any rights or freedoms to citizens based on their sexual orientation. Even if the state were to recognize gay marriage, the Federal Government does not and any other state is not required to recognize it either. So, if their main reason as has been noted here is to be able to get on insurance policies and get the tax status, then you are only talking about a married status as far as NC taxes are concerned. They would still have to file separately on a Federal level. As far as the insurance is concerned, 18% of businesses in the US that offer insurance to their employees recognize domestic partnerships. If ordered to do so, I see many many years of lawsuits.

Again with the smoke screens.

The US Constitution clearly states that NO law may be written that grants respect to one religion over another. Marriage, under the law and written as law, is, therefore, written to be NEUTRAL to religious beliefs. The Constitutions doesn't state marriage as a Right. HOWEVER, the Constitution DOES state that no LAW, and marriage is that when referring to that as a legal contract, shall be written which repects one religion over another. To argue that the Bill of Rights does not gaurantee Rights to individuals based on sexuality is to argue that the Bill of Rights should not grant Rights to individuals based on race, gender, various religious or non-religious beliefs, or other groups which can be segreated in a manner in which one individual can declare a superiority, realistically or not, rationally or not, over another individual. Your argument has not been proven whatsoever. The Bill of Rights does protect the Rights of ALL citizens. At least that is how it is written. It is, however, true that there are known Anti-US Constitutionalists who have been in power that have been subverting the US Constitution in an effort to create an illegal Theological Dictatorship. While we should be worried about foreign terrorists, we should be even more concerned with the domestic terrorists who have clearly betrayed the US Constitution, such as those who wish to create Theological Dictatorships in the US. Andrew

I clicked on your name and

I clicked on your name and went to you url. I read your profile. You have no degree and no education in law, history, US Government, etc. You have your opinion of what the US Constitution is and is not supposed to provide for and guarantee the citizens of this country. Do you really think that the founding fathers ever considered marriage for a group of people who practice a sexual deviation as far as sexual intercourse is concerned and as a matter of fact were considered to be mentally ill? They gave so little thought to the issue of marriage that they did not consider it to be a Federal level issue and they relegated control to the individual states. This is a lifestyle whereby the primary sexual contact involved in the practice constitutes a Class A felony under NC law, punishable by up to ten years in prison if they chose to enforce it. You use the religion aspect to argue your point. There are many people who do not agree with homosexual marriage and their opinion has no basis in religion. It is just their opinion, like it is just your opinion. The religions who have the objections are very vocal in their view and the politicians I'm sure do listen. You are so down on religion, but apparently a church is going to hold a ceremony for the gay couple featured on the news. That in itself nullifies your religion argument. Just because Bonner makes it a religious issue for himself does not mean that everyone who votes yay on the proposal will do it from a religious standpoint. Your profile and your comments on various other sites leads me to think that you have had some issue with religion and also with the government, possibly in reference to not drawing enough disability. Whatever your issues are on either subject do not change the fact that marriage for homosexuals is not an unalienable right under the US Constitution. The fact of the matter is that we live in a country where rules and laws are enacted by majority vote. Their basis for their personal opinion does not matter. If they propose the law and it is voted on yes on by a majority, that is the only issue. As far as the Bill of Rights, there is no way you can equate discrimination against minority races or against gender as opposed to what sexual partner or position someone prefers. Would you prefer it if the lawmakers proposed the bill without the religious reference? After all, NC law already makes gay marriage illegal, so it is really a moot point. You should come on over to the college and let a professor explain Constitutional Law to you. You are convinced that the Constitution guarantees it and it does not.

Has anyone read...

..the US Constituion (obviously Bonner hasn't) "A definition of marriage is a biblical term, and it was created by god, and I’m not in charge of changing any rules that god has made, it's just that simple for me." While that's all well and good for Bonner, that doesn't mean that the laws of the bible/God should be imposed on everyone else. That's a pretty flagrant violation of seperation of church and state.

True meaning of separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state is often misconceived. Its is meant to keep the government from controlling the church, not keep religion out of the government. Anyone that says the gay marriage issue is a violation of the separation of church and state really needs a history lesson. The country was founded upon christian values, that cannot be argued. As far as the economy, it is our greed and e moral ways that have gotten us into this mess. If everyone was to uphold christian values, whether religious or not, the country would be in better shape.

I've read the US

I've read the US Constitution. Where Bonner should not have proposed it in the manner he did, tell me in which article of the Constitution does it guarantee the right for homosexuals to marry?


Where does it say it doesn't? It grants ALL citizens equality.

But it also left the making

But it also left the making of laws concerning marriage to the states. And if the state has a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman and it was voted by majority rule, then that is the law. It doesn't matter what the reasoning behind it is. We elect our lawmakers to vote in the same manner we probably would. That is how they remain in office. The Bill of Rights grants all citizens equality based on religion, gender, race, etc, but it does not guarantee them equality based on the gender of sexual partner nor the positions they prefer. Look at the states that at one time imposed the death sentence for sodomy, even when it was consensual and especially if it involved two people of the same sex. It was not so long ago, even though the laws are not actively enforced. Legalizing gay marriage could actually result in a loss of Freedom of Religion, which is guaranteed. The minute it was legalized in CA, one couple filed a federal lawsuit claiming discrimination because it was against the religious beliefs of a certain church and they refused to marry the couple. That is an expressed right, where the right to marry a person of the same sex is not. While I cannot imagine someone actually wanting to be married in a church that was forced to perform the ceremoney and it was clearly a publicity ploy, it did result in a ruling reaffirming the right of the church to refuse based on the First Amendment, where the homosexual couple suing had no such protection. I think the main issue more than it being a religious one is that society in itself is just not ready to make the leap from what was (and still is in some states) considered a sex crime to elevating it to the state of marriage. Forced social change rarely benefits anyone. It is clear from the poll results on this site that it is still only about 1/4th of the general population that supports it. When the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996 by Clinton, only 17% of the total lawmakers involved between the two Houses opposed the Act. Assuming that they opposed it because they would accept gay marriage, a sampling from 17% to 25% 13 years later is not much of a gain in support of gay marriage. While that is not a scientific poll by any means, it is a reasonable yardstick for measuring acceptance. It is simply not there, and in our present form of government, majority rules.

Gay Marriage ... What's the big deal?

I don't see the big deal about gay marriage. I was raised in the church my entire childhood, and the only thing I learned is that the "church" is full of hypocrites. The "Golden Rule" in the Bible is "Love your neighbour as thy self." This rule does not a have disclaimer at the bottom saying, only applicable to heterosexuals. If you are a so- called "Christian," who gives you the right to enforce "God's Law?" Let people make their own choices in life. Just because they do not adhere to the social norm does not justify persecution. If you believe in heaven and what not; I would be more concerned about answering to the "Big Man" about your own little screw-ups and not your neighbours. I think homosexual couples should be granted the same rights as any other couples under the law of the United States of America. However, if a gay couple wants to be married in a church, well, that is a church matter not a government matter. Hello! Use the Separation of Church and State as a tool and not a ball and chain.


Gay marrage, what a pain in the butt.

Gay marriage

I would rather see two gay people get married than listen to all these people rant and rave about there holy bible. The bible offends me more than any reltionship possibly could. So please keep your bibles to your selves and out of OUR government, and let the government make deccisions for people the way there supposed to... Equally.

Gay Marriage

In reply to guest 12456 How can you say the Bible offends yous?!? It is the one book that has nothing but truth in it. How can you not believe in the Bible and our Dear Heavenly Father and yet look around at all the beauty He has created. How can you seperate the Bible and the government or anything else. When the Bible was in our government and schools there was a lot less trouble, have you ever been to churh? Please be my guest and go Sunday morning, you need and mean while I shall be praying for you.

With all due respect

With all due respect it has been the majority choice of most americans to remove the Bible from there homes, families, workplaces, lifestyles, schools, and places of recreation. It is by these choices made that our families, homes, workplaces, schools, and places of recreation are suffering. As everything goes this view is also debatable. The outline for successful living lies within the confines of the Kings James version of the Holy Bible, yet we have chosen other paths and ways of living. What has been the cost of these decisions? As much as I disagree with Homosexuality, drinking, drug abuse, etc., I to was a sinner and it was the love of God that saved me. My judgement is not going to change or save anyone, God's judgement is not going to save anyone, It's God's love that save me and it will be God's love that saves the homosexual if it is accepted. It's God's love that can change the homosexual not my judgement but it's God's judgement that will condem the homosexual. I pray that God's will be done and good choices be made because whether your'e a Christian or a NonChristian, we all live with the consequences, I just have the Hope and Assurance of a better tommorrow. May God Bless You, Heath


It's MY government too. Last time I looked, I had freedom of speech. Last I heard, there were thousands upon thousands of soldiers who fought and died for my right to do so. If I want to express my views on this forum and they start sounding too "biblical" and you don't like it, then skip it. Similar to changing the remote to another channel. As to your comment "let the government make deccisions for people the way there supposed to... Equally"...what planet are you from?

Adding to prior comments.

In addition to my comments made in other articles, including these two: The Representative has openly admitted his support for this bill is based on the attempt to force his own personal religious beliefs on other citizens who do not share his religious beliefs, in clear violation of the US Constitution. "Representative Bonner Stiller supports the bill. "A definition of marriage is a biblical term, and it was created by god, and I’m not in charge of changing any rules that god has made, it's just that simple for me."" As such, he has admitted being a Traitor to the US Constitution, the US, and the citizens of the US, even though he is a state representative. His actions clearly are an attempt to subvert the US Constitution to create a Theological Dictatorship in the US. An act which is clearly criminal under Federal law. As such, his actions will be reported to Federal authorities and a demand for his immediate arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing on charges of Treason under the subversive clause of the Federal code will be made. It's time that acts such as the attempts to violate and subvert the US Constitution and create an illegal Theological Dictatorship in the US be punished. Again, this isn't about his personal beliefs and his desire to follow those beliefs for himself. This is about his clear acts to force and dictate those beliefs to others, in violation of the US Constitution. Andrew

Have you noticed there are no gay animals

Humans are the only beings to who violate the basic laws of nature, we are supposed to be more advanced. I have never witnessed a gay animal couple or heard of anyone seeing a gay animal. If all the animals were gay they would be extinct due to lack of reproduction. Being gay is not a natural thing-it's an individual decision and should not be forced upon government. Bonner Stiller has my vote.

No gay animals....not true

There is same sex copulation in all animal species, and especially in seagulls where almost all of the females are lesbians....some animals will hump anything just like some please make sure you know what you are talking about before you make yourself look like an ass....also the bonobos are having sex with everyone in the group....they are one of our closest primate relatives.

Do you?

"Being gay is not a natural thing-it's an individual decision" - guest28451 Do you choose to be straight?

I never had a desire to be

I never had a desire to be gay.I was born a "normal" heterosexual. I do not choose to be gay AND I BELIEVE BEING GAY IS A MENTAL ILLNESS. It sounds like there are a few people around here who spend too much time researching gay animals.I have yet to see one gay animal, bird, fish, insect..... Sounds like an animal cruelty investigation should be done. Anyway,I hope this comes up on the ballot so we all can vote on it.


Wow, you made that easy. "I never had a desire to be gay.I was born a "normal" heterosexual." - Guest28451 You were born heterosexual,it was not a choice like you said, just like some are BORN homosexual.

Yes a matter of fact, I do.