News-Record.com

Doug:

Experience tells us that existing law and what has been known as judicial restraint are not sufficient to prevent activist judges from grafting into the law rights that have heretofore been unknown. We saw this in both Massachusetts, where, as you have noted, the legislature won't even let the people vote on the question, and California where a simple majority overturned a mandate of 61 percent of the people of the state. The truth is very simple: Homosexuals win on this issue only if they are able prevent the people from voting on it. In every state that I am aware of, including liberal Oregon, people have voted to enshrine in their constitution what we have all long taken for granted: marriage is an arrangement between one man and one woman.

Sure, its a political issue. Dems don't want it on the ballot because it will make their homosexual supporters mad and bring supporters of an amendment, who are likely not to vote for Obama, Hagen and others, to the polls. The fact that it may, as you say, manipulate the electorate, howerver, is incidental, isn't it? To get folks to vote for a measure whether it be sales tax increase, school bonds, etc. don't advocates necessarily appeal to the hearts and minds of supporters. Take for example the recent school bond referrenda. The slogan was "Vote for Kids". Who can vote against that? The fact that a measure appeals to emotions is no reason to dismiss it as manipulative.

Best regards,

I would not welcome that. I firmly believe that candidates for our appellate courts should never declare publicly how they would rule in this kind of case or any other. Yet there are some who would, and do, proclaim their loyalty to "traditional" and "family" values, which relates a plain message. And then there's the chance that advocacy groups on either side could plunge into judicial campaigns and turn them into undignified, mudslinging, character-attacking free-for-alls. It could ruin our courts.* Doug

I am always amaze how this issue becomes the failing of western civilzation as we know it. The only people who will beat this to death as usual is the Republican leadership and their politics of fear. The American people couldn't care less about this issue since their focus is on how to pay for the next gallon of gas with instant relief.

Of course the Republicans could do the ole 527 trick in a state wide judical campaign.

" Straight Arrows for Jesus on the Court"

Doug:

One of Joe Hackney's first exercises of raw power as Speaker was to kill this same measure in 2007. Republicans had forced it to a committee vote and gotten it sent to the floor of the House. Hackney re-referred it to another committee where it died. Given that it's still, in theory, the same session and the makeup of the House is still the same, there's little reason to expect a different outcome.

There is, as you suggest, a question of timing. If this was really so all-fire important to get done, why wasn't the measure introduced back in May? Introducing it last week, in what amounts to probably the last 15 or fewer days of session, almost ensures a controversial measure will never see the light of day. Even if leaders allowed it to move, the chances that any bill starting from scratch could clear both the House and Senate before adjournment are dwindling.

Politically, I question whether gay marriage will be that big of a pull at the polls this year given the state of the economy. If you're paying $4 a gallon at the pump and your last job got shipped over seas, do you focus as much on social issues.

"I am always amaze how this issue becomes the failing of western civilzation as we know it."
Goodness, if redefining the definition of marriage, which has existed since the dawn of Western Civilization, and has been a cornerstone of our civilization is not "a failing of western civilzation" I am afraid to know what might rise to that level.

Paul Daniels said:
"I am always amaze how this issue becomes the failing of western civilzation as we know it."
Goodness, if redefining the definition of marriage, which has existed since the dawn of Western Civilization, and has been a cornerstone of our civilization is not "a failing of western civilzation" I am afraid to know what might rise to that level.

Good Grief! Do really believe that Adam and Eve corner the market on marriage? Name me one state or civilzation that fail because Gays went to war in the name of Jesus or Zeus with a State issue marriage licence?

Will amending the N.C. Constitution have an impact on the divorce rate and/or the number of children hailing from single-parent homes? Will it aid in the collection of child-support payments? Will it make the 1 out of 5 female children less likely to be sexually abused in her home? Will it help people become better parents, so their children will grow into adulthood with more respect for the institution of marriage?

Marriage does have a lot of challenges to overcome, but gay people wanting to take part is not one of them.

Marriage does have a lot of challenges to overcome, but gay people wanting to take part is not one of them.*scharrison

Marriage is a simple religious rite Pagan or whatever Christian cult one choses to believe or a civil agreedment contract [ verbal, written] that bonds individuals together with their life, liberty or joint property. Other than that, the state has no authority, except to tax the individuals to death until they depart. Of course scharrison wants to limit a constitutional right to Gays and the freedom of association as a limited "privilage" granted by the State which flys in the face of the Declaration of Independence that all humans are created equal before the law with equal rights and justice.

Marriage does have a lot of challenges to overcome, but gay people wanting to take part is not one of them.*scharrison

Marriage is a simple religious rite Pagan or whatever Christian cult one choses to believe or a civil agreedment contract [ verbal, written] that bonds individuals together with their life, liberty or joint property. Other than that, the state has no authority, except to tax the individuals to death until they depart. Of course scharrison wants to limit a constitutional right to Gays and the freedom of association as a limited "privilage" granted by the State which flys in the face of the Declaration of Independence that all humans are created equal before the law with equal rights and justice.

Marriage does have a lot of challenges to overcome, but gay people wanting to take part is not one of them.*scharrison

Marriage is a simple religious rite Pagan or whatever Christian cult one choses to believe or a civil agreedment contract [ verbal, written] that bonds individuals together with their life, liberty or joint property. Other than that, the state has no authority, except to tax the individuals to death until they depart. Of course scharrison wants to limit a constitutional right to Gays and the freedom of association as a limited "privilage" granted by the State which flys in the face of the Declaration of Independence that all humans are created equal before the law with equal rights and justice.

Marriage does have a lot of challenges to overcome, but gay people wanting to take part is not one of them.*scharrison

Marriage is a simple religious rite Pagan or whatever Christian cult one choses to believe or a civil agreedment contract [ verbal, written] that bonds individuals together with their life, liberty or joint property. Other than that, the state has no authority, except to tax the individuals to death until they depart. Of course scharrison wants to limit a constitutional right to Gays and the freedom of association as a limited "privilage" granted by the State which flys in the face of the Declaration of Independence that all humans are created equal before the law with equal rights and justice.