Against gay marriage and against Amendment 1: 

If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.

Author bios here.

Comments

[liv]

As much as the right would love a European style dichotomy of marriage and civil unions, there's one thing that stands in the way... the US Constitution, which unlike most other countries has one particular flaw (or not) "ALL men are created equal." Marriage, if so demanded by gays and lesbians is a right afforded to all, as long as it continues to be a state supported institution.

The only other legal answer is to remove marriage from the state's responsibilities, and make a generalized civil union the standard, leaving marriage a church "celebration" instead.

I, as a lesbian, would certainly, despite many like me who would disagree, believe the later of those two policies are the best.

Yes, I'm out to destroy marriage. But, you get what you pay for.

[Billy Jones]

I've always wondered why religions welcome the soiling of their religious ceremonies by government. After all, everyone knows that politics is shit and when you play in shit you get shit on.

[justcorbly]

Agreeing that what happens in a house of worship should have no bearing on a couple's legal status would go a long way. If nothing else, it would expose folks whose claim of religion-based opposition to gay marriage is a cover for simple bigotry.

[bubba]

"...the US Constitution, which unlike most other countries has one particular flaw (or not) 'ALL men are created equal.'"

Really?

I must have missed that part of the Constitution when it was discussed in class, and I can't seem to find it anywhere in the document itself.

[Mad Dog]

I think bubba got you, liv. "All men are created equal" is not in the US Constitution, but is in the Declaration of Independence.

MD

[David Hoggard]

Thanks for the link to that piece, Ed. For those who have rightfully tried to make just that point, the de-linking of bigotry from gay marriage opposition is masterfully accomplished therein.

I'll be interested to hear rebuttals to the logic and compassion found in the article.

poli? Spag? Dr. Joe? cheri? What parts of it do you disagree with? (We've already got bubba's 'gotcha' response, I suppose)

[justcorbly]

Its a nice piece, David, but it does seem to me to suggest that its authors accept the notion that a "mother-father marriage" is a better environment for children. In reality, of course, it all depends on the people, not their gender.

In any case, I came away uncertain of their reasons for opposing gay marriage.

I wish the authors had told us if they think a mother-father civil union offered a child-rearing environment equal to a mother-father marriage. And, if so, why or why not. (It doesn't seem to me that the ritual surrounding the affirmation of a couple's commitment has much at all to do with how they deal with their children.)

[sittinginthemiddle]

"But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians."

I would guess we will find out on May 8th what the view of the majority really is....

[David Hoggard]

Corbly, I think they are simply traditionalists and I take no issue with their beliefs. They are inclusive and caring, in their own way, and I think their nuanced position is a refreshing thing.

I, also, adhere to the notion that the 'ideal' is a "mother-father" unit (marriage is optional, to me) is best in an ideal world, but as you point out, we do not live in an ideal world. Good and committed "mother-mother" or "father-father" or good single-parenting, while less than my 'ideal', is far superior to some of the bad parenting I've witnessed among some married hetero parents I've encountered (and evidenced by their hellion progeny)

As you say... it depends completely on the people involved.

[liv]

I stand corrected, and bow in shame.

That said, I stand by my original statement.

[bubba]

I would guess we will find out on May 8th what the view of the majority really is...."

And if the view of the majority is not favorable to the world view agenda that wants to invent a "right" out of thin air, then we will undoubtedly hear the excuses, derangement, denial, and disregard of the view of the majority.

[justcorbly]

In the end, the issue is really the right to commit to another person in a relationship recognized by law.

Denial of that right because of who you are is, I think, a form of ostracism and discrimination we uniquely apply to gays. Even in the worst cases of child abuse, for example, we do not annul the abuser's relationship or prevent them from marrying in the future. Two gay saints cannot marry, but if one of them decides to marry a recidivist sex offender who just happens to be of the other gender, the law won't stop them.

It's a strange thing, indeed.

[Billy Jones]

Ostracism and discrimination has long been SOP for conservatives. Remember the stocks, public flogging, witch hunts, tar and feathers, burning at the stake, death on the cross? Which, by the way, was probably just a pole as wood was hard to come by in the desert.

[sittinginthemiddle]

If two men have the right to enter into a marriage why not three men? Can three people not love just as much as two? Would 3 parents be better for a child than two? At what point does catering to two percent of the population fracture the societal structure altogether?

[designation]

@sittinginthemiddle 9:01am

Please direct your attention to divorce statistics from Massachusetts which has recognized gay marriage for the longest of any state and still has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

Seems like the societal structure is holding up pretty well there.

[Billy Jones]

sittinginthemiddle asked, "Would 3 parents be better for a child than two?"

Actually, traditional conservative parenting once encouraged 3,4 or more parents. The current 2 parent model has fractured the societal structure to the point that we have today.

But alas, no one expects conservative anonymous cowards to know history, much less learn from it.

[bubba]

"In the end, the issue is really the right to commit to another person in a relationship recognized by law"

Where is that "right" enumerated?

Same sex marriage is not a civil rights or and equal rights issue. It's an issue for those who believe that the intellectually bankrupt cause of "social justice" somehow justifies the invention of "rights" and the ability to change long standing definitions of certain social and civil institutions to fit one's world view.

[Andrew Brod]

"Same sex marriage is not a civil rights or and equal rights issue."

Yep, just keep saying that as often as you can. That's essentially the game plan for the pro-amendment forces. Well, that and trying to cultivate a "yuck factor."

[Stephen]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

While these words are certainly not in our Constitution, interpreting or amending our Constitution without keeping them in mind is un-American.

[David Hoggard]

"yuck factor", indeed. Support of Amendment One, with its many flaws, unknowns and obvious intent, is its own special brand of intellectual bankruptcy.

[Billy Jones]

Bubba wrote: "Same sex marriage is not a civil rights or and equal rights issue. It's an issue for those who believe that the intellectually bankrupt cause of "social justice" somehow justifies the invention of "rights" and the ability to change long standing definitions of certain social and civil institutions to fit one's world view."

Same argument could have been used to promote slavery and deny women and blacks the right to vote.

[justcorbly]

Most of the folks at the Constitutional Convention though only white males had the right to vote. Now, at the time, that was a rather long standing definition.

We have no obligation to live our lives according to the precepts of the long dead.

[sittinginthemiddle]

"We have no obligation to live our lives according to the precepts of the long dead."

Thats right, we should ignore the wisdom of our forefathers and run rampantly into the arms of the Progressives and Morally Bankrupt.

That should really do wonders for future generations.

[sittinginthemiddle]

"But alas, no one expects conservative anonymous cowards to know history, much less learn from it.- Spineless

Wow, the Spineless Hypocrites are getting nasty today......