Skip to comments.Bigotry on the ballot? No, dishonesty in the editorial
Posted on 05/08/2012 8:33:19 AM PDT by ReformationFan
Many of the nations leading newspapers serve as advocacy agents for the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Leading this charge for some time, The New York Times regularly promotes same-sex marriage in its editorials and news coverage. Even so, the papers latest editorial serves as a display of how the argument for homosexual marriage is often pressed with what can only be described as undisguised intellectual dishonesty.
In Bigotry on the Ballot, the paper editorialized against Amendment One, the effort to amend the constitution of North Carolina in order to preclude the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. That question will be put before the voters of North Carolina on May 8, and the result will be an important signal of where the nation now stands on the question. No similar effort has yet failed when put before the voters of a state, but polls indicate that the vote in North Carolina may be close.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Not likely. The last two polls this weekend have it winning by 14% and 16%.
“No similar effort has yet failed when put before the voters of a state...”
Arizona’s in 2006 failed. It was then passed in 2008.
Correct. I believe the Ninth Circus tossed in in 2009.
The measure carried no immediate practical impact since same-sex marriage already is banned under a 1996 Arizona law. Supporters said adding the ban to the constitution would prevent judges from one day overturning that law.
To my understanding the 2008 Arizona amendment still stands. It passed by 57%. The vote would be closer know, I think.
NC should pass in the low-mid 60% ranges at least, I hope. If it is in the 50% ranges, some of the more liberal states that only passed them in the 50% ranges in the middle of the last decade might be repealable now by popular vote. I think SD and CA only passed theirs by 52%, a few others passed theirs in the mid-high 50% ranges. The statists and homosexualists won’t need judges or pols if they have the numbers, and they will quit screaming about the majority infringing their “civil rights” the second they think they have the numbers to repeal them, in my opinion.
Even Michigan banned gay marriage in a 60/40 vote a few years back.
Right, I think that is the same reason the Va amendment passed by so little(57% in 2006). Even taking into account northern Va that is too low for the time and compared to what the surrounding southern states passed theirs by around the same time. The language seemed to imply that all contracts between folks not married were banned, like wills and medical contracts. The AG had to issue a statement the state allow those contracts. It is propably the strictest amendment passed, but I think it would have passed by much more if it was not as broad.
Yeah, I’m not worried about it passing here in NC.
Opponents of the amendment here in NC have been pursuing similar arguments against it.
They’ve argued that it would invalidate all contracts between non-married people, as well as any benefits given by private companies - even though the text of the amendment clearly says otherwise.
They’ve also tried to argue that the terminology “only domestic partnership” would remove protections against domestic violence - even though the current laws against domestic violence don’t even require a “domestic partnership” to exist for them to go into action. A man and a woman who are merely dating and not living together fall under the current NC DV statutes.
Sounds like our marriage-haters have been copying from the ones in VA, even when it doesn’t really apply.
So are you a supporter or opponent of the amendment?
Here’s NC’s language on the ballot:
“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.”
If it passes, the constitution will be amended to read:
“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.”
“Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”
Yeah, to my understanding the NC amendment is pretty similar I think to many others, Va’s is almost unique in that a reasonable person could see it as statist meddling, and the Ag had to clarify how the state would handle it. I think despite the static from the homosexualists on the NC amendment they are tilting at windmills and hoping others buy into their nonsense.
That is so stupid. Even if true, would laws against assault battery also be eliminated?
No, it's in order to preclude the judicial imposition of same-sex "marriage," polygamy, polyandry, multi-person pansexual melangerie, "marriages" with housepets, buildings, furniture, or oneself ... and the government enforcement of all of this on churches, schools and private businesses.
Exactly. And the support for those things come from libs and libertarians who “just want the government out of our sex lives” and into the religious lives of those whose disagree with them.
They say they want the government out, but the government is already out. Nobody is stopping any aggregation of people, pets and household goods from living together. All sorts of property arrangements can be legally formalized under current contract law. Nobody is stopping anyone from holding a ceremony and calling themselves “married.” They want the government to force others to recognize their living arrangements as marriage, and they want the government to force everyone to act as if they accept and approve these arrangements.
If this were the first time this had come up, people might be excused for believing “privacy” was all that homosexuals asked for. However, it’s not. In Canada and Europe people can be arrested simply for saying they believe sodomy is a sin. Kids can be suspended from public schools in the US for the same thing, although they’re usually reinstated when someone appeals. However, it shows the totalitarian mindset that is driving the normal people of this state to pursue Constitutional amendment.
What do you think?
I assumed you support it, but except for a couple of pejorative inferences about the other side, i.e., marriage haters, and not being worried about it being passed, you did not indicate that you had voted for it. And you went into some detail on the arguments against it. And now you are answering a question with a question.
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.