House Speaker Kills Marriage Amendment Bill

[suburban george3]

NC Speaker Joe Hackney, effectively killed efforst to put forth a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in NC today. Democrats were trying to get this bill sent to committee, but efforts were rejected, sending this to the full house for a vote. Hackney, exercising power as speaker, referred this to one of three House Judiciary Committees. Without a vote by the full house by Thursday, the amendment will die for the remainder of the two year session.

I am glad to see Hackney take this stand and see what these amendment efforst to ban gay marriage are for. Now if we can just get the tide to turn here to recognize gay marriage! I hope that somehow our state can show some leadership in the SE on this matter.

WSJ Article about Marriage Amendment Bill

[wfdude]

NC Speaker Joe Hackney, effectively killed efforst to put forth a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in NC today. Democrats were trying to get this bill sent to committee, but efforts were rejected, sending this to the full house for a vote. Hackney, exercising power as speaker, referred this to one of three House Judiciary Committees. Without a vote by the full house by Thursday, the amendment will die for the two year session.

I am glad to see Hackney take this stand and see what these amendment efforst to ban gay marriage are for. Now if we can just get the tide to turn here to recognize gay marriage! I hope that somehow our state can show some leadership in the SE on this matter.

WSJ Article about Marriage Amendment Bill

[roundhere]

Actually, if this had been approved, it would have gone up for a vote by the people of this state to approve it or not in the next election. This is shows that there is too much power in the hands of a few. What is there to be afraid of? Im actually a little embarrassed that NC is one of the only southern states without the amendment, LET US VOTE!

[cinco]

Actually, if this had been approved, it would have gone up for a vote by the people of this state to approve it or not in the next election. This is shows that there is too much power in the hands of a few. What is there to be afraid of? Im actually a little embarrassed that NC is one of the only southern states without the amendment, LET US VOTE!

[elvigy]

The civil rights of a minority should NOT be up for a vote by the members of the majority. If it were, interracial marriage would still be illegal, schools would still be segregated, etc.

[intcvlcphlga]

Actually, if this had been approved, it would have gone up for a vote by the people of this state to approve it or not in the next election. This is shows that there is too much power in the hands of a few. What is there to be afraid of? Im actually a little embarrassed that NC is one of the only southern states without the amendment, LET US VOTE!

[roundhere]

I'm proud that the Speaker tabled the issue. North Carolina should assume the leadership position among southern states against ignorance and bigotry. You ask: "What is there to be afraid of?" That is the relevant question in this debate. How is it that two women or two men being granted a marriage license by the secular state (not by a religious institution) is something to be fearful of? How is it that such a union would diminish a straight marriage? It seems like the prevalence of divorce in straight marriages already qualitatively diminishes the institution - and, that is without any input from gay people. Frankly, I'm embarrassed that our country has become so wrapped up in the idea that we should write discrimination into our state and federal constitutions and that too many of our elected officials would rather score cheap political points with issues like gay marriage rather than address real issues like national security, international relations, energy independence, the environment, campaign finance reform, poverty, education, the deficit, etc.

[intcvlcphlga]

I believe in 1996 there was a law passed in NC that the state will only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman as legal. But the worry of many people is that a activist judge will hand down a ruling striking the current law.

I disagree that the majority should not have their opinion heard. That is the ultimate abscence of democracy.

[TLT]

I believe in 1996 there was a law passed in NC that the state will only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman as legal. But the worry of many people is that a activist judge will hand down a ruling striking the current law.

I disagree that the majority should not have their opinion heard. That is the ultimate abscence of democracy.

[willrusso]

I'm moving to Canada LOL

[cinco]

I'm moving to Canada LOL

[roundhere]

Actually the United States is a Republic, which is a government where the people elect Representatives they trust to make the right decisions for them. The elected officials in a republic are intrusted to make sure the rights and liberties of the minority are not taken away or trampled on by the majority. The founding fathers were a little weary of pure democracy for this very reason.

[roundhere]

If you're going to quote my post (or someone else's for that matter), the protocol is to actually respond to issues raised in the post.

That said, it's good to see the Karl Rove's talking points are circulating throughout the red states. Of course, by definition, the Warren Court and their Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education would have been considered an example of judicial activism. And, regardless of whether NC follows the national trend of ignorance and bigotry and amends its constitution to discriminate against gay people, these laws will be turned back and rendered unconstitutional.

Getting back to my earlier point, I would be interested in getting your opinion on some of the questions I raised. Take your pick:

How would a same sex marriage affect an opposite sex marriage?

Is the pending legalization of same sex marriages the reason so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce?

Is the issue of gay marriage more important than balancing the budget? confronting Al Qaeda? addressing the health care issue?

[TLT]

The United States was based on the freedom of its people. The freedom of religion. The freedom of choice. I don't understand why anyone would want to add an amendment to the state constitution that would take away someone Else's liberties. Why should your religious beliefs trump my religious beliefs? Why do you care who I marry? What gives someone the rights to tell me what I can do in the privacy of my own home as long as its with another consenting adult?

I have had the same partner for 19 years. My partner and I lead a normal and dull life as the next couple. We go to work everyday, enjoy movies and eating out on the weekends, plan a week of vacation every year. How are so different that we can't have the same rights as other married couples?

My best friend at my workplace for the past 13 years, has been married and divorced twice since we have worked together.His wives enjoyed all the benefits that our work place offers, but yet the person I have been with for 19 years gets none of those privileges.

How is that fair?

I just don't understand how our lives together has such an adverse affect on someone else, that we need to have a constitutional amendment to stop us from completing who we are.

[intcvlcphlga]

1. There are people out there that want to marry within their family. Should that not be legal too? Since after all, I am not directly affected by it.

2. Hetero/Homo, doesnt matter, just as many gay partners have fights and break up like heterosexual couples.

3. The issue of gay marriage is just one of many issues we face. Why not let the people of the state vote on it now?

[elvigy]

I have had the same partner for 19 years.

[mallguy]

deleted

[ncwebguy]

This "amendment" was proposed for the same reason other states have them -- to drive far right voters to the polls during the November 2008 election. Period.

It had *nothing* to do with the law -- existing law already exists on the books. It had *everything* to do with making the Democrat-controlled General Assembly appear to be out of touch with voters.

I know this isn't over, but at least this smoke screen has been delayed for a little while.

Employers can extend benefits to whomever they want, and many companies do allow coverage for partners. Should this be required? I don't know. I don't think roommates should get marrige-like benefits, but anyone who undergoes a civil ceremony (including marriges) that declares two people are a single entitiy -- in any combination of genders -- should be extended the same benefits "couples" get now.

[Justadude]

According to all the polls, the progression of time is an enemy to the conservative side of this debate. The younger a voter is, the more likely (s)he has a tolerant view of homosexuality.

[Spatula]

Actually the United States is a Republic, which is a government where the people elect Representatives they trust to make the right decisions for them. The elected officials in a republic are intrusted to make sure the rights and liberties of the minority are not taken away or trampled on by the majority. The founding fathers were a little weary of pure democracy for this very reason.

[Pillsbury]

You know, I really love how everyone attacks "activist judges" and the like for simply handing down decisions which are consistent with the Constitution of the USA. If you have to have a constitutional amendment to protect a certain law, then something is wrong with that law.

Cheers for North Carolina for not giving in to the stupid madness. Shame on my state.

[Spatula]

Damn those activist legislators!

[LJinPA]

I read a poll somewhere, (you could probably find it by googling it) saying that a great majority of NC voters are against gay marriage, but almost 3/4 of the state feel that gays should be free of discrimination or have equal rights.

Personally I don't need the government to tell me the status of my relationship (I have a libertarian streak in me) though I do think hospital visitation rights and stuff like that are a must- It would be interesting if more states (if theyre going to make a ballot referendum like Colorado did where they make civil unions a seperate question.

Bill O'Reilly has in interesting point even though I'm not with him on a lot of social issues... a type of Civil Unions for everyone- not necessarily under a romantic context...It sounds like a good idea. Rudy Giuliani even mentioned a domestic partnership in his campaign...it's still better than nothing)

The problem with a ballot referendum is that religious conservatives outnumber gays. A straight person who's tolerant or has no problem with gay marriage (unless they have a close gay relative) isn't going to feel as motivated to make a special trip to the voting booth to vote against the amendment... So voter turnout would be higher among the religious conservatives giving the amendment an advantage.

(Many of the religious right get told things on the order of hell-fire or the pain of serious sin if they don't vote...)

Even though I'm gay I wrestle with the issue of gay marriage noting the backlash it has caused. Massachusets may be closer to ready, but the publicity I feel causes a backlash in "middle" America and could hurt gays there. I think there needs to be more work to combat homophobia nationwide and a change of heart first and then look at marriage. I'm just thinking realistic...

Incest BTW is different since it increases the risk of birth defects. Pedophilia and Beastiality involve another party not fully consenting.

Congrats to NC and Florida for being the last 2 states not to pass such an amendment.

[Pillsbury]

^ That's a good point. I'm straight and most of my friends are straight. They span the spectrum from liberal to conservative. One thing they have in common is that they couldn't careless about gay marriage. There is no controversy to them. I'll never forget the sight in high school of one guy declaring he was gay and a group of his redneck friends going "yeah man, that's cool. There is nothing wrong with that." Point is young people don't care. The conservatives are simply putting off the inevitable.

Wouldn't really hold Florida up though, considering homosexuals are barred from adopting children.

[elvigy]

Even though I'm gay I wrestle with the issue of gay marriage noting the backlash it has caused. Massachusets may be closer to ready, but the publicity I feel causes a backlash in "middle" America and could hurt gays there. I think there needs to be more work to combat homophobia nationwide and a change of heart first and then look at marriage. I'm just thinking realistic...