Poll: Half of NC adults oppose marriage amendment

RALEIGH -- About half of North Carolina adults oppose a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, as the state continues to separate itself from its Southern peers. An Elon University poll released Monday found that 50.4 percent of respondents oppose or strongly oppose such an amendment. More than 43 percent of those in the survey said they would support or strongly support it. Voters in every Southern state except North Carolina have approved state constitutional amendments restricting marriage to a union between one man and one woman. Democratic leaders in North Carolina argue that state law already prohibits gay marriage, but supporters say an amendment would provide stronger protections for traditional marriage. The Elon poll surveyed 620 North Carolina residents from March 15 to March 19. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. (Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

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.

don't hate appreciate... Gays are ppl to
Oh please! They are sinners! Sick Sinners!!! How can they even believe in God, when they are sinners and preach it to others! They need to be locked up or in the hospital. This kind of evil should come to an end once and for all !!
I'm a 32 year old straight male who went to college here in Wilmington. I can say with impunity that a vast majority of the people I went to college with are fine with gay marriage. In fact in four years I met at the most two people who opposed it when it came up in conversation and those two people were force fed religion from birth. Why shouldn’t two human beings be afforded the same rights as anyone else? Well, hardly anyone seems to mind if they are afforded the right to grow up and think for themselves. The reason why half the state has a problem with gay marriage is religion. If anything should be banned, its religion in all public places and the government should have mandatory classes for children from an early age to deprogram them so they can think for themselves. Believing in the supernatural has warped the ignorant's minds. It's all made by man to make you feel better about life and it was originally developed by kings to exert control. Now those people who are afraid to think for themselves use it for the same thing in modern times. Even if you older religious fanatics brainwash your kids with fear, bigotry and mysticism, over time as society advances it will fade out in advance cultures. Just look at how many people are religious now compared to 100 years ago or even ten. The world is getting smarter and with intelligence comes the exit of arcane beliefs like religion and the idea that marriage is something holy.
God clearly and unmistakably shows in Romans that those who practice homosexuality and lesbianism are worthy of death. They shall surely perish unless they repent. It is written: Ro 1:18-32-FOR THE WRATH OF GOD IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN AGAINST ALL UNGODLINESS AND UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (or wickedness) OF MEN, WHO HOLD (or suppress) THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (or by their wickedness); BECAUSE THAT WHICH MAY BE KNOWN (ABOUT) GOD IS MANIFEST IN (or plain to) THEM; FOR GOD HATH SHEWED (or made) IT UNTO THEM. FOR THE INVISIBLE THINGS OF HIM FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD ARE CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE, EVEN HIS ETERNAL POWER AND GODHEAD (or divine nature); SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE: BECAUSE THAT, WHEN THEY KNEW GOD, THEY (NEITHER GLORIFIED HIM) AS GOD, NEITHER WERE THANKFUL; BUT BECAME VAIN (or futile) IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS (or thinking), AND THEIR FOOLISH HEART WAS DARKENED. (ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIMED) TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS, AND CHANGED THE GLORY OF THE UNCORRUPTIBLE (or immortal) GOD INTO AN IMAGE (to look like) CORRUPTIBLE MAN, AND TO BIRDS, AND (ANIMALS AND REPTILES). WHEREFORE GOD ALSO GAVE THEM (OVER) TO (SINFUL DESIRES) THROUGH THE LUSTS (or sexual impurity) OF THEIR OWN HEARTS, TO DISHONOUR THEIR OWN BODIES BETWEEN THEMSELVES (or for the degrading of their bodies with one another-NIV): 25-(THEY) CHANGED THE TRUTH OF GOD INTO A LIE, AND WORSHIPPED AND SERVED THE CREATURE (or created things) (RATHER) THAN THE CREATOR, WHO IS BLESSED FOR EVER. AMEN. FOR THIS CAUSE GOD GAVE THEM UP UNTO VILE AFFECTIONS (or shameful lusts): FOR EVEN THEIR WOMEN DID CHANGE THE NATURAL USE INTO THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE (or their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones-NIV): The women became lesbians. AND (IN THE SAME WAY) THE MEN, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN (or the men also abandoned natural relations with women-NIV), BURNED IN THEIR LUST (or were inflamed with lust) ONE TOWARD ANOTHER; MEN (COMMITTED INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN-NIV), AND RECEIVING IN THEMSELVES (THE DUE PENALTY FOR THEIR PERVERSION-NIV). AND EVEN AS THEY DID NOT (THINK IT WORTHWHILE) TO RETAIN (THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD), GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE (or depraved) MIND, TO DO (WHAT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE-NIV); BEING FILLED WITH ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (or every kind of wickedness), FORNICATION, WICKEDNESS, COVETOUSNESS, MALICIOUSNESS; FULL OF ENVY, MURDER, DEBATE, DECEIT, MALIGNITY; WHISPERERS (or gossips), 30-BACKBITERS (or slanderers), HATERS OF GOD, DESPITEFUL, PROUD (or arrogant), BOASTERS, (THEY INVENT WAYS OF DOING EVIL-NIV), (THEY DISOBEY THEIR PARENTS-NIV), WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING (or senseless), COVENANTBREAKERS (or faithless), WITHOUT NATURAL AFFECTION (or homosexual), IMPLACABLE (or heartless), UNMERCIFUL (or ruthless): WHO KNOWING THE JUDGMENT OF GOD (or although they know God’s righteous decree-NIV), THAT THEY WHICH COMMIT SUCH THINGS ARE WORTHY OF (or deserve) DEATH, (THEY NOT ONLY CONTINUE TO DO THESE THINGS BUT ALSO-NIV) HAVE PLEASURE IN THEM (or also approve of those who practice-NIV) THEM.
Amen to that!! I cant believe all the ppl who dont believe or ppl who think religion is the problem.. I know one thing, my child WILL grow up going to church and knowing the Lord!! And anyone who opposes can kiss it!! And if they try to start teaching some liberal/socialists class at her school that is against our beliefs, then i will get a 2nd job and send her to Private Christian School!!
Had the truth be known, and the count accurate.. Most likele well more than half of NC would oppose gay marriage. God made Adam and Eve.. not Adam and Steve... If you do not like the NC laws, move to San Francisco where you will be welcomed without prejudice and with open arms. Leave our great state alone.. Poor Jesse Helms must be rolling over in his grave by now.
Poor Steve. If God didn't make him, who did?
God made Steve. He just didnt make him to be with Adam!!!!!..
Well if you don't like the fact that as Americans we have equal rights then why don't you move. An American not having equal rights in America is ... Why UN-American of course. Also if god didn't create Steve, where did Steve come from? Is there another God? We can only hope that Jesse IS spinning like a top burning in hell. I don't think Jesus would hang out with racist segregationist.
If God created Adam and Eve, then most people have already married their siblings by the bibles standards. Oh No! What are all going to do NOW????????
That is normal in the south anyway
Like it or not, homosexuals should be entitled to the same legal rights and protections as heterosexuals. Since you're re-inventing the word "marriage" if you include homosexuals, the government needs to register domestic partnerships only for hetero- and homosexuals. We live in a secular society....and who is the government to "license" your marriage in the first place? Why do we tolerate that kind of crap? As far as your priest, rabbi, or minister "marrying you," get real. Men and woman marry, not two men nor two women. The Constitution is quite clear in its demand for equal treatment under law. The Bible, Torah, and Koran are also quite clear in their teachings. You can't have it both ways, people. Yes, you deserve equal rights under law, but if you're expecting major relions to tell you that God changed his mind, or that they made a mistake in their teachings, you've got a long wait. Many. many people are simply not going to accept the elevation of what is nothing more than a simple sexual abnormality to a blessed lifestyle.
That's at least a NEUTRAL policy when it comes to US Constitutional law. Either the law recognizes marriage as a contract and sets policy regarding it, or it eliminates it altogether. The laws regarding polygamy only apply when an individual attempts to legally (as opposed to religious tradition) marry and have it documented and attempt to use the multiple unions for benefits and such. To my knowledge, an individual who chooses to have multiple spouse marriages under religious tradition only, not sign legal marriage contracts, is not a crime. Though many zealot politicians and authority figures have attempted to step in a decide that religious ceremonies are governed by law (see various issues with the FLDS and other Mormon groups for example). THAT should be considered unconstitutional. Either legal marriage includes all forms of marriage that involve legally consenting parties, or it doesn't recognize ANY. As to the religiou definition of marriage, every form of religious text has various interpretation and even modification that it goes through. Clearly, various religious sects view the translations differently as there ARE some, even accepted sects of accepted major religions, that have a different view than your definition. While at the religious level you are free to practice your version of your belief, so are those who have a differing view. Some may view the beliefs you follow to be the abnormality, the abomination, the immoral view. While you may feel your's is the morally superior, so they believe their's is the morally superior. There is no real referee. Even the Vatican has changed its views on a variety of issues. Many times, it depends on the personal views of the existing Pope, not the actual interpretations of the religious text. I don't expect, nor care, if major religions follow the NEUTRAL aspects that the US Constitution provides. Again, it's two seperate systems. One is what should be the NEUTRAL legal system defined by the US Cosntitution that recognizes the massive diversity of the citizenship which the law is supposed to protect. The other is the religious tradition which is limited to specific religions, religious sects, and specific beliefs. Any religion demanding that their religious tradition be recognized as the legal version violates the Rights of all those who do not share those beliefs, thereby violating US Constitutional law. You're welcome to your beliefs. I'm welcome to disagree with those beliefs. You're welcome to celebrate your beliefs. I'm welcome to not celebrate your beliefs. But neither of us have the Right to DICTATE what the other believes or follows. The US Constitution says we are Free to follow what our own beliefs decide, so long as it doesn't violate another individual's Rights. You haven't proven that someone else having their marriage recognized under the NEUTRAL legal system violates YOUR Rights in that capacity. No where has anyone been forced to change their beliefs. No where has anyone's church been forced, by law, to have a religious traditional marriage (and if they have, through law, then their Rights have been violated). Believe what you want, follow the traditions you want. I'll do the same. And I'll defend BOTH our Rights to do so under the US Constitution. That doesn't mean we have to like the way the other does things. Just so long as we are Free to do so. Andrew
Sorry, but the bible has been around much longer than the US Constitution. I guess you have to decide if you want to live by the laws of man or the laws of God. Personally, I'll take my chances believing in the bible. If you look around you, you will see what the laws of man have brought to us.
Yes, the Constitution has only been around for a little over 200 years and look at how it has been manipulated. It amazes me that educated Christians refuse to honesty look at the history of the Bible. The Old Testament is basically good Jewish literature written to control and manipulate the masses, both for the riches of the church (or the government, because, isn't that really what it was) and to create a civil society. Look at the history of the bible, books have been omitted, books have been added, books have even been banned. Now look at the rulers that decided what books make up the modern bible. These are men, basically politicians, not some kind of supreme being. Even if parts of the Bible are the inspired word of God, look at the history of man, then take an honest look at the collection of writings that is the book you now so blindly cling to. I'm a straight male, do I have a problem with gay marriage? No, why should I, in the world today I can not see any reason to tear down a relationship that is based on love. I do believe in God, and I don't believe that the God I believe in would have a problem with it either, because the God I believe in loves all of us unconditionally! All you so-called Christians might want to think about that concept. Now, with that said, according to the 10th amendment, this is a subject for the States to decide. But when you have/had a president wanting to get an amendment to the constitution because of either his personal views or worse, just because he thinks that is what his voter base wants, it is a distortion of this country and everything it stands for. Which kind of sounds like the manipulation I was speaking about earlier doesn't it. We will see it again though, because every since the so-called moral majority (which is neither, by the way) invaded my beloved republican party back during the second Reagan term, all they think about is how get richer at the expense of the masses. And before anybody starts up with the whole "This country was founded on Christianity" kick, I suggest that you research the beliefs of the framers of our constitution. On a lighter note, I see no reason in the world why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, they should have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.
and the pagans were around before your god.....your point? "If you look around you, you will see what the laws of man have brought to us." - No Brownies If you look around you will see what religion has brought us as well. (I promise you it is worse than what the man-made laws brought us.)
If you read your bible it tells us to not only obey GOD'S law but to obey man's law as well or else marijuana would be legal because God made every seed bearing plant for the enjoyment of man kind. Well justwanted to put my 2 cents in.
WHATEVER!!!!
The laws of god are the laws of man since god doesn't exist. Man made them up on his own from hundreds of thousands of years of experience, not shot from a lightning bolt onto a piece of stone!
I think you comment is VERY VERY unnessary!!! As a christian I FIRMLY believe in God! Who are you to say that God isn't real?!? OUR LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST, DIED ON THE CROSS FOR OUR SINS SO THAT WE ALL MIGHT BE SAVED! The BIBLE isn't just another "Nancy Drew" novel, it's history, it's REAL, it's fact! BIBLE means (B) Basic (I)Instructions (B) Before (L) Leaving (E) Earth. Well to the lost soul that wrote this sad blog I WILL PRAY THAT GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL! Wake up people!!! We are so close to the end times most don't even realize it (or just don't want to). We ALL have to pray for each other, the sinners that think it is right for a gay marrage (Sodom and Gammorah was DESTROYED for their sins of perversity!!), the lost souls doomed to a life of agony and torture, the non believers, and for those of us that are good religious people. Does the BIBLE not tell us that in the end days " the holy wars will break out in the middle east"? HELLO Osoma binladin has already threatened us with this outbreak just here recently. We all need to be praying more than we ever had before. Well I will be praying for everyone bacause everyone needs prayer. May GOD bless you all.
"Does the BIBLE not tell us that in the end days " the holy wars will break out in the middle east"? HELLO Osoma binladin has already threatened us with this outbreak just here recently" - guest777 There have been holy wars in the middle east for quite a long time my friend...nothing new.
I must ask you if religion is central to human existence, why isn't everyone religious? If god is so powerful and created everything why did he create humans that have free thought and question or completely disregard him? Sodom & Gomorrah where legendary (non-historical narrative or myth)cities of ancient Palestine. The fairytale says God's messengers told Lot (who was the only "good" man there) to leave before it was destroyed warning them not to look back. When Lot's wife looked back she became a pillar of salt. OK, YOU really think a human can become a pile of salt? Kinda lets you know right there that this story is not true just like all the others in the b-i-b-l-e. Those "holy wars" you speak of, uh they have been going on since the 11th century.
Some of these posts are really troubling to me. To the non-believers of the Bible: We Christians are tired of you not being "open" to what Christianity is while, at the same time, calling us "close-minded." This country still is the greatest country in the world because of the Christian principles adopted at its inception. Without which, I might add, you wouldn't have the freedom to make the comments you make...so don't be hypocrits. To the Christians: We know what times are these and these are those topics that indirectly threaten our very individual freedoms....the new "order" of the new administration. That is what's reflected here. Sad, but we Christians know how the story ends, right?
Ignoring all those great so called principals that wiped out the people that were living here before the white man (hint think native american) Lets skip hand in hand to the Puritans which technically were the white european bunch who founded this country at its inception. They were seeking relief from religious prosecution. It was their principles which quickly persecuted any other religions! Thankfully some of the founding fathers (guess the founding mothers who didn't have equal rights were barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen at the time) Realized that it was Diversity that was to make this country great. WE don't have an official religion for a reason. A secular government is a mandate for the great prosperity that we have enjoyed. Equality is a must even for those who might not share your "core religious values" Just because you don't like homosexuality doesn't mean it effects YOU in an adverse way. so there is no reason for a law against it.
I agree with you 100%.
The US Constitution clearly states in the First Amendment that no government entity may create law respecting any given religion or their beliefs. To choose, regarding the creation of any law, the specific religious beliefs of any one religion is clear violation of the US Constitution. Therefore, the use of religious beliefs as argue either for or against marriage of ANY kind makes the argument unconstitutional. Since not all citizens share the same religion or sect of a relition, all quotes from religious text are deemed null and irrelevant. In effect, what you decide to do within your own church and what religious traditions you choose to uphold or not is your Right within the confines of your own religious structure. HOWEVER, that Right ends at the door. When involving legal Rights, the US Constitution and all levels of legal government should be neutral. Misinterpretation, intentional and otherwise, has, however, led to the near nullifying of the US Constitution by theological tin-pot-dictator-wannabes. The simple fact is that the US Constitution provides the Right of individuals to legally (again, as opposed to religiously) enter into a contractual union, legally referred to as marriage. There is no copyright on the word "marriage". There is absolutely no logical reason to, under a NEUTRAL legal system, segregate types of marriage by using different terms. No intelligent, logical, reason whatsoever. Religious arguments, again, are irrelevant to the issue of the legal system. Making nonsensical, illogical, arguments about anything outside of two (or even more, but that's a more complicated issue, mostly on technical grounds) consenting Human adults entering into such an arrangment is further evidence that the one making such arguments is completely ignorant, uneducated, and most likely believes that lies and deceit are "moral" acts to use in the argument. Non-Humans have not been granted legal protection under the US Constitution and therefore cannot give consent. The issue of minors in the argument is actually seperate as the issue of the Rights of children and consent bear in a great many issues, including marriage, heterosexual OR homosexual, and therefore should be handled as a broad, seperate argument. The issue of marriage to direct relatives is also irrelevant. Again, like it or not, when dealing with adults only, consentually, WHY deny such an arrangment? That issue has to be dealt with in broad terms, not just homosexually or heterosexually. And children of relatives, see above on consent and children. The comparison of adults where one adult may have mental disabilities is also irrelevant because it comes back to the issue of consent and what consent is defined as and who can actually give consent. Also, the argument that marriage is for the procreation of children is clearly proven false. Again, it is merely a BELIEF, not a FACT. Pregnancy occurs without a marriage contract. And sterility occurs even between married couples. Indeed, married heterosexual couples who adopt children are no less married. The issue of individuals and/or groups not liking certain types of consenting relationships is not new. Nor is it new in law. Decades ago, interracial marriage was also illegal, even here in the US. Many argued on religious grounds that it was an "abomination" to mix races. Go to Wikipedia and look up "interracial marriage" and follow links on legality regarding that for proof. So this argument comes down to individuals who have no intention of marrying someone of the same gender. Whose beliefs will not change if other consenting adults marry someone of the same gender. And whose lives will not be changed positively OR negatively should two individuals marry. Those opposing such marriage will not be required to be friends with, talk to, associate with, or even know those consenting adults who marry someone of the same gender. Therefore, the argument that including homosexual unions under the LEGAL definition of marriage will NOT deny ANYONE else who has no intentions of marrying someone of the same gender their Rights nor will it cause them grief or harm. Das, a challenging argument about choice or genetics has always been bisexuality. But, then, if I dig specific enough, the SEXUALITY of bisexuality would genetic. But the specific individual that the bisexual individual chooses to have a relationship with becomes the choice. I wonder if it's a genetic leaning one way or the other or if it's a choice like a preference for people of a certain build or a preference for red heads or just random. It's amazing, though, how little bisexuality comes up in discussions, though. And, for the record, someone brought up the American PSYCHOLOGICAL Association, against references to the American PSYCHIATRIC Association. The claim was that the Psychological association referred to homosexuality a being deviant behavior. http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatis Try again. While they admit there are varying scientific views, the "deviant behavior" seems to be more acts committed by the bigots and abusers who discriminate, make false claims against, and verbally, mentally, physically, and/or sexually abuse individuals based on the preception that homosexuality is "abnormal". In fact, that very page points out homosexuality throughout various cultures and history. The fact is, I don't even need to be homosexual, let alone desire a homosexual relationship, to argue that defining, legally, a limitation on legal marriage is clearly a violation of the US Constitution, as has been many acts by tin-pot-dictator-wannabes who want to subvert the US Constitution to create a Theological Dictatorship in the US. So, spout all the biblical rhetoric and bigotry you can. It is, under the US Constitution, irrelevant to the issue of what a neutral legal system SHOULD be. You may argue that politicians side with your bigotry, hate, ignorance, lies, and deceit all you want. When it comes to those particular politicians, I question their honor, ethics, and loyalty to the US Constitution and its intended neutrality. Andrew
Very good post Andrew. To the point. The line between church and state is thinning.
Andrew, that was very well said.
I do not recall a line in the Bill or Rights or in the Constitution of the United States which gives any particular group of a certain sexual orientation the right to marry. Therefore, this is something that you would need to convince the majority of the citizens of this country to approve in order to write it into law. What is surprising to me is that you and Das seek to convince people you are right, yet you do not consider that other people are completely entitled to an opinion contrary to yours. The reason I mention this is that you are accusing everyone else of bigotry and prejudice yet you are treating their religious beliefs in a far worse tone and attitude than they are treating your promotion of gay marriage. It is a two way street.
I agree.