Posted on 05/01/2012 5:41:30 AM PDT by pgyanke
Hi pgyanke. Do you have a link to the Marriage Amendment itself? I live in Pennsylvania and would like to check with my legislators to see if this is in place.
Here is a link to a website with more information and other links.
NC needs to be taken back into the GOP fold. Too many damn yankees moving down there and polluting the place.
Hear, Hear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My quote was the text of the Marriage Amendment in NC, not a statement of my personal opinion. Obviously, NC can't pass an Amendment outlawing acts in other states...
Ping.
I got into an involved discussion on a Facebook status update by a girl fresh out of college who professes to be Christian, but who tried to pose some legal arguments against the amendment. I refuted them pretty handily, and she finally reached the point where she didn’t want to talk about it anymore.
Very good! Thank you for the well reasoned arguments!
I am disgusted by the blantant LIES being used by the “againsties” like “children will lose their insurance”. WHAT????
It amazes me how some seemingly reasonable folks have been deceived by this simple ammendment: that some how declaring the obvious is “discrimination” or is “harmful to children” when it opposite is true: it strenghtens the institution itself and for the reasons you mention and it saves children from all sorts of “unintended consequences.” [such as being forced to learn that homosexual marriages are just like every other kind. They are not and cannot be]. Yes I understand that if the ammendment fails, there is still the law in place but it would be challenenged immediately: indeed, there is already a lawsuit pending from Asheville.
So my wife and I early voted and we are FOR: our yard signs proclaim FOR and I urge all who I happen to discuss it with to be FOR.
I am hoping it passes strongly: anything over 60% should put the issue to a deserved rest.
I intend to vote FOR the Amendment, but the language you quote is for the ballot only. The actual amendment contains some additional wording. Here is the full text, as I understand it:
“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
As I said, I will vote FOR the Amendment, primarily for the simple reason that “marriage” already has a definition, and that the state should not be in the business of redefining words.
April 6, 2011
*S514-v-3* A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL UNION THAT SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section:
"Sec. 6. Marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.
"SECTION 2. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the State at a statewide election to be held on the date of the first primary in 2012, which election shall be conducted under the laws then governing elections in the State. Ballots, voting systems, or both may be used in accordance with Chapter 163 of the General Statutes. The question to be used in the voting systems and ballots shall be:
"[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
SECTION 3. If a majority of votes cast on the question are in favor of the amendment set out in Section 1 of this act, the State Board of Elections shall certify the amendment to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall enroll the amendment so certified among the permanent records of that office.
SECTION 4. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act is effective upon certification.
SECTION 5. This act is effective when it becomes law.
Your response to the “http://brentwoodcox.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-ill-vote-against.html"; post is excellent.
I’m voting “For Marriage” in NC also.
Note...we drove up to Boone yeaterday. There are a SLEW of 4x8 foot plywood signs along 321 advocating Vote For the Marriage Act. People are not shy about expressing their feelings up there!
That’s wonderful!
Part of the discussion which ensued after my initial post (before I was "removed") centered around this. A "reasonable" liberal tried to take my points apart... and failed. He also showed the contradictory nature of their argument. He said in one place that we already have laws in place to protect traditional marriage and in another that this Amendment is discriminatory. Logically then, the current laws are discriminatory and will be challenged.
That’s not what it reads. I have friends on FB. They told me it read
“This act will legalize killing homosexuals, allow women to be dragged through the streets by their hair, enslave children, brutalize old people and outlaw Christianity”.
You obviously can’t read.
Hmmm....In short, we’ll become a Muslim country.
Your friend said it all in Section 1, Paragraph 2.
The dishonest campaign against this amendment is truly horrific to watch. And the fact that pervert groups are pouring millions into is just shows how desperate they are to advance their agenda against overwhelming opposition to it.
I too will be voting for the amendment. I am aghast at the ads against it... really? Such blatant lies is insulting to those producing the ads and to those of us who actually have reasoning powers.
Very good!
Another point, if you find yourself in a discussion with someone claiming to be “libertarian,” is that the imposition of “homosexual marriage” is not pro-liberty, but is authoritarian. Under current conditions, two men or two women ... or a larger number of people, some household pets, and a fine Victorian sofa ... can go through a ceremony, hold a reception, and declare themselves “married.”
What they cannot do, without the guns of the state behind them, is force other people to recognize them as married. They can’t force a church to host their ceremony, or a priest, minister, or judge to perform one. They can’t force the public schools to teach children that two men, the housekeeper, and the antiques are just as legitimate a “family” as a husband, wife, and their children.
What the homosexual lobby wants is not liberty, but control; not equality, but special treatment.
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.