What Hagan said on gay marriage

Submitted by ryanteaguebeckwith on October 24, 2008 - 9:20am.
Tags: | | | | | |

Kay Hagan said she does not think gay marriage should be constitutionally banned.

In a profile that ran in the Greensboro News-Record on May 29, 2005, the Democratic Senate candidate said that she did not see the need for an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage:

Same-sex unions: "In my everyday life, it just doesn't come up. I think it's a very polarizing issue, and in North Carolina we have a law saying marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't think there's a need for a (state) constitutional amendment."

In recent years, Senate Republicans have unsuccessfully proposed amending the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

You must be logged in to post a comment on this blog. If you already have an N&O online user account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register (it's free!).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: What Hagan said on gay marriage

Submitted by jjsmith2 on October 24, 2008 - 10:08am.

Why should gay couples not have access to that legal remedy?

Because you touch yourself.

» login to post comments

Re: What Hagan said on gay marriage

Submitted by profbam on October 24, 2008 - 9:56am.

The gay marriage thing is a diversion by Republicans to keep the weak-brained from observing the disappearance of their cash into the bank vaults of the wealthy few.

Can a heterosexual atheist couple obtain a marriage license from the state? Will that marriage, without the aid or blessing of a mythical being that they do not believe in, establish the same contractual relationship recognized by the state as a marriage with high mass at the cathedral? The answer to both is "yes."

This is the confusion of folks. Marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a secular contract are conflated. The state cannot order the Catholic Church to hold gay marriages and it cannot stop the Methodists or Unitarians from holding such marriages. The license from the state is a cheap secular contract that establishes a complex and very important legal relationship between two people that is impossible to duplicate otherwise. Why should gay couples not have access to that legal remedy?

» login to post comments