The dawn of time?  Really?

Check on that King Solomon story and how many wives and concubines he had, Buncombe GOP.

So lets say the good people of NC cling to their southern heritage and pass this constitutional amendment double banning legal recognition of homa sex yull relationships. Does the BCGOP think this is going to make their gay children, cousins, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, siblings, parents, neighbors and coworkers disappear? No it won’t. Does the BCGOP think this amendment will stop homa sex yulls from loving who they love and forming relationships of their choosing? No it won’t. Does the BCGOP think this amendment will make homa sex yulls stop having sex. Ha ha. No it won’t. Not in their most fevered imaginations. Does the BCGOP think this amendment will lower divorce rates among heterosexuals. No it won’t.

So what good does this amendment really do? It won’t stop anything these people are truly against.

“This is an amendment to preserve the definition of marriage in OUR beautiful State of North Carolina”

Mr. Mitchell, if you really mean “our” like your emphasis suggests, then you’d lay off the big government approach to social engineering and allow free people to do as they wish.  In fact, you’d recoil at the thought of doing so and find the idea repugnant.

Instead, you’re like many others of any political stripe who find some so-called Christian reason why the government has to legislate against gay marriage.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I would protect any church’s right not to marry whoever they didn’t want to marry.  That’s freedom of religion.

We got this pesky and lovable little concept going here too, though. It’s called freedom from religion.

Ban legal recognition of all marriages. Why should being married entitle you to special privileges?

Did it ever occur to you that some people may not have an issue with gays, just with them marrying? In fact that is probably the majority opinion.

So if you really don’t think it will stop anything important, then you shouldn’t care if it passes, right? Which it will, with 60-70% of the vote. I will proudly be voting in favor, and I am gay! I love defeating liberals wayy more than I want gay marriage to be legal. So much for your argument.

More meaningless postering from a discredited political party that yaps about jobs and individual freedoms while focusing exclusively on ‘cultural’ concerns (for them anyway) that always ends up as an effort to use the strong arm of government to suppress individual freedoms.

Not much more than a local clown show really.

Any effort to make ‘one man/one woman’ a law should also make the divorce of such unions illegal. It’s a sacred institution.

A primary reason that ALL North Carolina voters should OPPOSE this amendment has nothing to do with gay or straight, and is related to the blatant disinformation in Mr Mitchell’s letter: “This is an amendment to preserve the definition of marriage in OUR beautiful State of North Carolina”.

I beg to differ, Mr Mitchell, on two points.

Point One: Marriage between same sex couples has been illegal in NC since 1996. This seems like definition to me.

Point Two: The NC Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission is obliged to approve language for an official
explanation of the proposed amendment that can be provided to voters to assist them in understanding the
amendment. The Commission has only three members including Secretary of State Marshall, North
Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and the General Assembly’s Legislative Services Officer George
Hall. This document can be found posted on the NC Board of Elections website here: http://www.ncsbe.gov/GetDocument.aspx?id=2525

The official explanation states, in part: “The term “domestic legal union” used in the amendment is not defined in North Carolina law.
There is debate among legal experts about how this proposed constitutional amendment may
impact North Carolina law as it relates to unmarried couples of same or opposite sex and same
sex couples legally married in another state, particularly in regard to employment-related benefits
for domestic partners; domestic violence laws; child custody and visitation rights; and end-of-life
arrangements. The courts will ultimately make those decisions.”

Mr Mitchell, this amendment will open the door to taking away existing rights to employment benefits, domestic violence protections, custody and visitation rights, and end-of-life arrangements from all NC residents who are unmarried parents, unmarried couples, and couples married in another state - REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation.

This LACK of definition, Mr Mitchell, will then have to be resolved in the NC courts. In the meantime, the citizens in OUR beautiful State of North Carolina will have lost vital rights and protections.

Mr Mitchell, given the truth that this amendment actually REMOVES definitions of OUR rights and protections in a particularly harmful way, why do you think this is a good idea?

If Christians were more like Jesus, who would they hate? Unconditional love for others might be hard but that is what Jesus would do.

Those who think they have a right to tell others how to live, who to be, and who they can love are Not God. Because God Loves All People.

So many problems in Society today are because people are not “allowed” to be themselves. Hated because they do not fit into the stepford cookie cutter of “normal”.

It is the “haters” who make NC a sad state of affairs.

In a day when the number of divorces and the number of marriages are nearly the same, it’s quite hipocritical to say we need this Amendent to “protect marriage”. Here is what I say, let’s re-write the Amendent to state “Marriage shall be defined as the union of one man and one woman FOR A LIFETIME. Any subsequent union for reasons other than the death of one of the original parties in the marriage will not be recognized as a legal union”. Wouldn’t this actually help to protect marriage better? Wouldn’t married couples be more likely to seek help in a distressed marriage if divorce and a subsequent marriage would place them in a second-class category, with most of their original rights now gone? Actually, we all know this Amendment would never pass, even though it would go much, much further toward protecting marriage. Those who are for this Amendment should at least be honest with themselves and others. The Amendment should more accurately be written to say “We wish to formally state that gay North Carolinians should not have the same rights as other North Carolinians and we are so threatened by their prescense that we feel the need to write it into our law.” There, that’s more honest.