Posted on 05/01/2012 6:58:08 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
With a vote set for next Tuesday on a measure to change North Carolina’s state constitution to limit legal unions to marriage between a man and a women, here’s the final closing ad that the group organizing against it is airing in the home stretch:
The whole challenge for opponents of Amendment One has been to get voters to understand that a vote against it does not legalize gay marriage. Rather, Amendent One would establish marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union. As Tom Kludt noted recently, this would end legal recognition for other domestic partnerships, with untold implications.
Hence the above ad, which is paid for by the Coalition to Protect N.C. Families, warning that passing Amendment One could take away protections against domestic violence.
A Public Policy Polling survey released today found that likely North Carolina primary voters are supporting the measure by 14 points, 55-41. But here’s the bright spot: The poll also finds that if respondents are informed of the amendment’s consequences, it loses by 38-46. And this finding is key: “Those who know what the amendment would do are against it by 22 points, but they are outweighed by the strong support from the uneducated.”
That’s why opponents are holding out hope for a major upset, and here’s a bit more grounds for their optimism: The group against the amendment has just outraised the organizing rallying for it by nearly two to one. The Coalition to Protect N.C. Families is reporting that it raised $2.2 million in the last period. Meanwhile, Vote for Marriage N.C., the main group pushing the amendment, only reported raising around $1.2 million.
This means that a major voter education program, via ads like the above and door-knocking, could conceivably carry the day.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Someone should find out where the local Romney-ites stand
This may get me in trouble here, but I’ll fire away.
These amendments are a waste of time. They will be overturned at best in the next few years.
It would be better if both sides of the argument would get together and remove the legal definition of *marriage* from all state and federal laws.
We Christians see these defeats as an attack on our faith, and the people across the isle mean it as so.
Let marriage be a term bestowed on a union by our clergy, as it should be. Let the union of household members as considered by the state be something separately, but that is a superset of what us Christians call marriage.
If we don’t do this, marriage is going to be completely tainted in its terminology in 10 years, because we are not going to win the issue in the courts, no matter what anyone here may think.
Even more trouble for me: I am going to vote against this amendment, because it’s just more government dabbling in everyone’s personal lives, and in the end, will serve to weaken Christianity.
And Polygamy is coming, you can bet on it. It’s the next wide open frontier of family re-engineering.
The local Romneycans can go pound sand. I’m not voting for Romney in the primary, or the general, and I’m going to vote against gay marriage next Tuesday, which I’m sure they wouldn’t approve of either.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
I disagree. We hve to fight this tooth-and-nail. If the GOP had fought this better a decade ago, we could have stopped it sooner. Never, never, never, never give in. Our civilization depends on it. We have to make sure the U.S. Supreme Court becomes more conservative to prevent back door imposition of same-sex marriage.
The desperation of these people is remarkable. There's a reason that gay marriage has failed every time the people vote.
You make perfect sense. I think it’s silly that the state is involved with this. I’m a Catholic and I think only my church gets to decide what is the definition of marriage.
Early voted today, for amendment one. I also voted for Newt Gingrich; not sure how that will turn out. I’m kind of thinking that the amendment one vote might be a harbinger of what to expect in November...
We got “civil unions” here in 2000. The deal was that there would be equal “marriage” rights for everyone but the terminology would be different (civil unions for deviants, marriage for regular folks). Many moderates went along with this idea but the ink was barely dry before the lavender mafia went right after redefining marriage to include any couple.
Their aim is to destroy the family as it has been since passing abortion on demand, no fault divorce, gay adoption, and on and on.
Same thing happened here in WA state.
Wrong. Natural Law Theory—the very foundation of the Constitution and the idea of “Natural Rights From the Creator”—demand marriage between one man and one woman. The Judeo/Christian Bible defines marriage and it is the basis of our legal system and Objective Truth. Our laws (and rights) come from the Judeo/Christian God—not Barney Frank. The Marxist redefinition of “marriage” is illegal and destroys history and equality of the sexes and is sexist. It denies children their natural right to be raised by their biological parents and prevents men and women from doing their duty of raising their own progeny—the reason for all social contracts.
Homosexual “marriage” denies Natural Laws—the basis of our legal system and the origin of our Natural Rights. It comes from radical egalitarianism (Marxism) and atheism which denies the Designer of Man. It is incompatible with “Rights from God”—the basis of our legal system.
Before the Marxist takeover and brainwashing of all our children in public schools—such stupid ideas of “homosexual marriage” would have been laughed at-—and “sodomy is good” would NEVER have been allowed in the public schools—and “Bareback Mountain” movies would have been considered sick pornography—which they are....this brainwashing and conditioning—right out of BF Skinner—is designed to normalize sick, unnatural ideas—that have for thousands of years been considered extremely evil and dysfunctional. Only conditioning and brainwashing children can result in such absurd ideas as a “right” to sodomy-—can such illogical concepts be promoted and swallowed.
I hear what you are saying, and in a perfect world, marriage would only be a union bestowed by clergy. But, marriage is also in our civil laws. But, the homosexual activists, and polygamy/polyamory activists to follow in the years ahead, are determined to change the defintion of marriage.
Is there any way that the homosexual activists at this point would agree to just abolish marriage altogether, and stop trying to force this issue through the courts? They are hell bent on changing the definition. It’s hard to imagine that they would agree to not having any definition of marriage at all in our civil laws.
I’ve also heard people make similar proposals to yours, to the effect that everyone should get a civil union license from the state, and then, if they want to get married in a church, go ahead and take that extra step. The problem with that is, again, that the homosexual activists are not going to allow that sort of thing to happen. The battle is joined. They are hell bent on shoving this down our throats. If they win, it will make it more likely, not less likely, that we end up with legalized polygamy and legalized group marriage.
“prevent back door imposition”
That’s sort of what the dispute is over, isn’t it?
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
“change North Carolina’s state constitution to limit legal unions to marriage between a man and a women”
This would outlaw all civil unions outside of marriage. As usual politicians have gone too far and created a slew of potential un-intended consequences.
“Is there any way that the homosexual activists at this point would agree to just abolish marriage altogether, and stop trying to force this issue through the courts?”
The statists and homosexualists love that the state is involved, because there would be no way to punish those who won’t buy into their nonsense otherwise. They will never give it up, in my opinion. The state’s involvement affords too much control of the culture for it to ever divorce itself from the institution.
I would hazard that folks only think they can vote on changing the definition of marriage because they have been conditioned to think that marriage comes from the state, instead of their faith. Pope Leo XIII saw this coming 130 years ago.
Freegards
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.