April 04, 2006

NC Conservative Agenda: Point 6

Continuing the discussion regarding the 7-point NC Conservative Agenda. Today is Point 6:

Adopt Defense of Marriage Act

Once again, feel free to weigh in either for or against this idea for North Carolina (even if you're not from North Carolina).
Marriage is a sacred institution under attack in many states. With other states legalizing same-sex marriage, the attack on traditional marriage has just begun. Conservatives should fight for a vote on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

This bill is introduced every year. This year, it was Senator Forrester in the Senate. He continues to introduce it and push it. However, since it was introduced by a Republican, it never moves anywhere -- despite 24 co-sponsors. That means at least 50% of the North Carolina Senate is a co-sponsor and would vote for the bill. If it were voted on, it would only need ONE vote to pass...and that's why the Democrats won't let it see the light of day.

The proposed bill is rather simple -- it's not even a page long. It just asks for a Constitutional Amendment that adds, "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage is the union of one man and one woman at one time, and this is the only marriage that shall be recognized as valid in this State." That's it.

Note there's nothing there about taking away ANY rights from ANY people at all. It's very simple and 78% of the people of North Carolina support it. And the Democrats shouldn't really mind -- they disobey the Constitution now when they don't like it, so this won't affect them at all.

The so-called "gay community" shouldn't care either -- this doesn't stop them from doing what they want to do in the privacy of their own home. This doesn't take away any of their rights. But they will still scream and yell because they don't want rights, they want special rights and they want complete and total approval of their actions -- which I will not give them.

I completely support this agenda item. I'm not sure if it can pass or not, just because all it takes is a couple Democrats who love gay people to get the bill stalled in a committee -- as they've done in the past. However, if Senator Forrester lets the bill get filed by a Democrat, it will likely pass quickly -- and the good Senator has told me that he's more concerned with getting things passed that are good and right than getting his name on them.

Previously:
Introduction
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5

Posted by: Ogre at 02:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I still do not agree with the need to define marriage. If you take away the ability for two people to be married even if they are the same sex it will lead to even more restrictions on everyone eventually. Also, it would limit their freedom as well. The biggest complant I have for this is that it is statted as a religious necessity and I think all laws passed based on a religion are wrong in that you have become a theocracy. Not to mention that marriage as we define it is a pagan belief that many religions have adopted. That was always funny to me. And Ogre before you say that this will not violate gay rights will they still have the same benifits as a normal marriage in this state?

Posted by: Arbitratorofall at April 04, 2006 04:58 PM (5+Jvh)

2 First, I think the state does have a vested interest here, it's not just a matter of state vs. religion. The state NEEDS citizens. By promoting marriage that can result in more citizens (that's one male and one female), they are working towards their own interest. If the state promotes marriages that are physically not capable of creating more citizens, they're promoting their own destruction. And no, this won't violate gay rights, as you point out -- because rights are not the same as benefits. Everyone currently has the exact same rights. To create new, special rights for gays is the opposition to this, because this amendment would ensure that everyone would still be treated equally under the law, while gay "marriages" would actually create new, special rights only available to some.

Posted by: Ogre at April 04, 2006 05:08 PM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0505, elapsed 0.1672 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.1599 seconds, 191 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.