Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Thom Tillis: Gay marriage amendment will come, then go

N.C. House Speaker Thom Tillis told a small crowd of N.C. State students last night that Amendment One, which constitutionally bans same sex marriage in North Carolina, would likely pass in May and be repealed within a generation.

The Technician, N.C. State's student newspaper, reported that Tillis talked about energy, his experiences as a politician, and Amendment One in a question-and-answer session. On the latter, he said: “It’s a generational issue. The data shows right now that you are a generation away from that issue.”

That means although Tillis expects the amendment to pass - he cited research saying 54 percent will vote to approve - he expects it's only temporary. "If it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years," he said.

Tillis is right. There's already a shift in public sentiment, with national polls showing a majority of Americans in favor of allowing same sex marriages. It's happening in some states, too.
In Maine, where voters overturned a law legalizing gay marriage in 2009, polls show that a referendum allowing gay marriage will pass in a vote later this year. If North Carolina doesn't vote down Amendment One in May, Maine would be the first state where voters didn't reject homosexual marriage.

That's partly why N.C. lawmakers dug in harder on keeping the wedding day away from gays, despite our state already having a law against same sex marriage. Gay marriage opponents are stacking their sandbags as high as possible against the inevitable wave.

Problem is, that puts us further behind states that understand gay marriage amendments are both discriminatory and bad for business. Bank of America executive Cathy Bessant reiterated that Monday, calling Amendment One "disastrous" for recruiting talented employees and "
a direct challenge to our ability to compete nationally for jobs and economic growth."

Tillis, a businessman and pragmatist, surely understands that, too. While it's nice to appear forward thinking in telling young folks that gay marriage is just a matter of time in our state, it's hardly visionary to shrug at inevitability after trying to block it. The "data" may tell the house speaker that we're a generation away from gay marriage; it's too bad he doesn't want to participate in leading us there sooner.

Peter St. Onge



110 comments:

ncdave77 said...

At least he's being realistic. What's frustrating is the obscene amount of money that will be spent defending the law while it does stand... never mind the black eye of having religion-backed discrimination right there in our state constitution.

IDEFI said...

I think he's right but it might take 30 years. I think most of the anti gay rhetoric and discrimination will die out with the bible thumping baby boomers... It will also probably be the case for the gop too if they don't do a serious identity revaluation in the future. You won't be able to pander to the ultra religious over 50 crowd forever and expect to survive. The new generation is increasingly less religious for good reason and less tolerant of bigotry.

Wiley Coyote said...

Problem is, that puts us further behind states that understand gay marriage amendments are both discriminatory and bad for business.

Anti-polygamy laws are just as discriminatory.

Look at what government did to people who used to practice it.

Shouldn't they, as consenting adults, be able to marry more than one person if they love each other?

altdude said...

Apparently bigotry is alive and well though against anyone who doesn't believe like the left. So, polygamy, child-love, etc should be next because as the only criteria is two people who love each other, who is to say what is wrong and what is not?

Anonymous said...

Amazing how you will quote a BofA exec on something that supports your ultra-liberal, pro-gay agenda, when you would otherwise be castigating her as part of the evil bank empire. You only care when the bank wants to make more money when it suits your left-wing stance. God forbid we should be left behind in competing for more gays and liberals to move to Charlotte.

While BofA wants to keep its politically correct attachment to "diversity," it fails to see that many customers will see this position as being totally opposed to their own beliefs. Bessant says in the video "Large corporations hate this kind of controversy." Well congratulations, you just brought more of it on yourself by taking this pro-gay marriage stance, in the face of majority opposition to gay marriage in this state, and most other states in which you do business.

And yes, it may be that future generations repeal this amendment...no thanks to the "everything goes" wide-open, immoral culture, media, entertainment and government educations that kids are bombarded and brainwashed with in this country today.

Christianity, which still, believe it or not, is the majority religion in this country, makes it explicitly plain that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. How hard is that to understand? As Christianity is watered down, belittled and attacked, yes, future generations may repeal this. Considering the path this country is on, nothing less would be expected.

Anonymous said...

I certainly hope it won't take 20 years to overturn this draconian unconstitutional law in the event it passes. Bigotry and homophobia is not a generational thing, it's been around for a long time. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and Amendment One is WRONG.

Anonymous said...

Altdude and Wiley...your comments just go to show how backwards beliefs are in the south. I yearn for the day people like you die off.

Anonymous said...

altdude, no one wants to marry a hamster. Be real. Anyone want to defend this bigotry should be required to do so without hyperbole and bible fairy tales and you'll see how impossible and ugly it is. Gay marriage affects no one except gays. They already live together, show affection in public and make lifelong commitments to one another. The bible-thumping bigots are the real abominations to Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Well if a BofA exec states we should not pass this, then by all means, we should listen right? Wow...funny how the Disturber takes the bank's side on this while blasting them with negative articles on anything else they do. Interesting.

Raise your hand if you wanted a mom and a mom, or a dad and a dad, instead of a mom and a dad? Not to mention, not knowing who your biological mom or dad was in either of those scenarios. Thought so.

Anonymous said...

Ah, there it is...wishing death on people who dare to pass this. Nice! And the ever-popular "the South is backwards" stereotype. Guess what...gay marriage has been voted down in practically EVERY state where this has been up for a vote. For good reason. Move to CA if you don't like it. Oops, I forgot...it's not even a sure thing THERE yet lol.

Anonymous said...

There will be a day when man can marry a dog, probably not in my lifetime but it will happen. "Mr. Smith loves Fifi and it's obvious Fifi loves Mr. Smith" - ASPCA

Anonymous said...

Leave it to these right wing hatemongers to come on here with their trashy comments in an attempt to crucify diversity. There is no bank that I know of that does not share BofA's diversity and tolerance stance. Keep your dirty money under your mattress if that makes you feel any better. Meanwhile, the world is passing you and your hateful kind by. Times are changing and there's nothing you can do about it.

Anonymous said...

ANON 11:40 Couldnt have said it better. Who wants 2 moms or 2 dads? And for wishing us "Bible thumpers" to soon die off, well just remember we have been here since the beginning of time and will not "die off". Believers are belivers and God;s word doesnt change. Yall 'gay friendlies' charge we should accept those with alternative lifestyles and different from us, but YOU are full of hate and venom twoards others that differ from you.

Anonymous said...

Funny how people in support of this have rational, calm arguments for wanting to keep the sanctity of marriage (which has been in place for thousands of years for good reasons LOL), whereas those opposed as usual come out wishing death, ranting and raving and calling us bigots. But then again, immaturity and nonsense are basic tenets of liberal positions, no? Same could be said for atheists. What sad lives you must lead, so bitter and hopeless.

Anonymous said...

What Tillis said was about the most realistic, sensible and intelligent thing anyone has said on this subject. What amazes me is the outright reactionary views from the homosexual community. Clearly, you folks are not smart enough to see he has done the mainstream homosexual community an incredible favor.

The way to get what you want is to bring the people with you, not ram it down everyone's throat via an unpopular court ruling. Roe v. Wade proved that. If you want gay marriage to harmoniously be accepted in society, do it his way, not the deeply insensitive way you are trying now. On the other hand, if you are leftist agitprops paying homage to Saul Alinsky, then you will be upset (the name calling gives you away) because you did not get the chance to do vandalism to our culture.

Anonymous said...

there is no such thing as "gay" marriage or "homosexual marriage. the amendment is for "same sex" marriage. Mariage does not require sex or a specific sexual orientation to exist in order to be married. i.e there are "gay people" and "homosexual" people who are currently married to people of the opposite sex.

Anonymous said...

"Charlotte is a harlot"

- Rev. Flip Benham

Anonymous said...

True, most of the "big" banks share this politically correct "diversity" nonsense. So now you're in love with the big banks all of a sudden? I thought they were the epitome of evil and your Occupiers wanted them taken down? Hmmm, interesting. Maybe you have more in common with them than you thought eh?

Liberals can't stand not getting their way, so they throw a tantrum and accuse conservatives of being hate-mongers and old school. Get used to it, we're not going anywhere lol. By the way, I will continue to pray for you, like it or not.

Anonymous said...

Most republicans ARE hatemongers. Things will soon be different and your kind will hopefully go the way of the dinosaurs, thank God Almighty!

Oh, and by the way, WE sure as hell are going anywhere either. So you better get used to it, by God.

Anonymous said...

I will pray for you Jimmy Swaggart/Fox News individuals, that you may find peace with that which you cannot change.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad he knows how I am going to vote.

Anonymous said...

" never mind the black eye of having religion-backed discrimination right there in our state constitution."

whther religion backs it or not, the current law stands on it's own merits. Numerous factors contribute to the Amendment and are valid (or not valid) based on their own merits. there are numerous reasons such as pronatalism and cross cultural and hisorical factors that are not unique to religion or any specific religion. Furthermore the current law and the amendment will allow any one to get married. it is not technically discriminatory against any person.
Religion is also being used to justify same sex marriage just as it is being used to negate it. The religion factor is not really a valid argument legally in either case.

Anonymous said...

"the Baby Boomers," America's worst generation.

Signed,
A twenty something

Anonymous said...

11:55 AM just proved our point lol. Eye-spitting...classy! The statement was not about current parental situations, but would you CHOOSE to have 2 Dads. Of course most people would not choose that situation if given a choice between having a MOM and a DAD. But then I'm sure your 2 Dads would be proud of your eye-spitting prowess.

Anonymous said...

"Most republicans ARE hatemongers. Things will soon be different and your kind will hopefully go the way of the dinosaurs, thank God Almighty!

...The statement by itself is evidence of hatemongering by it's author. Not the overgenearlization and then the wish for republicans to die.

Anonymous said...

Maybe republicans will become 'extinct'. I wouldn't wish death on anyone though!

Guess we'll wait and see how all this works out for you folks who hate from sun up to sun down. Miserable, useless existance.

Anonymous said...

The state has an interest in marriage as a institution to protect and nurture children. No one is saying gays cannot enter into a contract to be a couple. We can even pass laws that insure their rights. But calling that relationship marriage is like allowing all car drivers to participate in NASCAR races.

Anonymous said...

If he knows it's going to change in the future, why bother going through the cost of a) implementing and b) defending the law now?

It's a waste of time and money when there's already a law on the books against it. And guess what, if the SCOTUS rules that same-sex marriage is legal, NC (and however many other states) having a state constitutional amendment against it will mean absolutely nothing. So this whole idea that it needs to be in the constitution so a judge can't force it on people is nonsense.

Anonymous said...

"the world is passing you and your hateful kind by"
FYI People can disagree with the legality of same sex marriage without being hate mongers. duh

Anonymous said...

They could, but unfortunately they don't.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:18 - Really, the children argument? Is that the best you have?

Why then are childless couples allowed to marry? Elderly? They won't be nurturing any children either.

And guess what, not every gay couple has or wants children.

Not to mention the fact that you don't have to be married to have children or nurture them.

Anonymous said...

Who brought Jimmy Swaggart into this? He's probably on Cathy Bessant's side lol.

Yes 12:00, things WILL soon be different. Instead of just a Republican-controlled House, the Republicans will soon control the Senate, and most likely the Oval Office, for the Triple Play...due to no small part on your current Obozo's proclivity for pushing liberal social issues in our face at any chance he gets, not to mention his total failure on domestic, economic, energy and international issues. I'm not prejudiced...I'm about to vote for a Mormon for President!! ha ha

You want to talk about going the way of the dinosaurs, look at this very newspaper. It's ultra-liberal and typical of the dinosaurs that still control the liberal media in this country. THAT'S what's on the way out! They will be bankrupt within 10 years. Does anybody actually WATCH MSNBC or CNN any more...or pay for this paper? Good grief.

Anonymous said...

"Anyone want to defend this bigotry should be required to do so without hyperbole and bible fairy tales and you'll see how impossible and ugly it is. Gay marriage affects no one except gays. They already live together, show affection in public and make lifelong commitments to one another. The bible-thumping bigots are the real abominations to Christianity."

I don' tread the bible or subscribe to a religion. My understanding of marriage is that it is pronatalist by nature. It is designed for the nurturance of offspring. it is designed to reduce birth defects due to incest, it is designed to reduce involuntary servitude by esablishing a minimum age for reproduction and to protect free will. it is designed to ensure that two biological parents can easily identify thier ofspring, historically it has helped to establish and ensure paternity and assign responsibility for one's offsrping so that society doesn't have to do it. Wow that was rational and unbigoted and no bible thumping was required or performed.
Ther are already people who engage in homosexual behavior that are married to people of the opposte sex and have children. People who engage in homosexual relationships do not need to be married or establish or ensure paternal responsibility for offspring

Anonymous said...

hahahahahahhahaha

Imagine being told by one off your own that, despite spending all this time, effort and money in a generation or less it won't matter.

The only thing left will be a seething contempt for you and your stupidity.

hahahahahahah

Anonymous said...

Nah, there is no bias at the 0bserver

Anonymous said...

"Really, the children argument? Is that the best you have?"
- Absolutely

Why then are childless couples allowed to marry? Elderly? They won't be nurturing any children either.
-> they are anatomically able to have children. The only way to determine they aren't is to perform intrusive biological testing that is constitutionally barred. They are not required to have biological children in order to get married. It defies the entire reasoning (historically speaking) to establish two exclusive matesto ensure paternity and assign paternity/responsibility.
Furthermore the law bars immediate blood relatives from marriage to prevent incest/chromosomal damage, bars polyandry and polygamy, and marriage to or between children.

"And guess what, not every gay couple has or wants children."
Duh nor can they conieve them. No point in such a union.

bluecollarlesbian said...

The biggest problem with this amendment is that it is an attempt to once again legislate the religious beliefs held by a certain group. The Bible is the main thrust of their argument. Yet when one reads the Bible, it is clear that pologamy IS the biblical form of marriage.So if a man is insane enough to want multiple wives (hello PMS times 2 or more!)there is actually a religious argument that could be made in favor for it.

Other arguments are that recognizing the legality of the civil contract of marriage between same-sex persons violates "Holy Matrimony",yet many, many persons choose to have secular weddings performed by a Justice of the Peace. They are no less "married" under the laws of this land.

My partner and I had a religious ceremony nearly 20 years ago in Winston-Salem, NC. We belong to a major Christian demnomination that does avow the sanctity of a same-sex union, yet we are denied the civil, non-religious rights and obligations under the law.

That is the twist in this debate over NC amending its constitution. In doing so, you are violating MY religious rights as well as MY civil rights as a tax paying citizen of this state and nation.

It is critical that we get off the fence on this issue. If marriage and all it entails is a religious sacrament, then it must be stripped of its civil, non-religious benefits. If marriage is a legal contract entered into by consenting ADULTS then the religious argument is moot. No one asks a pastor to officiate the purchase of cars, property or the filing of income taxes.

Today it is my civil and religious rights being denied and marginalized, tomorrow, it may well be yours.

EuroCat said...

So let me get this "straight": this lying, sniveling, sanctimonious L'il Thommie Tillis pretty much admits that this ludicrous amendment is unnecessary, and will be gone in a few years anyway...yet he abused his power as House Speaker to ram through a ballot initiative that will keep our state's courts tied up in knots for years, cost this state's taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation, and ultimately end up on the dungheap of history where it belongs...all so that he could pander to the "nutcase fringe" of his party and burnish his rightwing "street cred"?

Is that about it with the only guy in North Carolina politics today who could make Jim Black look good???

Can North Carolina legislators be impeached? How many millions of dollars of taxpayer money does L'il Thommie have to be guilty of deliberately and knowingly wasting...all to promote and enhance his own personal status with the far right...to qualify for "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Anonymous said...

The fact that Tillis admits this thing will eventually be overturned, and doesn't seem too upset about it, shows how duplicitous politicians really are. Pander for votes in the short term, never mind about what's in the best long-term interest for the state.

Wiley Coyote said...

Anon 11:38

Tell me the difference between theargument that gay couple's civil rights are being violated because they are not allowed to "marry", and that if they love each other, government shouldn't be able to tell them they can't - versus - two women who want to marry one man, when they have the same love and want their civil right to marry?

Tell me why you would violate their civil rights?

It's as valid question.

Can't wait for "us to die" pretty much shows your civility.

Anonymous said...

When The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to identify the suspect, homosexuality was not an option, only black, white, or Hispanic . Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity!

Anonymous said...

What I do not understand here is that marriage is a religious institution. Why does one care if they can get "married" or not if they don’t respect the definition of what marriage is? Any couple can get a good lawyer and receive the marital tax advantages. But by enforcing an opinion on how you believe something should be defined inherently diminishes what it is you are trying to obtain. Marriage from the beginning of time has been between 1 man and 1 woman. If you don’t believe in the institution as a whole, why do you want to be labeled as such??

Archiguy said...

Apparently, the best argument against gay marriage conservatives can come up with is the false analogy of comparing it to polygamy and child marriage, not to mention incest, bestiality, and every other deviant actively their fevered imaginations can conceive of.

The fact is that those other things are illegal for good reasons. They all exploit, subjugate, demean, and in some cases abuse women or children. They will never be legalized, nor should they based on basic civil rights statutes, nor do they have any serious constituencies lobbying for their adoption.

It's also been factually demonstrated by any number of sociological studies that children raised by a gay couple in a loving household don't have any particular personality problems developing from their home environment, nor are they any more likely to be gay themselves than any other child in any other household.

And children from households with gay parents are certainly more fortunate than kids growing up in single parent or divorced households where love and support may have been largely absent. Surely this is an ideal conservatives should support since strong families is one of their cherished and oft-vaunted values.

And then, of course, you have the group who simply doesn't bother twisting reason and logic into knots with the above described false arguments. They just wave their Bibles or other holy books around and expect everyone else to bow down to their self-perceived moral authority. 'Cause they know exactly what Jesus would do - apparently he'd fear gays as much as they do. Who knew?

It's just a rationally indefensible way of discriminating against people who are just like any other people except in who they choose to love and partner with. And , like all other forms of descrimination, it's just plain wrong.

Anonymous said...

"the world is passing you and your hateful kind by"
FYI People can disagree with the legality of same sex marriage without being hate mongers. duh
March 27, 2012 12:20 PM

They could, but unfortunately they don't."
-> Speak for yourself

Anonymous said...

How many people would rather have 2 loving parents than 1 alcoholic or 2 abusive ones? It may not be the "ideal" but it's a lot better option than most other ones.

So what's the argument against same sex marriage that's not based on religious beliefs....?

People in favor of this ban are discriminating against a group of people for factors that are completely beyond their control (sound familiar?). It's only a matter of time until this issue is viewed through the same prism as the Civil Rights movement of the 60's.

No one is suggesting we change the requirement for consent, so that throws all your hamsters and 12 year olds out the window.

Anonymous said...

How many people would rather have 2 loving parents than 1 alcoholic or 2 abusive ones? It may not be the "ideal" but it's a lot better option than most other ones.

So what's the argument against same sex marriage that's not based on religious beliefs....?

People in favor of this ban are discriminating against a group of people for factors that are completely beyond their control (sound familiar?). It's only a matter of time until this issue is viewed through the same prism as the Civil Rights movement of the 60's.

No one is suggesting we change the requirement for consent, so that throws all your hamsters and 12 year olds out the window.

dorne pentes said...

Ok----if you AGAINST gay people, here's what you do: on voting day, go into the boothand push the button marked 'Against'. Your pastor told you to be 'Against' gays, so you shuld vote 'Against' that pesky gay amendment one.

Anonymous said...

"Apparently, the best argument against gay marriage conservatives can come up with "
-->There is no such thing as gay marriage. You are referring to same-sex marriage.
arguments about marriage are not "liberal" or "conservative" nor is it relevant. What is relevant is the validity of laws on their own merits.

"the false analogy of comparing it to polygamy and child marriage, not to mention incest, bestiality, and every other deviant actively their fevered imaginations can conceive of."
--> It is not a false anaology. You calling it an "analogy" proves that. Those are valid legal distinctions that and they ALL have to do with reproductive mores, just as same sex marriage does. They all have to do with creating an optimal environment for procreation where 2 genetic parents are clearly identified and responsibility is clear to the larger society.

"The fact is that those other things are illegal for good reasons. They all exploit, subjugate, demean, and in some cases abuse women or children."
--> That isn't true. There is nothing inherently exploitive in the case of polyandry and polygamy. The reasoning is historical for creating an optimal environment for procreation where 2 genetic parents are clearly identified responsibility is clear to the larger society.


"They will never be legalized, nor should they based on basic civil rights statutes, nor do they have any serious constituencies lobbying for their adoption."
Whether they will ever be legalized is irrelevant. If I told you same sex marriage will never be legalized would you concede that it makes it an invalid form of marriage? Polyandry and Polygamy laws are not based on civil rights. They do have constituenties trying to make them legal. Qualify "serious" please.

Anonymous said...

"It's also been factually demonstrated by any number of sociological studies that children raised by a gay couple in a loving household don't have any particular personality problems developing from their home environment, nor are they any more likely to be gay themselves than any other child in any other household."
--> It has been factually demonstrated by every science and every study that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce together. Whether they create a loving adoptive home, or make good step parents is irrlevant. There is ample evidence that people who engage in homosexual acts can and do get married to the other biological parent.


"And children from households with gay parents are certainly more fortunate than kids growing up in single parent or divorced households where love and support may have been largely absent."
--> households with "gay parents" is not one and the same with same-sex marriage or 2 genetic parents of the same sex, which is impossible.

"surely this is an ideal conservatives should support since strong families is one of their cherished and oft-vaunted values."
--> It is not a conservative or liberal value.A household and a marriage represent different things. Marriage exists primarily to establish an optimal environment for reproduction and ensuring, assigning, and determining paternity and assigning responsibility.

"And then, of course, you have the group who simply doesn't bother twisting reason and logic into knots with the above described false arguments."
--> arguments are arguments. The historical exclusion of same-sex marriage speaks for itself
along with the exclusion of cross-species, polygamy, polyandry, marriage to or between/among children.

"They just wave their Bibles or other holy books around and expect everyone else to bow down to their self-perceived moral authority. 'Cause they know exactly what Jesus would do - apparently he'd fear gays as much as they do. Who knew?"
--> Such is life. there are irrational people who use religion to support same-sex marriage
simply becasue of their interpretation of the bible as well. However based on the merits there are people who can logically understand why same-sex marriage is already illegal in NC.

It's just a rationally indefensible way of discriminating against people who are just like any other people except in who they choose to love and partner with. And , like all other forms of descrimination, it's just plain wrong.
--> It's not discrimination. Anyone over the minimum age can get married to one other human of the opposite sex regardless of who they are attracted to. Combined or individually all of the laws ensure an optimal environment for reprodction and ensuring proper care is provided for our genetic offspring. There is no need to do that between two people who obviously have no potential to reproduce.

Anonymous said...

You can oppose OR support same sex marriage (ssm) on a moral basis, but there is only one option in terms of legality. Banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. It defies the 14th amendment, allowing equal protection under the law. You may oppose ssm on moral grounds and that's fine with me. But don't tell me banning it is within a state's right. I think the civil war effectively put a limit on states' rights. They have their limits (namely when they deny others their rights).

Anonymous said...

That is a lie. Homosexuality is not a behavior.

Anonymous said...

Every generation thinks it's smarter, more progressive, more free-thinking, and more tolerant. The line between right and wrong gets a little blurrier. Our expectations of others, and ourselves, get lower, and our acceptance of less personal responsibility gets higher. More and more we suggest that if you don't agree with something it can only be due to fear or hate. Disagreement, on any grounds, is just a lack of understanding. Common sense and rational thinking have become old fashioned and out of touch. We confuse being educated (which has evolved from learning to think for one's self to learning to accept the thinking of others as fact) with being intelligence. We have a higher regard for ourselves because we require so very little of ourselves. The future sure looks bright. As long as you squint real hard, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Ok----if you AGAINST gay people, here's what you do: on voting day, go into the boothand push the button marked 'Against'. Your pastor told you to be 'Against' gays, so you shuld vote 'Against' that pesky gay amendment one.

--> what a ridiculous statement. First of all this amendment has nothing to do with being for or againste people who engae in homosexual activity. it is about same sex marriage. Many pastors tell their congregations to vote for or against ammendment one/same sex marriage. Regardless of what your pastor says you have one vote and you can vote for or against the amendment and your vote is secret. your pastor wont know. your pastor has a right to influence your decision regardless of his or her position. There are plenty of people who are attracted tot he same sex or who engage in homosexual behavior that are married already. The amendment does not provide any provisions outlawing those acts, feelings, or people who experience those feelings from getting married to someoneof the opposite sex.

Anonymous said...

We are not going anywhere either. Those republican hatemongers who love to lie and say no one watches CNN or MSNBC, have no where else to go with their ptitful arguments.

President Obama will be re-elected. There is nothing you can do about it either, so I guess that makes you mad as _______.

For people who really hate the Observer, your kinds is here daily on the site making comments. Talk about hypocritical. I'm sure the Observer is doing just fine and could care less about your baseless charges of them going out of business, all because they are not a Fox News Limbaugh spin factory.

God bless you.

Anonymous said...

When The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to identify the suspect, homosexuality was not an option, only black, white, or Hispanic . Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity!

Not sure if trolling or serious. Hoping trolling, figuring probably serious.

If serious: consider that the dispatcher didn't ask if the suspect was a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, atheist, etc. either. And yet we allow all of them to get married. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

The poster at 2:52 who keeps replying bit by bit to other comments is very disturbed. The responses they give are so blatantly untrue, it's almost scary. No wonder these people are brainwashed........and it really shows here. I will pray for your soul.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"the world is passing you and your hateful kind by"
FYI People can disagree with the legality of same sex marriage without being hate mongers. duh

March 27, 2012 12:20 PM
Anonymous said...
They could, but unfortunately they don't.

March 27, 2012 12:22 PM


Amen. Most are filled w/ hate.

Wiley Coyote said...

Poor Archie. Can't argue the valid points of polygamy.

Explain WHY three people - they can be two women and one man or three gay men, who are adults and love each other cannot "marry"?

Aren't their civil rights being violated?

Explain to us WHY they cannot "marry".

Your continued derogatory remarks towards conservatives shows just how blind of a bigot you are.

I am a registered unaffiliated voter and I SUPPORT civil unions for gays.

Again, tell us why you want to violate the civil rights of three consenting adults, heterosexual or gay, who want to "marry"?

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is a learned human behavior and is not genetic nor has it ever been or ever will be.

Judeo-Xianity teaches the Creator who created all things in the universe both large and small is perfect and completely free of sin or evil thus he can not be accused of creating sin or evil as those who say homosexuality is genetic. This is a lie from hell. A child is born with a clean slate and all behavior is learned or taught.

To allege perversion of any kind is genetic would be to allege the sinless perfect Creator is the creator of sin or evil. That is the unpardonable sin of blasphemy and from the pits of hell.

Perfection creates perfection. Man is allowed free will at the age of puberty and afterwards is fully responsible for his or her actions.

Spock said...

Ok, i'll bite. Why shouldn't polygamy be legal? If you're stupid enough to want to marry 2 or more women, that's your problem, not mine.

The crux of the issue is that these are consenting adults.

diggndeeper said...

I've always enjoyed listening to the "tolerance" of the left.

Spock said...

Just as i enjoy listening to the religious right try to justify oppressing a group of people by claiming "It's God's will".

Anonymous said...

"...your comments just go to show how backwards beliefs are in the south. I yearn for the day people like you die off."
I don't know where you live or why you are reading an article in a soutnern city in a southern state but most states regardless of region do not have legal same-sex marriage...
Your bigotted ideals regarding regions of the country are duly noted

Anonymous said...

I propose Amendment TWO, banning all fat people from getting married. It really is best for society ya know. Added healthcare costs and all. No? Huh.

Anonymous said...

If gays want to change the def. of marriage, why not change the amount of people you can marry? Why is the def. okay in # but not in parties? The Bisexuals are getting screwed here, they should be able to marry one of each...

Anonymous said...

Most are filled w/ hate.
--> Speak for yourself

Anonymous said...

It is funny how some comments assume that gay homes don't have alcoholism or abuse. So what happens in a two dad home when baby says "dada" who gets to say it was meant for them???

Anonymous said...

You cannot end gay marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. You cannot stop gays from having families and raising children. You can go on record with God for supporting intolerence and discrimination but you cannot stop God's children from being what he made them. In the end, you will lose and you will be judged for your deeds.

Anonymous said...

"I propose Amendment TWO, banning all fat people from getting married. It really is best for society ya know. Added healthcare costs and all. No? Huh."
--> It probably wont pass since it is based on an arbirary factor. health insurance rates no matter how high or low isn't nor has it historically been a requirement to get married.

Anonymous said...

Life was better before the closet was opened wide

Anonymous said...

For all you pro-evolution darwin loving folks, if man-man/woman-woman were meant to be, wouldn't gays have "evolved" by now to be able to reproduce with the same sex?

Anonymous said...

4:22, my point is this... If just a simply majority is all that's needed to deny rights to a minority, where does that end? The gay and 'fat' example are the same. If a majority doesn't feel a minority deserves a certain right, can they just take it away? You say it would never happen, but my question is could it legally? The answer to BOTH examples have to be the same.

Anonymous said...

@ 4:27 to equate the two would be admitting that both fat and gay are by choice...maybe you are on to something, the guy that likes the twinkie will always want it, just has to say no in order to not be fat...or gay

Anonymous said...

"You cannot end gay marriage by passing a constitutional amendment."
--> You can't stop gay marriage becasue is it does not exist. I think you are referring to same sex marriage.


You cannot stop gays from having families and raising children.
--> Families is loosely used if you are referring to a situation where two people of the same sex procreate together. It can't be stopped because it isn't possible to start.

"You can go on record with God for supporting intolerence and discrimination"
--> ask god how the children can be created with two genetic donors of the same sex. There is no discriminataion in NC law. Anyone over a min age can get married to one person of age of the opposite sex who is not their immediate relative. The same standard applies to people who are ttracted to people of the opposite sex.

"but you cannot stop God's children from being what he made them."
--> You are correct. No way to get around the inability to procreate

In the end, you will lose and you will be judged for your deeds.
--> You will be judged as well. Every citizen has a right to vote after 18 and can vote how they want on the amendment

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is not, nor has it ever been a behavior. It is no more so than heterosexuality. Anything else is a blatant lie, and of course all that the republican gay bashers can come up with. The mind hasn't developed properly over time apparently with those people. I pray one day the devil will release them.

Anonymous said...

4:30 I never said choice had anything to do with it. I could care less. Consenting adults. None of your or my business.

Anonymous said...

"If just a simply majority is all that's needed to deny rights to a minority,"
What minority? there is no minority. anyone of age can get married in NC. It is not a simple majority. Our state delegation already passed a law defining marriage as between one mand and one woman. We also have laws against immediate relatives, polygamy, polyandry, and minors.

where does that end? The gay and 'fat' example are the same.
--> No they aren't. Fat people and "gay" people can get married in NC. Fat people can reproduce with other fat people of the opposite sex jsut as "gay" people can. Many people in NC who meet both standards are married and have children. The key factor is that they have the anaatomy to reproduce with their spouse.

If a majority doesn't feel a minority deserves a certain right, can they just take it away?
No. All individuals have the same right

Anonymous said...

"If just a simply majority is all that's needed to deny rights to a minority,"
What minority? there is no minority. anyone of age can get married in NC. It is not a simple majority. Our state delegation already passed a law defining marriage as between one mand and one woman. We also have laws against immediate relatives, polygamy, polyandry, and minors.

where does that end? The gay and 'fat' example are the same.
--> No they aren't. Fat people and "gay" people can get married in NC. Fat people can reproduce with other fat people of the opposite sex jsut as "gay" people can. Many people in NC who meet both standards are married and have children. The key factor is that they have the anaatomy to reproduce with their spouse.

If a majority doesn't feel a minority deserves a certain right, can they just take it away?
No. All individuals have the same right

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Life was better before the closet was opened wide

March 27, 2012 4:24 PM
---------

Of course, then all of you could still believe it's the Leave it to Beaver era of the 1950s again. All that will soon be extinct, praise God.

Anonymous said...

God created people. Therefore God has the right to define marriage which is between a man and a woman. It has not changed and should not.

Anonymous said...

"I never said choice had anything to do with it. I could care less. Consenting adults. None of your or my business."
The state has the right to make the distinction of wat is the proper environment for ensuring that paternity is evident, and offspring has a reasonable chance of being healthy and does not have brain damage, that spouses are properly developed to handle pregnancy, providing for offspring, and having free will.

Anonymous said...

Why is marriage being equated w/ the ability to have kids? You're deflecting the question. Here's the deal. You're trying to tell someone what they CAN'T do (or our state is). It's none of your business. It's none of THEIR business. It's in direct contradiction of federal law (14th amendment - read it).

Spock said...

4:26 - If there's no evolution, then why does God make gay people?

Make no mistake, they're not making a choice, it's how they are, they can't change being gay anymore than someone can change the color of their skin.

Anonymous said...

@4:43. Whether someone can change or not is irrelevant for meeting the requirments for marriage.

Anonymous said...

4:53, what does that have to do w/ my previous post?
Ya know, funny how 'conservatives' hate the gov't, but in some case, want them to tell people what they can and can't do in their personal lives. Guess everyone's equal but some people are more equal than others.

Spock said...

4:53 - It was tied to my question about why God makes gay people (trying to head off the argument that nobody is made gay, they choose to be that way).

Marriage used to be about getting a herd of cattle for your daughter - i think words and concepts evolve to meet the times.

Anonymous said...

ok, I'm heading out. Hope I didn't offend anyone while trying to argue against this Amendment. Tried not to. Folks, we have to look out for everyone's rights...even the ones we don't personally agree with. If we don't, something we hold dear could be next. I'm a straight, married, father of 2. I'm not walking in any gay pride parades, but to me, this is true conservatism.

Anonymous said...

"Marriage used to be about getting a herd of cattle for your daughter - i think words and concepts evolve to meet the times."
... The way you explained that wasn't even logically possible. Marriage has and has had dvarious aspects throughout history. The most consistent is in regards to a social construct that helps males ensure they are really the ofspring's father. It also helps larger society assign paterinty and responsibility for offspring's genetic parents. That helps put legal and social force on the father to provide for his children and also reduces the need for society to provide in his absence.
In his absence it allows society and the child's mother the opprtunity to pesue resources to remedy his absence.

Anonymous said...

Wake up early and vote against the rights of others and try to prevent change. As Tillis said, it won't matter anyway. You can't stop change and you can't live in yesterday but you can try your best to - just like the taliban do in Afghanistan. Love thy neighbor? Sure you do.

Unknown said...

Religion is behind the amendment. And that is bad.

Religion once professed to know the world was flat, and burned people at the stake for denying it.

Religion in Utah once meant it's OK for a man to have multiple marriages at the same time (as long as they are to women.)

Religion today believes birth control is not good.

Do you see where I am going with this? Religion has a long history of being WRONG. Don't be wrong with them on this!

Anonymous said...

I am so over people trying to draw a parallel between same-sex marriage and either pedophilia or bestiality. Nobody is proposing that marriage will be between anybody but two consenting adults. Two men or two women who are legally of age and both want to marry are not the same as a man and a dog or a woman and a child. This argument is always presented as some infallible endpoint, when it's actually a completely ridiculous attempt that's inconsistent with the issue at hand.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality = Free Will Choice = Non-Genetic Learned Taught Acquired Behavior = Health Risk Perversion = HIV AIDS = Death

Anonymous said...

Homosexuals have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married folk.

Anonymous said...

My hope is that within a couple of decades government will be out of the marriage buisness all together... Who's with me?

Binny said...

Jesus was opposed to opposite sex marriage.

Archiguy said...

One of the line-in-the-sand positions the proponents of this amendment use to justify codifying discrimination against a certain minority group into state constitutions - and if they get enough Republicans elected and enough Supreme Court justices appointed - into the U.S. Constitution, is that gay people made some kind of choice to be that way. There are 2 things fundamentally wrong with this argument:

1) Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to the kind of abuse, debasement, and discrimination gay people still have to endure from society every day, not just here in our supposedly enlightened and secular republic but in most places in the world where conservative religious dogma condemns them as sinners, perverts, and all other manner of lesser beings? Who would voluntarily sign up for that?

2) Anybody who saw that 60 Minutes piece a few years ago where they looked at hundreds of pairs of identical twins and found several pairs where one of the children was gay and one straight would look at this "choice" thing differently. Some of these kids - who were genetically identical - began to demonstrate same sex preferences in terms of what they chose to play with and who they chose as playmates as early as 3 years of age. All of those children grew up to be gay, while their siblings grew up straight. And funny thing, it was statistically in line with the percentage of gay people in any human society we look at - around 2 - 4%. We see that same percentage everywhere, and we see it as far back as historians, sociologists, and anthropologists can look.

What that shows is that it is NOT a choice, that there are other factors at work, possibly hormonal, possibly endocrine, who knows? Someday we will. What we DO know now is gay people are not all habitually lying when they tell us, emphatically and consistently, that being gay was not a choice for them; they were born that way.

Given that reality, legally preventing gay couples who simply want to confirm their commitment to each other and the world in the same way heterosexuals do is completely antithetical to what America is supposed to be about. It's discrimination, plain and simple, and it can't be allowed if we're to remain true to the values of civil rights and freedom we claim to revere.

Anonymous said...

JUST because you disagree with homosexuality doesn't mean you HATE the homosexual. You just want to use that argument to push your sexual perversion on people that don't want who you have sex with legislated or make us accept your deviant lifestyle. It's the millitant homosexuals that are the ones filled with hate, attacking anybody that goes against your choice of sleeping with the opposite sex.

Anonymous said...

"Religion is behind the amendment. And that is bad."
Religion is not behind the amendment. The amendment and the curent law stand on their own merits based on the most basic reasons for marriage.
In fact numerous religious leaders and religious people oppose the amendment as well as some support it.

"Religion once professed to know the world was flat, and burned people at the stake for denying it."
Religion also led to some of the first schools for poor people. Currently religion condones and denounces this amendment.

"Religion in Utah once meant it's OK for a man to have multiple marriages at the same time (as long as they are to women.)"
State law in Utah does not allow polygamy. no state in the US allows polygamy or polyandry. this is NC. we don't allow polygamy, polyandry, immediate relatives to marry, or same sex marriage.

"Religion today believes birth control is not good."
Religion today thinks birth control is good and bad. depends on the individual and the religion, denomination, or the church they attend. It is irrelevant, NC state law allows birth control. Birht control has nthing to do with a state law about same sex marriage. Birth control isn't required in same sex marriage.

"Do you see where I am going with this? Religion has a long history of being WRONG. Don't be wrong with them on this!"
This amendment stands on its own merits, not religion. Religion is supporting and not supporting this amendment.

Anonymous said...

"One of the line-in-the-sand positions the proponents of this amendment use to justify codifying discrimination against a certain minority group into state constitutions"
There is no minority group. There is no discrimination. All citizens of NC can get married when they are of age. All citizens have the same rights.
"- and if they get enough Republicans elected and enough Supreme Court justices appointed - into the U.S. Constitution, is that gay people made some kind of choice to be that way. There are 2 things fundamentally wrong with this argument:"
Yes there are it has noting to do with NC's current law or amendment about same sex marriage. It doesn't matter if people choose their orientation. Anyone in NC can get married when they are of legal age.

Anonymous said...

"1) Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to the kind of abuse, debasement, and discrimination gay people still have to endure from society every day, not just here in our supposedly enlightened and secular republic but in most places in the world where conservative religious dogma condemns them as sinners, perverts, and all other manner of lesser beings? Who would voluntarily sign up for that?"
I actually believe homosexuality is much more accepted than it has been historically in this country. Particularly legally.
Regardless of why anyone does or does not choose to live a certain lifestyle or feel attraction to the same sex, this amendment is not about "gay people" . It is about same sex marriage. Currently people who are attracted to the same sex can get married. ...to One person, someone of the opposite sex, someone who is not their immediate blood relative.

Anonymous said...

"2) Anybody who saw that 60 Minutes piece a few years ago where they looked at hundreds of pairs of identical twins and found several pairs where one of the children was gay and one straight would look at this "choice" thing differently. Some of these kids - who were genetically identical - began to demonstrate same sex preferences in terms of what they chose to play with and who they chose as playmates as early as 3 years of age. All of those children grew up to be gay, while their siblings grew up straight. And funny thing, it was statistically in line with the percentage of gay people in any human society we look at - around 2 - 4%. We see that same percentage everywhere, and we see it as far back as historians, sociologists, and anthropologists can look."

Regardless of why anyone does or does not choose to live a certain lifestyle or feel attraction to the same sex, this amendment is not about "gay people" . It is about same sex marriage. Currently people who are attracted to the same sex can get married. ...to One person, someone of the opposite sex, someone who is not their immediate blood relative.

Anonymous said...

Given that reality, legally preventing gay couples who simply want to confirm their commitment to each other and the world in the same way heterosexuals do is completely antithetical to what America is supposed to be about. It's discrimination, plain and simple, and it can't be allowed if we're to remain true to the values of civil rights and freedom we claim to revere."

It isn't discrimination. most of the laws in the united states (and historically around the world) on their most basic level revolve around pro-natalism, bringing predictability to a male's paternity, establishing paternal and maternal rights, ensuring fathers are held responsible for providing for their children and to reduce societies need to support single moms and their children. people who are attracted to people of the same sex can get married today and currently do all the time. ...to people of the opposite sex

Anonymous said...

"I am so over people trying to draw a parallel between same-sex marriage and either pedophilia or bestiality. Nobody is proposing that marriage will be between anybody but two consenting adults. "
Yes they are. IN Utah in particular there is a large population of familie living in consensual relationships that are same sex and cross sex with 3 or more people in a domestic romantic relationship. They actively advocate for the legalization of their family structure as a marriage.
While a norm may seem subjective, ithey often are not. And allowing for one subjective norm to be overturned leaves room for others to be overruled as well.

Anonymous said...

I see all the cars coming from all those states that support gay marriage. For whatever reason, those states also have prohibitive taxation. Progressive states have high government spending and regulation. Business is leaving those states. No matter how many times you repeat it -- and you do, often -- the business argument is weak.

Anonymous said...

"Christianity, which still, believe it or not, is the majority religion in this country, makes it explicitly plain that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. How hard is that to understand?" Ummm..."Christ-ianity", which I believed is based on believing in Christ's teachings, says "Love one another." Period. Christ was all about embracing those that were shunned by society. Christ said nothing against homosexuality.

Read more here: http://obsdailyviews.blogspot.com/2012/03/thom-tillis-gay-marriage-amendment-will.html#storylink=cpy

Anonymous said...

For all the donkeycrats, here are a few things to learn about life;

A MAN is a MAN.

A WOMAN is a WOMAN.

Marriage EQUALITY = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN.

Oh yes, must not forget out human future too - an UNBORN developing "fetus" is a BABY HUMAN BEING.

Anything other than the above is RE-GRESSION of humanity.

Mark

Anonymous said...

Who in the world at the Observer is allowing garbage like the poster @ 10:33 as well as others, yet deletes comments that are defending the gay community? I can't believe the comments earlier about hoping gays die from AIDS and so forth. The author of this article should be ashamed.

TexGirl said...

"Most republicans ARE hatemongers."

Care to hazard a guess as to the political affiliation of the crowds of people calling for the death of George Zimmerman and announcing a bounty on his head? Add to that those people who make a comfortable living stirring up hate: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Anonymous said...

There are two different types of marriage. Civil marriage which is law and religious marriage.

Religion should never play a part in civil law. Think back to segregation and interracial marriage. It too was condemed as being "againt the bible" with couples being arrested in the own homes for daring to marry outside of their race.

The law of this land needs to be changed to allow civil marriage and if you also want to bring religion it, marry also in a church ceremony. Otherwise, any benefits that married couples now enjoy that same sex couples are currently denied (inheritance, etc) should be disallowed.

SEO Moz said...

Makemylove.com, India's leading matrimonial portal site strive hard to provide you the perfect match with a touch of tradition from a wide array of community, caste, city and much more for the global Indian community you can find your life partner with help of makemylove
matrimonials sites indiaInternational Matrimonial Sites