You know what to do.
Please share with your friends, neighbors, and family. Make sure they are registered to vote on May 8, that they are not confused by the wording, and that they understand the harms that will be done to many North Carolinians (not only homosexual couples), if this amendment passes.
Vote for this...yes, for this! It's the way God intended it to be. Vote for this!
ReplyDeleteGod also "intended" one man and one woman to marry and remain that way...yet people who are For this amendment are silent on divorce.
ReplyDeleteGod "intended" for that one man and one woman to pro-create...yet people who are For this amendment have no issue with using contraceptives.
And this list could go on.
Why are there no Amendments to legislate everything which God "intended"? Why do we single out this one issue? And why do we so easily ignore so many others? I believe it's fear, and irrational fear at that. I used to be this way, and probably still am with some things, until I realized it was my own arrogance that caused me to fear others who were not like me. Arrogance because I unknowingly had set myself up as the measuring-rod by which others should be measured. I've come to dislike this in myself and to dislike it in others. God is big enough to look after what he "intended". He doesn't need us to write a constitutional amendment to make sure one group ensures another group abides by His rules which they have decided are the important ones while ignoring so many others.
I don't understand the argument here. Please explain to me and others how a vote of "yes" for amendment one is going to protect us, benefit NC economy, and reduce social injustice.
ReplyDeleteThe first line in the Bill of Rights states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This should inherently reject arguments for the amendment based on "god" or religion, and delegate these decisions to the church performing the marriage, not government.
The Bill of Rights pertains to constitutional law. It does not pertain to states rights. The federal government can not force states to accept same sex marriage. Furthermore congress is not making the law. The citizens of N.C. are voting for an ammendment which will become state law if enacted. Congress has no say in this. Citizens do.
ReplyDeleteYour are correct. The federal government can not force states to accept same sex marriage. However, it can prevent the denial of public right's. If domestic unions involving same sex couples can be considered constitutionally protected, then the federal government would have the ability to keep state laws from prohibiting same sex marriage.
DeleteCongress shall make no law establishing religion. The 1st Amendment refers to federal congress - not to states. It was written to clarify that congress could not make a law requiring citizens to be catholic, lutheran, unitarian, congregrationalist, atheist, jewish, presbyterian, quaker or any other denomination. The constitution deliberately reserves all powers not specifically given to federal congress or withheld from it to the individual states.
ReplyDeleteNC has every right to join the groundswell of states protecting marriage as it has always been defined.
This is not "inherently" establishing religion any more than laws prohibiting murder or theft "inherently" establish religion just because they appear in the Ten Commandments.
VOTE YES.
Ah, sorry if I misunderstood.
DeleteI was not saying government was trying establishing any religion, rather government should not make laws based religious beliefs. I was stating that the proposed amendment should “naturally” be rejected by the 1st amendment. I also don't think we prohibit murder or theft because of the Ten Commandments, one of our inalienable constitutional rights is life, prohibiting murder.
I was responding to the March 27th post "God intended it to be...".
The 14th amendment, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", keeps states from superseding the 1st amendment. This was also found evident in Murdock v. Pennsylvania: a state ‘shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercisethereof . . . .' "
Remember, the constitution protects the natural rights of the public from federal and state governments.
I was asking for the reasons for the protection of marriage. I’m not trying to say vote yes or no. I just want to understand both sides of the public debate.
By the way, when you mock people you “inherently” look like a jerk.