Skip to comments.Obama Opposes North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Posted on 03/17/2012 10:00:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
ATLANTA President Obama today put himself on record as opposing a North Carolina ballot measure that would forbid same-sex marriages in the state.
The move appeared to signal a new approach for Obama, who has previously said each state should decide for itself on the question of same-sex marriage, but avoided specific endorsement or condemnation of individual pieces of legislation.
While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples, said Cameron French, Obamas campaign spokesman for North Carolina.
Thats what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do, it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples. And thats why the president does not support it, he said.
The ballot measure Amendment One was passed by the state legislature and would mandate that marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state. Advocates say the language also effectively bans civil unions and domestic partnerships, for which Obama has previously expressed support.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nations largest gay rights group and Obama ally, praised the outspokenness by the president ahead of the general election campaign in what is a key swing state.
The president has made clear the importance of protecting all families, said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese in a statement. Amendment One undermines basic human dignity and places families of all types at risk in North Carolina.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
So Obama has been lying to us yet again.
It’s none of his damn business.
There obama goes again, focussing on social issues.
State’s rights. He needs to keep his nose out of it.
It is impossible to ban every other possible combination of people, animals, inanimate furniture pieces, etc., that someone might wish to call "marriage," so why bother? Marriage is one man+one woman, period.
As someone who is tarheel born and tarheel bred, I say FUBO!!!
...has previously said each state should decide for itself on the question of same-sex marriage, but avoided specific endorsement or condemnation of individual pieces of legislation.
He can't. He is homosexual, and he is psychologically driven to promote the homosexual agenda at every opportunity. He can't just leave it alone.
Yes, but it was a transparent lie.
Did anybody really believe that deep down he was opposed to same-sex marriage?
Political dictionaries should have a plain English translation of what it means when a politician says that his own views are "evolving."
Contraception and Homosexuality for Everyone.
There is so much dissembling by the liberals, including Obama, on this issue.
Obama says he believes marriage is a man and a woman, and that as a Christian, he sees God in the mix as well.
Then his administration decides not to defend federal marriage laws in court cases, presumeably to make it easier for judges to overturn marriage law.
Then, Obama says his views are evolving on this issue.
The liberals are saying that each state should decide this issue? Well, as of today, 31 out of 50 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage, to prevent judges from changing the definition of marriage. North Carolina would be the 32nd state to take that action if it passes.
Minnesota votes on the issue in November. Maryland may also have a referendum on marriage, attempting to reverse the same-sex marriage law passed by their legislature.
The point is, the liberals don’t really want the states deciding this. The big majority of states have decided that they want marriage to remain a man and a woman. Many more, which don’t have marriage amendments, still retain laws defining marriage. Or will have them until the gay activists drag them into court on how they define marriage.
What the liberals dream of is a “Brown vs. Board of Education” or “Roe vs. Wade” type ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, imposing homosexual marriage on all 50 states. That’s what they want. Why don’t they admit it? There’s no way they want each state deciding, when the vast majority of states are deciding the “wrong” way.
I tend to think that if the GOP pushes to ban "domestic partnerships" in addition to homo marriage, they will lose the fight over the mid-term.
Preserve the sanctity of marriage, but let the homos inter-twine their assets and visit their aids-ridden "partner" without family permission.
I think this particular law goes further than necessary to protect marriage.
The hell with Obama. I’m going to go there and vote against same-sex marriage no matter what he or his pathetic followers think.
How did I end up in the only state in the nation where we’re NOT allowed to vote on this?
Misery loves company... I live in New York. The entire gay marriage bill was jammed down our throats with no referendum.
He should have stayed out of this. Obama needs NC to win.
1. The fact that “advocates say” something doesn’t make it accurate.
2. Anyone can establish joint assets, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc., with others, through standard contracts and powers of attorney. They do not need any sort of official recognition of “sex-partnership.”
One day the Country will awake and realize bureaucrats have no business in the affairs of the sacrament of Marriage.
Please America, fight for Liberty, not statism.
Certainly there’s no pragmatic political payoff, for him as a candidate or for other Democrats running in NC. Our few far-left strongholds are incorporated in “minority” districts and always go Democrat, anyway.
The only reasonable explanation for this and many other incidents is that he is acting out of a personal compulsion to promote homosexuality, contrary to sensible political advice.
I agree with that.
However, a quick Wikipedia review shows that is exactly the case and would overturn some municipal laws allowing such registration.
A quick review of polling on the subject shows mixed prospects for the constitutional referendum in May, at best. Only 30% support and 55% opposed. Of course 61% support the more extensive and culturally ingrained governmental supports of traditional marriage...and it's exclusive registration. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_09071217.pdf
However, it still may pass as May 8th is also the date of the state Primary...and only GOP voters will be turning out and 40% of those are socially conservative evangelicals.
North Carolina can do as it ishes in these matters until/unless there is a Federal law or ruling which brings homos under the 14th Amendment. That's NOT unlikely over the next few years, DOMA not withstanding.
This is certainly perceived as the good fight by SoCons. However, by refusing to compromise on "Domestic Partnerships" the GOP is not likely to win this fight.
It's a bad law. They should have stuck to marriage and won the fight resoundingly.
Simple minded religious zeal took a step too far.
Bet that’ll go well over in the religious black communities in North Carolina-and it won’t do well in the white Christian communities down there either, nor the “bubba vote”.
Shoot the only people this applies to the “damn yankees” who’ve moved there over the last 15 years.
Obama is a dirty rotten commie and usurper to the White House, but he's not that politically dumb.
When the measure first passed the legislature and was signed...putting it on the ballot this May 8th for ratification by the people (this occurred in Sep, 2011) the polling was not favorable for passage...even in NC.
Sure, a lot can change in that period of time. But the White Hut may have picked a winner for the left.
Because in the liberal mindset, lying is OK if it works toward the “greater good”, i.e., achieving their left-wing socialistic goals. When my state had a vote on marriage being defined the way Jesus defined it in Matthew 19:4-6(one male to one female, what a radical notion!), a liberal homosexual coworker fired off an email to the entire office begging us to vote against it. His reasoning in his message was, there was “no way” a judge in our state would redefine marriage. Why didn’t he just be honest and say upfront he wishes marriage to be legally redefined? Instead, he choose to lie and said it was “unChristian” for us to vote for with Jesus’ definition of marriage. :?
Of course, he didn’t use those exact words but it’s what his words meant. This co-worker was later mystified by the fact that more people did not listen to Air America.
And according to some on this board, we should let him unchallenged.
It’s hard to believe that, less than 20 years ago, the definition of marriage was probably the least controversial issue in America. It was defined as a man and a woman, and that was not being challenged. While there were issues with divorce, people living outside of marriage, etc., the very definition of marriage was not controversial.
Now, the definition of marriage is a hot button issue. Anyone who accepts the unquestioned definition of this legal union from years ago, is now considered a bigot by the liberals.
Did you ever think that you would be considered a bigot for wanting the definition of marriage to be one man and one woman???
“Did you ever think that you would be considered a bigot for wanting the definition of marriage to be one man and one woman???”
Nope. But we are in good company:
‘He answered, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’
I just need to tell people my personal Savior is a Jewish “anti-same-sex-marriage ‘bigot’”
Of course he does. Larry asked him very sweetly.
So Obama has been lying to us yet again.
He's been lying to everybody about everything since he was about four. This year should be different?
Since it is not possible to have a homosexual family in the human species, he needs to readdress his belief.
You are exactly right, but they've already admitted it, Evan Wolfson of Lambda Legal spelling it out in 2001 for the website 365gay.com in a long interview in the aftermath of the gays' loss of the James Dale case which preserved the right of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude gays, bisexuals, pederasts and pedophiles from Scouts and Scouting (adult supervisors) under the aegis of the moral standards language of their charter.
Wolfson spelled out precisely the path you describe to a 50-state, winner-take-all lawsuit that would use the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the Constitution to force all 50 States to accept and honor homosexual shackups as "marriage", if only one State could be bulldozed, hornswoggled, bullsteered, b.s.'ed, or otherwise coerced, the People volente nolente (i.e., screw them, they're all a bunch of straight breeder humps anyway, who cares what they think?), into "establishing" a bagatelle called "same-sex marriage".
They had been at it, at that point, for 20 years, ever since the Hawaiian case (Lewin, I think it was called at one time, though the title changed at least once) that Lambda had fomented in the early 80's, and they had 600 homosexual attorneys working on the project at that time.
The media gays are driving this. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen all over again ..... if anything, there are lots more gays now in media than 20 years ago, when they all lined up to receive the film Philadelphia (which I've refused to so much as look at, its producer having admitted he made the film as political propaganda from the start) and start bashing straights 24/7.
You also need to tell them that Big Guy outed himself as even a bigger bigot in Genesis 19 to kind of kick things off.
Biblical guidance has made these issues perfectly clear since just a few years after Abraham left Ur. That would be about 4800 years now.
There are so many benefits for the activist liberals in this. The militant liberals and homosexual lobby want "homosexual" to be a protected class such as race, so, an employer will be able to get sued for descrimination. Aside from big companies getting sued to death, imagine what will happen to the US military or worse (yes, worse), what will happen to organized religions.
For example, a gay man applies for a position as a minister at church of a well established Christian denomination. He is denied because he is gay. Law suit follows. The church now has to hire him. End result? A guy wearing a dress, lipstick and a moustache is teaching your kids and grandkids Bible study class because THE LAW SAYS SO. And if you say anything, it will be like calling a black person the "n" word, (you bigot). Nail, meet hammer.
You and I will have to pay for AIDS treatment of gays.
The military, mercy, will be literally decimated with a large percentage of soldiers leaving because of this issue.
And heaven help you if you are a politician who speaks out or votes against the related issues.
This is a designed wedge issue by which the leadership of the Dem party can further divide America.
President Obama today put himself on record as opposing a North Carolina ballot measure that would forbid same-sex marriages in the state.
Don't need no Weatherman
to see which way the wind
"Behind the Violence,Says Jane Alpert,Was Sex"
--November 09, 1981--
"The leaders of the Weather Underground, she believes, followed a similar pattern of constantly shifting sexual alliances..."
"He [Bill Ayers] also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to 'smash monogamy.' The Weathermen were 'an army of lovers,' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend."
Source: New York Times, September 11, 2001: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen"
"...the Weathermen, when not engaged in group sex, committed such revolutionary acts as parading with a Viet Cong flag through a local park on Independence Day and spray-painting the walls of a high school with the slogans, "Off the Pigs," "Viet Cong Will Win," and "F#$k U.S. Imperialism."..."
"What happens next bears watching closely, as does the response of the president, ex-Speaker Pelosi, and others on the left. Encouraged by leftists in the Democratic Party and funded by left-leaning nonprofit organizations and celebrity contributors, Occupy Wall Street may in time morph into something resembling the radical factions of the late 1960s and 1970s."
Committed? What does that mean; is it some special designation?
I watched the Mass for St. Patrick at St. Patrick’s
Cathedral yesterday. Cardinal Dolan was there, but the homily was given by Cardinal O’Brien. He slammed politicians over abortion and trying to redefine marriage. I was glad to see him come out so strong. He praised Cardinal Dolan for being outspoken in defending the faith. What made it so great was seeing that monkey-looking Andrew Cuomo sitting on the front row pew. This creepy liberal piece of garbage is the reason NY passed same-sex “marriage” in New York State. What an ass and a disgrace to Catholics that try to live their faith according to the word of God.
How does it put ANY family at risk? And at risk for what?
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Obama wrote on a 1996 Illinois questionnaire that he supported same sex “marriage.” So all the time since then that he has said he opposes it, you’d have to think he was “fibbing”...
What else would you expect from this president?(And he is NOT my president).
RE: This creepy liberal piece of garbage is the reason NY passed same-sex marriage in New York State.
Did he receive communion? If so, why?
“Did he receive communion? If so, why?”
I didn’t see him going up for communion. I have heard that he never attempts it. If so, that’s good.
Should be careful to set reasonable standards that you can prove or the left will dismiss your message when you need them to take this to heart and reject the betrayer.
Counting the days until he is gone.
O needs to keep his nose out of our business