NOM BLOG

NC Same-Sex "We Do" Campaign Proves Why Marriage Amendment Necessary

 

Gay activists in North Carolina are helping prove the point of the Marriage Amendment, so episodes like this don't turn into lawsuits which threaten to overturn the state's laws:

A gay rights group launched a campaign Monday in Asheville that seeks to go beyond opposition to a May referendum question on constitutionally barring same-sex marriage by targeting current state law that already forbids such unions.

The Campaign for Southern Equality kicked off its "We Do" effort by having three same-sex couples unsuccessfully attempt to obtain marriage licenses from the Buncombe County Register of Deeds. Organizers and participants know they'll be denied the licenses, since North Carolina state law already forbids same-sex couples from marrying.

... "I think it makes our case why we need an amendment," [Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition] said. "When people see that, they're going to be concerned and they're going to take it as a sign of aggression on the part of people who advocate for same-sex marriage." --Associated Press

14 Comments

  1. j. fox
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Pseudo marriage is evil, extremists will not prevail.

  2. Marty
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Just a couple of years ago NC politicians claimed that no amendment was needed because a) we already had a law on the books, and b) there were no court cases challenging that law.

    Looks like this amendment is just in time.

  3. Ash
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Gosh, are SSMers annoying or what? They really believe that they have the right to redefine marriage. The whole "equality" idea is pretty silly as well.

  4. Marty
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Just a couple of years ago NC politicians claimed that no amendment was needed because a) there was already a law on the books, and b) there were no court cases challenging that law.

    Looks like this amendment is just in time.

  5. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    The same thing is happening in Minnesota. Marriage corruption advocates are claiming that, because there are already laws defining marriage, an amendment isn't needed. At the same time there are lawsuits challenging that law. If we would just believe their lies they could make some progress.

    Both the MN and NC amendments are coming just in the nick of time.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    New LGBT slogans:

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the green curtain."

    "Who are you going to believe; me, or your damn lying eyes."

  7. P. Edward Murray
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Ash,

    There are a lot of "Silly" folks out there..sad to say!

  8. Louis E.
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    They've also claimed that DOMA meant there was no need for a Federal Marriage Amendment,while trying to tear down DOMA at the same time.

  9. Ash
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    P. Edward Murray: " Ash, There are a lot of "Silly" folks out there..sad to say!"

    Yes, unfortunately. Silly folk who keep banging that darn, baseless "equality" drum so much. Like the loonies mentioned in the article who are looking for "full federal equality." Silliness.

  10. Posted October 6, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    @louis

    A clean post...I'm shocked!!! After all from former posts you:

    1. Are passionately for the right to abortion and

    2. Opposite sex anal intercourse is acceptable

    Please keep posting Louis. You destroy the integrity of a website like this

  11. Louis E.
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Jason,if you object to this site being anything more than a down-the-line endorsement of Religious Right extremism,you must be eager to help the homosexual lobby by making their opponents seem a narrow fringe.

  12. Jessica
    Posted October 17, 2011 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    I do not understand how ANYONE would question the need for equality. This nation is extremely diverse, and it will never function properly if it is full of people who hate, discriminate, judge, and control the way others live. Majority Rule v. Minority Rights. Are you okay with telling us that we are not worthy of the same rights that you were born having? Who made you in charge, and what gave you the right to claim us such? Think about what message you are sending. Think about what future generations will say about you. How do you explain to your children that hate is wrong, when you publicize it so?

  13. TC Matthews
    Posted October 17, 2011 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Everyone is equal Jessica. The laws apply equally to everyone. Already.

  14. bman
    Posted October 17, 2011 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    Jessica->I do not understand how ANYONE would question the need for equality. This nation is extremely diverse, and it will never function properly if it is full of people who hate, discriminate, judge, and control the way others live.

    Your side, which I presume is the typical form of gay activism, is not just teaching tolerance of gays.

    Rather, it wants to redefine society in its image, and create a society around children where marriage and morality are redefined starting at kindergarten.

    The kind of "diversity" your side wants is one where the children of Christian parents are indoctrinated by the state to believe men having sex with men is morally acceptable conduct for all.

    Of course, it violates diversity to impose the gay counter-moral philosophy on everyone else's children. It would result in "equality "but it would be a totalitarian equality where everyone is indoctrinated by the state to believe the established state religion of gay-theism.

    The gay strategy is to use "diversity" to exclude Christians, and to use "equality" to create a totalitarian uniformity.

    And, it should not be hard for you to understand why anyone would want to oppose that.