N.C. Marriage Amendment on May's Primary Ballot.

[Izdaari]

All law places someone's belief over another's....

I'm not sure where you're going with this, unless it's to say you have no problem with theocracy. 

Seriously, "All law places someone's belief over another's...." sounds like you're perfectly fine with theocracy. Are you?

You mean like sharia law?
If so,no.

Again, someone posted that they had a problem forcing their religious views on others....I point out that all laws that include a restriction of action, forces someone's preference over another's.
From speed limits to prostitution to porn to pediphilia to polygamy....

Yeah, ok. Here are my preferences:

1) If the Constitution doesn't say the federal government can do it, it can't.

2) "That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Jefferson

3) "If it is not necessary that there be a law, it is necessary that there not be a law."

4) And re the 1st Amendment "Establishment" clause: I think the intent goes a little beyond just prohibiting a national religion, if not quite as far as complete separation of church and state. I don't think the government can constitutionally favor one religion over another, or over lack of religion. Or, conversely, lack of religion over religion.

 

[T-Bone]

All law places someone's belief over another's....

I'm not sure where you're going with this, unless it's to say you have no problem with theocracy. 

Seriously, "All law places someone's belief over another's...." sounds like you're perfectly fine with theocracy. Are you?

You mean like sharia law?
If so,no.

Again, someone posted that they had a problem forcing their religious views on others....I point out that all laws that include a restriction of action, forces someone's preference over another's.
From speed limits to prostitution to porn to pediphilia to polygamy....

Yeah, ok. Here are my preferences:

1) If the Constitution doesn't say the federal government can do it, it can't.

2) "That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Jefferson

3) "If it is not necessary that there be a law, it is necessary that there not be a law."

And let us not forget the great Ronald Reagan who said...."Government is not the solution to the problem...government is the problem"

 

[Izdaari]

And let us not forget the great Ronald Reagan who said...."Government is not the solution to the problem...government is the problem"

Right!  ;D

Another great Reagan quote:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. There is only an up or down:  up to man's age-old dream -- the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

-- Ronald Reagan, Republican National Convention, 1964

 

[Raine]

If we are going to recognize any marriage other than traditional, Biblical marriage, why stop with gay marriage?
Then the question arises, where do you draw the line?
Polygamy? Incestuous?

All law places someone's belief over another's....

We do recognize more forms of marriage than traditional Biblical marriages though, although we pick and choices based on our prejudices and what has been common in society. We allow divorce for reasons other than adultery and recognized remarriage after that. We allow Christians to marry non-believers. Neither of those are Biblical, but most people don't have a problem with them because they are not as opposed to fornication or to divorce as to the idea that they might have to treat gay people like fellow citizens and human beings.

If people are really so worried about morality and the sanctity of marriage, then they would be pushing for laws than ban or restrict pornography and which impose stiffer penalties for adultery or abandonment of marriage, but that doesn't happen because that is not really what this law is about. It's just a wider symptom of the whole messed up view many Christians have on sexual sin - the one where we ignore those most common among Christians and try to point fingers and focus on those who are mostly outside the church (and to make sure they feel unwelcome and force them out if they are part of the church).

I do not think there'd be a huge increase in polygamy or incest, even if both were legalized, so that's not really an issue to me (the laws we have against both aren't really stopping either). Really, I think the government should butt out of marriage for the most part anyway and let the individuals involved decide what sort of marital contract they will have (leave the contract part up to the states and/or lawyers and the religious part up to the churches).

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

All law places someone's belief over another's....

I'm not sure where you're going with this, unless it's to say you have no problem with theocracy. 

Seriously, "All law places someone's belief over another's...." sounds like you're perfectly fine with theocracy. Are you?

You mean like sharia law?
If so,no.

Again, someone posted that they had a problem forcing their religious views on others....I point out that all laws that include a restriction of action, forces someone's preference over another's.
From speed limits to prostitution to porn to pediphilia to polygamy....

Yeah, ok. Here are my preferences:

1) If the Constitution doesn't say the federal government can do it, it can't.

2) "That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Jefferson

3) "If it is not necessary that there be a law, it is necessary that there not be a law."

4) And re the 1st Amendment "Establishment" clause: I think the intent goes a little beyond just prohibiting a national religion, if not quite as far as complete separation of church and state. I don't think the government can constitutionally favor one religion over another, or over lack of religion. Or, conversely, lack of religion over religion.

I certainly agree that limited government is the best government....however that doesn't seem to be the reality we live in, especially under the current administration.
There have been many things that have been legislated and forced on me that violate my principles.

Since we don't live in a perfect world, I'm operating in the reality of my circumstance....and a yes vote on the marriage amendment is the only option I have....given the Biblical definition of homosexuality as perversion.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If we are going to recognize any marriage other than traditional, Biblical marriage, why stop with gay marriage?
Then the question arises, where do you draw the line?
Polygamy? Incestuous?

All law places someone's belief over another's....

We do recognize more forms of marriage than traditional Biblical marriages though, although we pick and choices based on our prejudices and what has been common in society. We allow divorce for reasons other than adultery and recognized remarriage after that. We allow Christians to marry non-believers. Neither of those are Biblical, but most people don't have a problem with them because they are not as opposed to fornication or to divorce as to the idea that they might have to treat gay people like fellow citizens and human beings.

If people are really so worried about morality and the sanctity of marriage, then they would be pushing for laws than ban or restrict pornography and which impose stiffer penalties for adultery or abandonment of marriage, but that doesn't happen because that is not really what this law is about. It's just a wider symptom of the whole messed up view many Christians have on sexual sin - the one where we ignore those most common among Christians and try to point fingers and focus on those who are mostly outside the church (and to make sure they feel unwelcome and force them out if they are part of the church).

I do not think there'd be a huge increase in polygamy or incest, even if both were legalized, so that's not really an issue to me (the laws we have against both aren't really stopping either). Really, I think the government should butt out of marriage for the most part anyway and let the individuals involved decide what sort of marital contract they will have (leave the contract part up to the states and/or lawyers and the religious part up to the churches).

What alternative forms of marriage are already recognized?
And you assume, like the pro gay rights people here, that if we oppose gay marriage we are homophobic.....you demagogue the issue....as they attempt to do. We are haters and discriminatory.
I have relatives who are gay....and I love them and am concerned for them.

Do you believe homosexual activity is sinful?
Do you believe Christians have a right to voice their opinions or only gays and lesbians?

 

[OZZY]

If we are going to recognize any marriage other than traditional, Biblical marriage, why stop with gay marriage?
Then the question arises, where do you draw the line?
Polygamy? Incestuous?

All law places someone's belief over another's....

We do recognize more forms of marriage than traditional Biblical marriages though, although we pick and choices based on our prejudices and what has been common in society. We allow divorce for reasons other than adultery and recognized remarriage after that. We allow Christians to marry non-believers. Neither of those are Biblical, but most people don't have a problem with them because they are not as opposed to fornication or to divorce as to the idea that they might have to treat gay people like fellow citizens and human beings.

If people are really so worried about morality and the sanctity of marriage, then they would be pushing for laws than ban or restrict pornography and which impose stiffer penalties for adultery or abandonment of marriage, but that doesn't happen because that is not really what this law is about. It's just a wider symptom of the whole messed up view many Christians have on sexual sin - the one where we ignore those most common among Christians and try to point fingers and focus on those who are mostly outside the church (and to make sure they feel unwelcome and force them out if they are part of the church).

I do not think there'd be a huge increase in polygamy or incest, even if both were legalized, so that's not really an issue to me (the laws we have against both aren't really stopping either). Really, I think the government should butt out of marriage for the most part anyway and let the individuals involved decide what sort of marital contract they will have (leave the contract part up to the states and/or lawyers and the religious part up to the churches).

What alternative forms of marriage are already recognized?
And you assume, like the pro gay rights people here, that if we oppose gay marriage we are homophobic.....you demagogue the issue....as they attempt to do. We are haters and discriminatory.
I have relatives who are gay....and I love them and am concerned for them.

Do you believe homosexual activity is sinful?
Do you believe Christians have a right to voice their opinions or only gays and lesbians?

The word homophobic is a make believe word which the homosexual commuity invented.

Same as referring it them as 'gay' which is a strange term for sin.

 

[OZZY]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't know that I can support it, because of the changes it will make in domestic partnerships and other family situations. If it doesn't pass, nothing really changes, but if it does it will mean a lot of children and other people in those types of situations may lose health insurance coverage.

NC doesn't recognize domestic partnerships as legal marriages, but it does allow individual business and insurance/benefits providers to extend coverage to domestic partners if they choose. This law would apparently prohibit that and would strip families of those benefits if they currently have them. Many companies are opposed to it for this reason, including Duke Energy and several of the tech companies which NC has been trying to attract and have recently moved to our state.

I think homosexuality is a sin and that God does not recognize their unions, even if they wish to call them marriages, but I am a bit uncomfortable trying to write my religious convictions into state law. If we really want to do that, then shouldn't marriage be defined as a union between one woman and man man, who are both Christians and both virgins, and one that cannot be severed except in case of sexual immorality or abandonment. Why just single out the gays, since there are so many other biblical types of marriage?

I asked a similar question on facebook - how many who support the marriage amendment would also support an amendment criminalizing pornography and adultery, in order to protect marriage, and let's just say the response was less than positive.

No one will lose health benefits because of this amendment. Duke energy can Allow ANYONE that they please to be covered by their insurance , if they are saying other wise (which they haven't said a thing to the employees about it) they would be lying.


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.

 

[OZZY]

Thousands Attend Return America Marriage Rally
After weeks of planning, praying, and intensive working, thousands of Biblical marriage-believing people flowed into Halifax Mall in Raleigh today.  They heard from several speakers about the importance of upholding Biblical, traditional marriage.  They were also challenged to go to the polls on May 8 and vote "FOR" the Marriage Amendment.  Dr. David Gibbs, along with Evangelist Greg Lentz and Pastor Tim Butler, challenged the crowd to stand up and defend the historical truth of Biblical marriage. 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 

"Thank You!"




I would like to thank each pastor, church, and all individuals who came to Raleigh.  From the mountains to the coast, the state of North Carolina was represented at the Marriage Rally.  You have taken your stand on earth and it was recorded in Heaven!  Your participation will draw interest, and on payday you will be thankful that you stood for His Righteous and Just Cause.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Numbers
Depending on where you get your information from, the numbers at the Return America Marriage Rally were astounding.  Standing on the platform and looking around at the crowd was a great source of encouragement.  Although the news media reported 3,000 people in attendance, a Capitol Police officer reported to us that a minimum of 8,000 people were present.  Realizing those who oppose us will languish on the lower numbers and many of us after viewing the crowd will be convinced the higher numbers are correct, there can be no doubt that Biblical marriage was well represented in Raleigh, North Carolina, today.





Spiritual Battle
The battle for Biblical marriage is a battle of spiritual warfare. Since Satan entered the Garden, he has specialized in camouflage. He lied about God's Word in the Garden and his strategy of perverting the Truth continues without pause. Tragically, the pawns in his hands are misinformed people. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't know that I can support it, because of the changes it will make in domestic partnerships and other family situations. If it doesn't pass, nothing really changes, but if it does it will mean a lot of children and other people in those types of situations may lose health insurance coverage.

NC doesn't recognize domestic partnerships as legal marriages, but it does allow individual business and insurance/benefits providers to extend coverage to domestic partners if they choose. This law would apparently prohibit that and would strip families of those benefits if they currently have them. Many companies are opposed to it for this reason, including Duke Energy and several of the tech companies which NC has been trying to attract and have recently moved to our state.

I think homosexuality is a sin and that God does not recognize their unions, even if they wish to call them marriages, but I am a bit uncomfortable trying to write my religious convictions into state law. If we really want to do that, then shouldn't marriage be defined as a union between one woman and man man, who are both Christians and both virgins, and one that cannot be severed except in case of sexual immorality or abandonment. Why just single out the gays, since there are so many other biblical types of marriage?

I asked a similar question on facebook - how many who support the marriage amendment would also support an amendment criminalizing pornography and adultery, in order to protect marriage, and let's just say the response was less than positive.

No one will lose health benefits because of this amendment. Duke energy can Allow ANYONE that they please to be covered by their insurance , if they are saying other wise (which they haven't said a thing to the employees about it) they would be lying.


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.

You are exactly right...the pro gay marriage arguments are all smoke and no substance.
The amendment would confirm the traditional definition of marriage and NOT prevent gays from doing whatever gays do......in or outside the bedroom.