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

Proposition 8 Protest Reaches Wilmington

READ MORE: Proposition 8 Protest Reaches Wilmington
rally300.jpg
Hundreds of protesters gathered in Wilmington to show their disapproval of Proposition 8. It was introduced on the November ballot in California to strike down a court ruling to allow same-sex marriage. The state supported the proposition, which sent alarms throughout the gay and lesbian community. With signs in hand, it's easy to see the battle locals are waging. More than a hundred gay, lesbian and straight residents rallied in downtown Wilmington Saturday, to say they are fighting for equality. Kati Heffield said, "This is a civil rights issue, it's not a gay issue. It's a people issue." The rally is in response to the passage of Proposition 8, which repealed the California Supreme Court's ruling to recognize same-sex marriage. A California law, many here say they want changed. Rally Supporter Calvin Martin said, "We don't even have the right to marry in North Carolina, but the thing is about starting that thinking in every mind of every American so that one day things might change for everyone." Saturday's rally didn't come with out its opponents. One man who wants to remain anonymous voiced is opinion on the opposite side of the street. "We support marriage between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man, not a woman and a woman. As well as the other thirty states that have constitutional amendments that agree with our position." Many hope this protest will raise awareness of equal rights for the gay and lesbian community and maybe even change some local opinion. Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts all recognized same-sex marriage. North Carolina does not.

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.

»

marketing

What people need to realize is that sexual preference is not genetic. It is a product of your psychological development, which is influenced by your environment. Children are exposed to factors (positive and negative), that can either draw them toward a homosexual lifestyle, or AWAY from a heterosexual lifestyle. Our liberal media seems to want to influence decisions by disproportionately representing gays and lesbians in media. This could possibly be capitalistic in intent due to titillation factor, but the effect is the same, and somewhat irresponsible given the lack of accountability for the outcome. If homosexuality is genetic, would parents of the future want to genetically alter their children prior to development if that was an option? Or if it was a "disease" like alcoholism, would people cure it? It occurs to me that parents of homosexuals may be understanding, supportive, and loving, but I wonder if they would rather their children be heterosexual? I agree that the issue HERE is not whether it is constitutional to engage in a homosexual relationship (that is up to your personal philosophy and religion), but whether it is constitutional to demand the same benefits that conventional marriage allows. Maybe the government could adopt a policy of broadening the language of law rather than adding contigencies based on each individual specific situation. Like "all men are created equal" means ALL men - gay, straight, black, white, etc... no need for further explanation, or futher laws. Judicial branch do your job - interpret the existing law, don't let the legislative kooks create more... This would allow for alliances (not marriages) for purposes of financial, medical, educational, parental decision making of people not based on age, race, sexual preference, religious beliefs. But if you are looking for the goverment to provide "legitimacy" or "acceptance" for your sexual preference or relationship, you instead need turn to your peers, your family, and YOURSELF.

Amending the constitution

Our Constitution was designed to guarantee rights, not eliminate them. However you define yourself politically and no matter who you love -- as an American, the very idea of tampering with the Constitution like this should send a chill down your spine. Regardless of how you may weigh this issue in the context of your personal or religious beliefs, think about what it means to use the Constitution to eliminate the civil rights of your fellow Americans. It is my belief that government should stay out of our personal business as much as possible. In America we believe in the freedom to make choices about how we lead our lives without government interference. In America we let people decide what’s best for themselves on matters like this. We should not subject people’s personal lives to the influence of well-funded interest groups and the poorly conceived idea that discrimination 'defends' anything other than the perpetuation of more discrimination. Laurie Webb

same sex marriage...please

Gay couples should be allowed to do their business in private. Marriage? No way. If they are allowed to get married then it cheapens my legitimate marriage. Homosexuality is a preference not a right. Obviously that security firm guy preferred sex with teenagers, preference does not make something unnatural right. Many can argue that sex with teenagers is natural, but I would imagine the majority would say it's just nasty and perverted. (if homosexuality is genetic why hasn't it become extinct? They don't reproduce.)

If homosexuality is a

If homosexuality is a preference, not a right, then so is heterosexuality. You compare homosexuals to someone having sex with a minor. Having sex with a minor is not "natural". It potentially hurting that minor whether he/she knows it or not. What is so harmful about 2 consenting adults loving and caring for each other, sharing their life together, and and being positive influences on each other as well as many others in this world. What makes them so horrible that they do not deserve exactly the same rights, treatment, and opportunities that heterosexual people do? I hate that there are people in this world who teach their children that homosexuality is wrong, disgusting, and that gays and lesbians are not worthy. You no not have to teach them that it is "right" or that they should practice it over heterosexuality by all means, but it should be taught that it is acceptable. People do not choose to be gay, believe me. If they did, there would be far fewer gays and lesbians in this world because it is an incredibly tough life due to people in this world like you.

Umm...

So you're saying that homosexuality should be illegal, like having sex with teenagers is illegal? And in what way does anyone else's marriage cheapen your 'almighty' marriage? For what it stands for? If someone else's marriage affects the way you and your spouse feel about eachother to the point that you feel you need to get a divorce, then y'all have some other problems, beyond what other people do. And just to throw this out there, have you ever taken any medication? Or if you were to ever develop cancer, would you want to get it treated? If so, you would be altering the course of nature, and so just because you'd prefer to live that would be "unnatural", and so, according to you, that would not be right. And don't ask questions no one is supposed to know the answer to, that's just foolish.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

One Man, One Woman = Marriage

DOMAwatch.org is designed to inform legislators and attorneys about current laws and litigation involving Defense of Marriage Acts. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. 37 states have their own Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), while 2 more states have strong language that defines marriage as one man and one woman. There are 30 states that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, including the three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) that passed constitutional amendments in November 2008. It seems that the people have spoken.

But

If it is true that homosexuality is natural what would be the purpose? Man and woman mate for the purpose of procreation. Can someone explain this to me? And as to whether it is a sin or a choice, isn't murder a sin but also a choice. One chooses the path one takes.

So you are telling me that

So you are telling me that we marry for the sole purpose of having children? You married your husband or wife just so you could have kids with him/her? NEWS FLASH......it doesn't take a marriage to get someone pregnant. BUT it does take love to get married. Men and women marry because they love each other, not so they can have babies. If I wanted to have a baby that bad I bet I could find a man to have sex with me in less than 30 minutes......tadaa......I have a baby yet no husband. Also, if one chooses the path one takes, then tell me, if it became the norm to fall in love and marry someone of the same sex, could you just change your sexual orientation with the snap of a finger and fall in love with someone of the same gender?

What about this?

Think about the biggest crisis we face right now in the world: overcrowding. The population of the world is growing at a pace faster than we are able to sustain ourselves. Not right here in America, we're rather fortunate here, but in many countries around the world where there are more people than one area can handle. Perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, saw homosexuality to be the perfect solution to this problem. While maintaining the core values he instated, love for one another, we'll slow the rate of procreation. That's what nature does, species of plants and animals always adapt to their changing environments to make things most suitable. And yet another benefit would be to solve the ever-growing problem of thousands of orphaned or foster children who need good homes. It's a win-win.

What about this?

Think of the single biggest problem we face as a planet: overcrowding. Humans are multiplying at a pace faster than we can sustain ourselves. Not just here in America, we're very fortunate here, but across the globe. Perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, had certain people refrain from continuing to procreate, as a solution to the problem, while still maintaining true love for everyone. Plus, there are thousands and thousands of orphaned, or foster children who need good homes and who are presently miserable or dying on the street or elsewhere. Is it not a win-win for everyone?

First of all, not all of us

First of all, not all of us "mate" for the purpose of procreation. Additionally, homosexuals CAN and desire to procreate and raise a family, so the worlds population isn't in danger. Just like you were "naturally" attracted to someone of the opposite gender, others are "naturally" attracted to the same gender. Its not that complicated. YOUR personal preferences and/or religious bigotries are not compelling enough reasons to deny loving, consenting adults the same privileges and benefits of a legally recognized marriage.

Why does anyone care???

Why do any of you care what others do in their private lives? Will you or your marriage be affected if 2 men or 2 women who live on the opposite side of the city, state, or country as you get married? I think NOT. You all need to get your noses out of other peoples personal business. If it does not affect you then you have no right to take sides, or to even have a say. And whether it affects you or not, you have no right to discriminate.

Why SHOULDN'T we care??!?

Why SHOULDN'T we care? Your logic is that since it does not happen right in front of me, I should not concern myself with it. By that logic, I guess you would have no problem with someone raping and murdering a 6-year-old child as long as it did not occur in front of you. Someone across town from you has the right to murder someone else as long as you don't have to watch it? I don't much care for that kind of logic. The fact is that we share this earth, and we are therefore connected. What someone else does can indeed have an impact on any one of us. If an action is declared illegal - regardless of whether or not you agree with the legality of it - we still have to obey laws and follow rules or chaos ensues. WAKE UP.

Your comment involves

Your comment involves someone getting hurt, therefore whether it happens right in front of me or not, it is wrong and everyone would agree. Now tell me, how do you or anyone else get hurt when 2 men or 2 women get married??????? How does it negatively affect anyone??????? I'm awake, and I am speaking logically unlike you. I am clearly not a conservative, but not a liberal either. I am simply a realist. Think outside the box buddy, it gets you further in life.

Logic!

Are you comparing the desire of homosexual people to marry with the desire of some freak to rape a child? That does not flow logically in the "If A, then B" logic model. Gays don't have the right to marry because it might offend someone across town? Again, how is that logical? Your post would imply that you find homosexuality offensive. Wow...if you said you found black people, Chinese people or handicapped people offensive you'd be considered a bigot. But, you think it is okay to speak out against people you don't know because they love members of their own sex. Logically, you seem to be a bigot. Prejudice, bigotry and hatred have many faces. Logically, I'd say yours is one of them. With my straight, long-married heart, I'll pray that more people don't think like you.

Marriage versus Holy Matrimony

Since marriage licenses are issued at the courthouse, and the ceremony can be conducted by a Justice of the Peace, ANY TWO people should be able to get married. It is a civil right offered by government. No citizen in this country should be denied any civil right for any reason. If two people chose to enter into a place of worship to have their "marriage" conducted in the eyes of God, it is a Holy Matrimony. There is absolutely no reason for the bible thumpers to be so up in arms. Separation of Church and State needs a new shot of energy in this country. There is too much co-mingling going on. If a place of worship or a group of like minded religious people choose not to conduct Holy Matrimonys for same sex couples, then whatever, but the RIGHT to obtain a marriage license and get married legally should apply equally to every citizen of this country. Just for the record, I think most places of worship would adapt sooner than later. I do not believe gay people choose to be gay any more than straight people choose to be straight. It's 2008 for crying out loud!! It's time for this country to grant the SAME RIGHTS to all citizens.

Marriage versus Holy Matrimony

WELL SAID SIR! Your comment was one of the most logical and well thought-out of all the comments that I read. Too bad more people don't have the intelligence or the education to voice their opinions so well. Just for the record, I am a 62 year old, hetrosexual, female.

Easy solution to the gay marriage issue

Two facts, one guaranteed to annoy each side: * Marriage is a sociological institution that evolved into a blessed religious event. It has always been between a man and a woman and we can't redefine the word to be politically correct. * That said, we live under a secular government and every citizen deserves the exact same rights regardless of sexual orientation. The easiest solution is to separate marriage from government. Who is the government to "license" your marriage anyway? Where did THAT come from? Marriage "licenses" need to go away. The government should register domestic partnerships ONLY, straight or gay. You go to the government to establish the relationship as a legal contract, and THEN you go see your minister, priest, imam, or rabbi if you want to get "married." Ending the contract would require a court hearing and judicial decision regarding property distribution, exactly as we now have in "divorce court." For all you GLBTQ-ites, no crying if your priest, rabbi, imam, or minister laughs in your face and tells you that you can't get married. You CAN demand rights equal to any other citizen from the government. You have NO right to demand that religions change their beliefs and teaching to suit your sexual preferences.

I totaly agree Im gay and I

I totaly agree Im gay and I thank this is whats best for everone

Oh really?

I'm sorry, did you attend every marriage that has ever occured since time began? Surely you must have for you to be able to say that it's always been between a man and a woman. You say it as if homosexuality is a recent phenomenon, or mutation in our genetic make-up of this century. And to clarify another point of yours, I don't know of anyone who is fighting to get any religious establishment to change the beliefs of its practice to suit anyone's preferences. The simple fact is, as you pointed out, that marriage is tied to the church and government, and so that is where the battle must be waged. That is all.

Homosexuals demanding the right to marry....

...**IS** a recent phenomenon. Your post is one of the best examples of shooting yourself in the foot I've seen. I'm arguing for YOUR equal protection under law, but that's not good enough for you. You want churches to alter their basic teachings and allow you to marry. Any wonder why people are lining up against you? If you battle the government you will eventually win because you have the Constitution on your side. If you battle the churches you will LOSE, badly, because you are facing a few billion people who believe that the Bible, Torah, or Koran are the inspired word of God, and all three resoundingly condemn homosexuality. Theology is influenced by neither political correctness nor hissy fits. You're not going to convince them that God changed his mind and is now cool with it. Concentrate on gaining full rights under the Constitution, and forget about the church wedding.

Welp...

You misconstrued my words, so now we have a misunderstanding. Please allow me to clarify. I was agreeing with you and your point about how we need to just get rid of 'marriage licenses' and use the constitution to battle the government to do so. What I said about waging the battle on the front between the churches and the gov. was simply to point out that no one is trying to change religious beliefs, that's just where the battle is. And I didn't say that homosexuals fighting for the right to marry was a recent phenomenon, I mentioned that your previous post sounded like you were saying homosexuality itself was a recent phenomenon. I couldn't understand how you can say that ages ago, in some culture, two people of the same sex were not wed?

Obviously homosexuality is not "new."

What is new is your demand to "marry." Yes, I am aware that there are a few historical references to same sex couples marrying. You will find far more evidence that it was exceedingly rare and resoundingly condemned in most cultures. This statement you wrote makes no sense whatsoever: "...no one is trying to change religious beliefs, that's just where the battle is." I assume you meant to say, "Religious beliefs are the source of the problem?" (The purpose of a battle is to force your opponent to yield to your desires, and you'll be wasting your time battling the churches, synagogues, and mosques.) Please take the time to read the post below entitled "Stop redefining words." You folks are going to win your rights far sooner if you stop your sporadic efforts and concentrate 100% on the Constitution. You have everything you need in the Fourteenth Amendment. My money says that the strict Constitutionalists, Justices Scalia and Thomas would even agree that you deserve full, equal rights. Unfortunately, the current gay rights movement in this country is in shambles because of your own amateurish tactics and this crazy demand that you be allowed to "marry." I mentioned the big guy in the wedding gown and the other weirdo in the leggings. Let me tell you another issue that is hurting you far more than it is helping you: Pictures of same-sex couples being married by a minister, in a church, being flashed all over the world by AP and Reuters. You may THINK that you are subtly conditioning the masses into accepting gay marriage as normal, but what you are actually doing is firing up the Christian Taliban, orthodox Jews, and conservative Muslims to oppose you that much more. Like it or not, that's a LOT of forces arrayed against you. Just as they think "freak" when they see the guy in that wedding gown, they think, "Satan's forces have now made it inside some churches and some of his false prophets are actually marrying them! I must fight harder!" I have a co-worker who packs her bags for the Rapture and more importantly to you, doubles her tithing every time she sees one of those pictures. That's more money available to defeat you. Let me tell you something about churches. They have a hard time modifying their basic underlying beliefs. If they announce that homosexuality is no longer a grievous sin, the faithful immediately wonder, "Gee, what else were you guys wrong about. Is adultery okay? Stealing?" The Episcopal church is ripping apart at the seams because of their acceptance of homosexuality as a sin that God really doesn't care about, or some such nonsense. You are directing a frontal assault on a numerically superior force instead of using maneuver warfare to get AROUND the religious obstacles. Your movement has no open, public national organization, no national leadership, and you have millions of folks who are doing little beside yelling and carrying signs....with a few fruitcakes embarrassing you along the way. Now compare your current efforts to the civil rights movement and the tactics that were employed there by Doctor King and the other leaders. Compare Ghandi's efforts to win civil rights in South Africa and Indian independence. Do you see the difference? Less glam and more substance. Less weeping hissy fits and more professionalism....more action. Whoever is doing your PR work needs to be fired. You need to drop the word marriage entirely, shoot for absolute 100% equality under law, and accept that if you want to "walk down the aisle," you may have to do it at a Unitarian Universalist church or seek out one some renegade minister or rabbi who thinks the Bible and Torah are simply suggestions. Jeez, I'm straight, don't really give a hoot about the gay equality movement, but could organize and lead a national effort that would hand you victory in ten years, tops. Maybe that's what you need - a cantankerous, old, straight, combat vet who isn't emotionally attached to the issue and simply wants to see you treated the same as I am. Get back to me if you can pay me $350k a year and hand me an operating budget of a five million a year....and I'm NOT hiring that idiot in the wedding gown.

Excuse my English...

That's not what I meant at all by my comment about where the battle is. All I meant, was that the battle is to once and for all separate the Church and State. The United States should not be governed in any respect by a majority religious group. The Bible, nor any other religious text, should not doctor the Constitution. That's all I was trying to get at. I love and respect that we have the right and freedom to believe whatever we want, but it's disappointing when those beliefs are imposed on others against their will.

..but you CAN win the secular argument!

Every time religion has butted heads with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. For example, for thirty years the Christian Taliban has gone bonkers over Roe v Wade, but they consistently lose. That said, you cannot ignore the fact that laws are based on the religious ethics of the culture that establishes the laws. In our case, our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. For the most part, that's a good thing. It's what outlaws theft, rape, robbery, and murder. Compare that to South-Central Asia, where the law allows you to kill your daughter or sister in an honor killing because she was seen alone in the company of a non-related male. So yes, our Judeo-Christian ethics condemn homosexuality, and religion is the primary impediment to your success BECAUSE OF YOUR CURRENT TACTICS. Concentrate on the judicial aspects and ignore the religious angle. I assure you that Jane Doe had a far weaker case when she went to the Supreme Court demanding the right to get an abortion. There is NO constitutional requirement to allow a woman to get an abortion, but there IS a constitutional amendment that says you deserve equal protection in law. Accept civil unions, demand civil unions that give you every legal protection and benefit as a married heterosexual couple in all fifty states, and give up this crazy idea of "marrying." What's more important to you - full equality or being able to say, "We're married?" WHERE are your priorities?

Civil Union

While it is true you never see a black bird mate with a blue bird, you do how ever see homosexual relations in the same species. The truth is a black bird and a blue bird are different species, and to think differently shows an ignorance to science. What you do see however are male penguins mating for life. That’s instant on their part, so how can it be chosen. More importantly health care isn’t the only issue, they want to be able to visit the ones they love in the hospital, and all the other rights that the straight community has. I guarantee that if the word Marriage wasn’t used then none of you would have a problem with it. Gays have been getting married in churches all over the country for years. As far as Im concerned these are God recognized unions, and way more important then paper. That paper is needed so small things like hospital visits are aloud and recognized. This using the bible people do is just wrong. The bible is the reason mixed race couples didn’t get their legal rights until 68. Instead of looking at what happends in the bedroom, why don’t you think about how you would feel if all the legal rights with your spouse got taken away by ignorance to biology, and intolerance based on a book whose biggest message is to love thy neighbor. If you want to use God, then start listening to what he had to say in that book. Stop hating and learn to love.

To: Civil Union

Since you are talking about what the Bible teaches, perhaps this will help refresh your memory. 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Whole Chapter) Or do you not know that the unrighteous [Or wrongdoers] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: [1 Corinthians 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 1 Tim 1:9; Heb 12:14; 13:4; Rev 21:8; 22:15] neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts] 1 Timothy 1:10 (Whole Chapter) the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, [That is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to [2 Tim 4:3; 1 Timothy 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13; Titus 1:13; 2:2] sound [Or healthy] doctrine,

and your point?

The gays and lesbians are fighting for equal rights in this country and in this world. NOT the next one nor are they looking to inherit the kingdom of god... If they are Americans then they should have the same equal rights as everyone else. Most of us in this country took the pledge of allegiance which ends with "liberty and justice for all" I as an American will fight for equal rights. As long as ones rights are not interfering with another. Its not like you are being forced to marry a gay partner so your rights are not in jeopardy. This is just you trying to force your religious views on other people. The consitution and the government should be secular to ensure the freedom of religion for all people.

"If you want to use God, then start listening "

Then lets start right at the beginning - Genesis....seems like God mad his feelings pretty clear at Sodom and Gomorrah