newsobserver.com projects - Marriage vow - Comments

Re: Marriage vow

UniqueMaterial — Tue, 22 May 2007 18:27:06 -0400

The most reasoned argument I've heard yet. Thank you.

"Amending the constitution is a very serious process that should only be used for very serious issues that affect ALL North Carolinians. This is not one of them."

I am a "state Democrat"

Anglico — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:42:49 -0400

and what I support is liberty and equality. The current state statute is aligned with neither.

Over time, our state will come to understand that its statutes should be changed . . . not by some judge, but from the gradual awakening of individual citizens. Just as the flat-earth Theocrats eventually acknowledged that the earth is not the center of the universe, just as the creationists in America have become the laughingstock of civilized people throughout the world, so too will the hateful, bigoted position of homophobes eventually fall.

Not today, not tomorrow, but in another generation, good people will look back and wonder what in god's name the fright wing of the Republican party was thinking.

You might BE an American

Anglico — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:35:35 -0400

Mr. Past, but you sure don't act like one.

I served in the armed forces for nine years under a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the freedoms it represents. The highest court in the land has said burning a flag is one of those freedoms: protected speech.

The only times I waver in my commitment to the integrity of american values is when rabid xenophobes try to force their patriotic purity on those who don't agree with them. In those circumstance, the only feeling I have is one of embarrassment to be sharing a country with such people.

What are you doing here? Why aren't you over in Iraq picking sand out of your teeth?

Re: Marriage vow

BlueIsPastTense4Blows — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:27:14 -0400

HAHAHAHAHA!

Thats the hardest I've laughed all day!

You win. That was a good one.

**Clarification: I am NOT Vernon Robinson!**

Re: Marriage vow

lefaim — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:24:40 -0400

I didnt realize you were Vernon Robinson. Good day.

Re: Marriage vow

jguarino — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:24:09 -0400

Accusing someone of bigotry or of being a theocrat is a great way to avoid the substance of the issue. But name calling or hurling accusations like that at other commenters should have no place on this or any serious blog.

If the state Democrats want gay marriage to be legal in North Carolina, they should make it happen. They control both houses of the legislature, and occupy the governor's mansion. They should not rely on an obscure future district court judge to do it for them. They should take responsibility.

If the state Democrats truly support the current state statute, there would be no harm in amending the state constitution. But they do not, and therefore have not.

Re: A thousand cheers for

BlueIsPastTense4Blows — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:19:18 -0400

Real quick... how many of members of your "Democratic leadership" are on their way to jail?

Thanks for the reminder.

Re: Marriage vow

BlueIsPastTense4Blows — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:17:42 -0400

UnAmerican? (captialize the name of your nation, Mr. Patriot)

This coming from a member of the same party that said illegal immigrants have the right to burn the American flag on American soil while protesting American law in L.A.?

Until you uphold the sanctity of the symbol of freedon that is our flag and STOP trying to destroy everything that was set forth by our nations founding fathers, don't talk to my about being an American!

Re: Marriage vow

lefaim — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:11:38 -0400

You can "win" all the rhetorical points you want. You are still advocating for bigotry to be a part of the constitution, and are on the same level of those who denied equal rights to blacks and women before this issue.

No amount of whining about "liberal activist" judges can change the fact that your political philosophy is unamerican.

Re: Marriage vow

lefaim — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:05:09 -0400

All this time I thought it was the right of the legislature to write law.

Then again, when you vote for people like George Bush and cheer over people like Roberts and Alito I can see how you would be confused about the responsibilities and authority of the different branches.

Re: Marriage vow

Horatius_Liberalis — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:58:57 -0400

"All the bill does is take what is now a statute and put it into law."

Statutes are laws. I hear "red shirts" went out after the 1890s.

A thousand cheers for

Anglico — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:53:41 -0400

Speaker Hackney.

And thank heaven's the bigots and Theocrats who want to build discrimination into the North Carolina Constitution aren't in power. This is a good an example as you'll ever find of the importance of Democratic leadership.

Re: Marriage vow

nhs269 — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:53:26 -0400

Since it's already a state statute, making a constitutional amendment would be redundant and would be nothing more than a political stunt for conservative politicians to brag about to their constituents back home. Things change over time. If, in the future, the majority of North Carolinians support same-sex marriage, they should be able to elect people that will overturn that statute and not have to go through the tedious process of repealing Constitutional amendments. Amending the constitution is a very serious process that should only be used for very serious issues that affect ALL North Carolinians. This is not one of them.

Re: Marriage vow

nhs269 — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:53:12 -0400

(see below... sorry, i replied in the wrong spot.)

Re: Marriage vow

jguarino — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:51:35 -0400

Hackney's motives are clear. He is leaving open the option for a district court judge in the future to find a right to gay marriage in the state constitution, and thereby write new law. This would greatly please some of the state Democratic Party's interest groups.

If Hackney was so supportive of the current statute, there would be no need to oppose this legislation which would take the issue away from the state judiciary. But it would serve the interests of some state Democrats to have a judge write this new law legalizing gay marriage in the state, because they would not have to accept direct political responsibility for it happening.

That is why Hackney's actions are so dishonorable. If he and his party want gay marriage, they should take responsibility for it, and make it legal themselves in the legislature.

Marriage vow

Michelle_Valenzuela — Tue, 22 May 2007 14:48:14 -0400

House Speaker Joe Hackney said he would use the power of his office to kill the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage.

"I said at the beginning of the session that we will control the agenda, and that's what we will do," the Orange County Democrat said.

Hackney said he would send the bill to a committee, where it will likely die this session. The bill, which would bring to a public vote a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and woman, must pass either the House or Senate this week in order to stay alive for the legislative session.

Hackney's move would essentially overrule a House committee vote to send the proposal to a vote of the full House.

The committee vote elated amendment supporters because it was the most progress the proposal has made in four years.

Hackney said a constitutional amendment would not change state law defining marriage.

He called the bill "simply a political agenda."