NOM BLOG

Vote For Marriage NC Responds to Obama: "No Business Inserting Himself Into The People's Business

 

Vote For Marriage NC is supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment which will go before the people on May 8th:

The following statement in reaction to President Obama’s opposition to the North Carolina Marriage Amendment may be attributed to Tami Fitzgerald, Chairwoman of Vote FOR Marriage NC:

“Not only did President Obama state during his election battle in 2008 that he believes marriage is the union between one man and woman, but he said that for him as a Christian, it is also a sacred union, invoking the name of “God” as his source. Unfortunately, his recommendation against the Marriage Protection Amendment would leave the definition of marriage up to an activist judge instead of the people of our State. President Obama has no business inserting himself into the people’s business in North Carolina. The people of North Carolina cannot sit by and let marriage as the union of one man and one woman be destroyed by a handful of political activists or by activist judges.”

North Carolinians interested in more information about Vote FOR Marriage NC may visit the campaign’s website: www.VoteForMarriageNC.com.

17 Comments

  1. Greogry
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    The idea that the President has no business inserting himself into the people's business is absurd. NOM seems to believe that the President has no business disagreeing with NOM.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    For those who haven't heard of the US Constitution:

    State sovereignty is a legal principle that US states have the right to prevent the application of programs and regulations of the Federal government. The basis is the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, which reserve to the states respectively, or to the people, all powers and rights not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution.

    In other words, all powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the individual states. This is none of NObama's business.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Gregory,

    Obama has no business aligning himself on a side that stands in direct opposition to his stated position on this subject. Obama tied his campaign for president with his stated fidelity to the traditional understanding of what a marriage is; he needs to either go on record as having changed his position on this topic, or remove himself from the discussion.

    The fact that you are OK with the President of the United States willfully misleading the electorate speaks to your character, or lack thereof.

  4. Peter Thames
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Yes Barb, but it was perfectly alright by you when Bush did it in 2004. Right?

  5. Tinstaafl2
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Barb,

    If that's the case, then why isn't DOMA unconstitutional? Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, ergo, it's the purview of the states. The Federal government should therefore recognize any marriage that a state chooses to recognize.

  6. Greogry
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Tinstaafl2:

    Apparently you are unaware that the Tenth Amendment specifically provides for selective observation. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" was just dandy while anything Obama does is evil.

  7. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    DOMA protects the sovereignty of the states. Any state may redefine marriage as they choose. No other state is compelled to recognize that marriage.

    DOMA also codifies the definition of marriage for Federal employees.

    These are two separate issues.

  8. Greogry
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Uh, Barb:

    Nowhere in the US Constitution is the President of the United States prohibited from offering his opinion on any matter. Moreover, in 2003, President Bush was quite vocal in opposition to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

  9. Zack
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    I don't mind the president speaking out against it. That's fine. His influence(if any) will be minimal in the states decision.

    It will still pass and Obama will go the way of Jimmy Carter.

  10. Mr. Incredible
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Barb is correct.

    Article IV gives Congress authority to supervise relations between the states. DOMA is an Article IV authority signifying that Congress will not let one state impose that state's redefinition of "marriage" on another.

  11. John Noe
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    “Not only did President Obama state during his election battle in 2008 that he believes marriage is the union between one man and woman, but he said that for him as a Christian, it is also a sacred union, invoking the name of “God” as his source.

    We are now seeing the truth that candidae Obama lied to we the people. The annointed one promising hope and change instead has done none of that but has now proven to be a liar.
    Notice the double standard from liberals and the press. The left gave us Bush lied and people died and the country pushed Nixon out of office for lying. But when a liberal like Obama does it, the left is alright with lying.
    We should take this statement and use it in the general election. Marriage is a strong enough issue that we can protect the red states and win the battleground states in the general election on this issue. Rememer also that blue states like Massachusetts and New York lost electoral votes while red states like Texas picked them up.;

  12. John Noe
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    So Gregory according to your posts it is okay for the President to interfere and it is also alright that he lied to the voters in the last campaign.

  13. Robert
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Uh... "federal employees, Barb?? Wow. One would expect that a person (you) who posts in opposition to marriage equality all day, every day, would at a bare minimum understand the basics of DOMA. I can't believe I have to explain this... but here goes. It prohibits the federal gov't from recognizing ANY same-sex marriages, regardless of who the couple is employed by... It forces the federal government to treat marriages that are legally equal under state law differently. DOMA is in direct conflict with the idea of state sovereignty. The Commonwealth of Mass. sued the federal government for exactly this reason... and they won! Do a little research, then come back and spew more of your anti-gay nonsense. 

  14. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 19, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Take a pill, Robert. Nothing I said was incorrect.

  15. Reformed
    Posted March 20, 2012 at 3:39 am | Permalink

    Give it up Robert, Barb is not just entitled to her own opinion, but apparantly to her own facts as well.

  16. Randy E King
    Posted March 20, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Robert,

    What did they win? A single corrupt appointed attorney ruled in opposition to the rule of law and the right of a free people to self government and you cheer as though this was the final word in this discussion; pathetic.

    I look forward to seeing you cry the blues after the final whistle blows.

  17. Louis E.
    Posted March 20, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Reformed,Barb has the facts down better than your side ever wants to.