Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

In a country of 300 + million people, I might have known that my use of the  neologism 'Repugnant-cant' was not the first such use ever. I swear, however (for whatever that's worth) that when I used it sincerely the other day,  I had neither seen it written nor heard it spoken in all my life. Perhaps if I had only attended a few more 'Democrat'(Lol) rallies......?

Umbro, it is a favorite device of the fundamentalist/religionist, whether s/he be Christian, Muslim, or of any other "faith," to impute his own values to God. The terrorists do it to justify their murderous rampages. By imputing his or her own beliefs to God, s/he magically creates a higher "authority" that in turn imparts credibility to the person citing the beliefs of said deity. It's a circle from which no unthinking person ever escapes. In other words, Umbro, man creates God in his own image, just as you have. The god of the fundamentalist invariably reflects the bigotries and hatreds and all his or her other sacrosanct values as well, and of course that can even lead to murder in the name of God, just as it has for radical Muslim fundamentalists.

"Marriage" in the days of the Bible was very different than the marriage of today. In those days, the man owned his wife. Lot offered his own daughters up for rape. And if a "husband" wanted to offer his wife to a man who was a guest in his home, he could do that. Do you really find morality in any of those treasured Biblical traditions? The "marriage" of which you speak is a relatively recent invention and bears little resemblance to the marriages in the Bible that you value so highly.

To the extent that heterosexuals are made by God, gays are made by God. They have existed in every culture, from the most primitive to the most advanced, since the dawn of the human being. God made them. Just as he made you, if he did. And yet here you are publicly declaring a creation of God to be repugnant. Shame on you.

TooKatz, they have the same rights as normal people. no one has the right to get married, not even normal people. I am so sick of hearing about gay rights. Why would they get special rights. they have all the same rights as everyone else so why do they think they should have additional rights and why is anybody bothering to even talk to them about it?

Omegaman:

Full poll info is typically just a google search away.

Read and enjoy

http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/elonpoll/032309_ElonPollData.pdf

Suppose I don't believe God (by whatever name) forbids homosexual behavior, and that it is not an inviolate truth that one man-one woman equals marriage. Suppose I'm still a devout believer, that I still have faith, but suppose I believe the Bible is words from men, not from God Herself. Doesn't that negate the morality arguments that "aren't just for Christians," even though those arguments squarely argue fundamentalist Christian tenets (Episcopals and UCC members don't believe that, after all)? Or would that make me an infidel who will be smited?

You may recall that the Sodomites were not people of faith.

You may recall that the Pharisees were people of faith.

Theocrats, ho!

I agree with you one hundred percent. Look at the boondoggle in California over the prop 8 vote. I know many people in California who are at least half way intelligent who mis voted thinking to vote for prop 8 meant gay marriage would be legal, when in fact they voted against it. Who cares what your neighbor is doing behind his or her own closed doors?

I think there are a lot more people out there who don't want to see the constitution messed with solely for the purpose of discrimination than you might think. I am a heterosexual married woman and I oppose any change to the constitution that would make love a crime.

You bring up the bible and free-will in support of this rediculousness. You obviuosly have no idea what refereneces the bible makes to free-will. Yes, it states that you have free-will, but it is how you use it that matters. If you chose to follow your free-will wrongly, like practicing homo-sexuality, you will forever be damned. You chose how you interpret it, though you will most likely skew it to your own warped objectives, it is up to you. However, if you are going to quote the bible, please do it correctly and not in your warped perception

The bill in question was introduced March 3, 2009. It cites our poll from May 2008, not the February one, although if they were going for splash, the February results yield a higher support number.

So no, we had nothing to do with the authoring of the bill. The authors of the bill chose to cite one of our earlier polls.

But to earlier complaints, read the wording of what H361 will place on the ballot as a referendum:

Yes or No
"Constitutional Amendment to provide that marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."

We asked that. Elon did not. Elon asked about banning same-sex marriage. That is not what the referendum would be on.

Again, get a bill introduced legalizing same-sex marriage, and I'll be happy to poll it.

Chris, you seem to be implying that your poll wording was based on the language of the bill, but the bill cites your poll in one of the whereas clauses. So, the poll came first, no? Did Civitas write the bill and then conduct the poll?

Another of the whereas clauses was soundly debunked already:
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/offtherecord/archives/2009/03/our_courts_aren.shtml#more
Intellectually honest debates are fun and enlightening. This is not one of them.

I believe in a religion completely identical to Christianity except it's Adam and Steve in the Garden of Eden, not Adam and Eve.

Therefore, I strongly oppose this amendment that would ban gay marriage!

Chris,

That wasn't the wording in either version of this costly and ridiculous amendment.

This year's version uses slightly different wording that wasn't used last session, but this new language leaves interpretation open to opposite-sex polygamy. Skippy Stam and Ol' Man Forrester were too busy with the "whereas" sections to read their own bigoted bills.

When these fools can't even write their own attacks correctly, you know you've won.

Everybody over to ncleg.net to read the text of the bills.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/PDF/H361v1.pdf

"North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that does not have..."

Since it's March Madness time, how about...

"North Carolina State University is the only ACC university in the state that does not have a national basketball championship since Clay Aiken was a toddler. Should the legislature vote for NC State to receive one?"

We need an amendment to not allow amendments like this. Or an amendment that people need to mind their own dang business.

An obvious civil rights issue...
It is very unfortunate that the Black voters of this nation have turned against the fight Dr. King ignited.

Separation of Church and State - NC...USA

All humans should support equality for all other humans. To each thier own. Stop all the hatred and start enjoying and living your own lives! The greatest gift your heavenly father extended to human beings is the ability to choose - free will - maybe youve heard of it?

From February 2009:

North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that does not have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and woman. Do you support or oppose a constitutional amendment in North Carolina defining marriage as between one man and one woman?
Support 76%
Oppose 21%
Not Sure 4%
Refused >1%

We asked similar question in May 2008 asking "Do you support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?"

Yes - 71%
No - 26%
Not Sure - 3%

What has Civitas found to be the poll results for this issue and how did they state the question for their polls?

Ryan,

What was the wording of their question? Finding it hard to believe that their numbers would come back that much different from ours from the multiple times we've tested it.