Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Carolina voters to decide marriage amendment on May ballot (Senate approved!!!)
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 09/13/2011 | Jeremy Kryn

Posted on 09/13/2011 6:45:21 PM PDT by fwdude

Edited on 09/13/2011 7:19:21 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

RALEIGH, North Carolina, September 13, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – North Carolina voters have been granted a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman next year.

The state Senate voted 30-16, with one Republican absent, to approve the measure Tuesday afternoon.

State Senator Warren Daniel of Morganton told LifeSiteNews.com that the amendment will go on the GOP primary ballot in May 2012.

“The people of this state, not judges, bureaucrats, or politicians, should define marriage, which I personally believe should be between one man and one woman,” said Daniel.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: amendment; homonaziagenda; homonazism; homopsychoagenda; homosexualagenda; marriage; northcarolina
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 last
To: Steelers6

we get the question :-)


41 posted on 09/14/2011 4:36:49 AM PDT by slapshot ("Were not gonna take it anymore" Twisted Sister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher
...this really IS a States Rights issue over which the Federal Government HAS no Constitutional Authority...

True. But the pervert contingent is trying to invoke the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. DOMA properly stopped this from happening, which is why that is the supreme target of their attacks. Thank God that Congress still had the moral fortitude to take up the legal defense of DOMA when Barry abandoned it. DOMA bolsters states rights.

42 posted on 09/14/2011 5:47:19 AM PDT by fwdude ("When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“The people of this state, not judges, bureaucrats, or politicians, should define marriage, which I personally believe should be between one man and one woman,” said Daniel.”

Meh. I’ll take my Church’s definition of the institution, thanks. It’s never going to change. The definition of marriage isn’t dependant upon what the majority say it is or isn’t. Not that I wouldn’t vote again for a pro-marriage amendment in my state, I just know that if you live by the sword, you have to realize you might perish by the sword one day.

The general trend for the “people’s definition” of the institution hasn’t been too rosey in the last 40 years. It’s just changing slower than the statist and homosexualist take on marriage(thank God). I wouldn’t trust the people to define marriage now, much less another 40 years from now.

Freegards


43 posted on 09/14/2011 7:22:18 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

Exactly. I would like one of these folks who say they’re “economically conservative but socially liberal” in theory to point to an example where that has ever actually worked in practice.


44 posted on 09/14/2011 9:59:04 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson