Are You Sure You Are a Democrat?

Today's Democrat Party (the party of ABORTION) is NOT THE PARTY OF YOUR PARENTS OR GRANDPARENTS!

One look at the recent NC State Democratic Convention demonstrates the extreme liberal fringe that makes up today’s North Carolina Democratic Party. Resolutions adopted by the NCDP at their convention include:


• A single-payer national healthcare system (which would be significantly to the left of the job-killing monstrosity that is ObamaCare)


• Repeal of the marriage amendment (that was recently approved by 61% of North Carolinians)


• The full legalization of marijuana (not just for medicinal purposes, which is a position to the left of even California Democrats)


• The abandonment of nuclear energy as part of the U.S. energy policy (which would in turn force us to become even more dependent on foreign oil)


• Full abolishment of the death penalty


• A demand for collective bargaining rights for workers (which would be extremely detrimental to attracting new business investment in North Carolina)


• Opposition to state-level immigration reform (while the federal government continues to ignore the issue)


• The creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Peace and Nonviolence (which is just absurd)

These positions are so outside of the mainstream, one wonders if they were even meant to be serious. Of course, you never know what to expect when you’re dealing with the same body that decided to keep their Party Chairman after his role in the cover-up of a sexual harassment scandal, who continue to support the least popular governor in the country (who may have recently committed fraud by altering official documents to protect her pet spending projects), and who just nominated a candidate for governor who has promised to keep the exact same policies as his predecessor.

PUBLIUS 2012

Note:  CCTA is a non partisan organization.  We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party.  News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.

Craven-Pamlico Christian Coaltion

PRESS RELEASE

May 9, 2012
Contact: Jerry Schill; 252-514-0381FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CHRISTIAN GROUP PLEASED WITH TODAY’S VOTE!

Marriage Amendment wins big in North Carolina

A local Christian activist group is pleased with the outcome of yesterday's victory of the Marriage Amendment which was on the primary ballot. The statewide vote was overwhelmingly in favor of defining marriage as that between one man and one woman in the state’s constitution.

“We are thankful for the vote by North Carolinians affirming that, in our state, marriage is between one man and one woman”, said Jerry Schill, Co-Chair of the local Coalition and Craven County Coordinator for VoteforMarriageNC.com, a pro amendment grassroots organization. He continued, “We give the glory to God for the substantial margin of victory giving credence to our state motto, “Esse Quam Videri”, or “To be rather than to seem”.


Schill is hopeful that this issue could be the catalyst for reversing the tendency to eliminate God from our lives in what he terms a “culture war”. “We’ve seen a very prominent movement from that of faith to one of apathy at best, and absolute disdain for God at its worst. As a country we’ve recently seen Bibles removed from military installations and a refusal by local governmental bodies to pray in the name of Jesus. We see the Marriage Amendment victory as a step towards a healing towards our relationship with our God and Savior”.

-end-

The Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition was established in 1994. Mission Statement:
To inform and educate the public on issues of moral & political concern; To restore to all levels of government the Judeo-Christian values upon which this nation was founded; To encourage and activate pro-family voters.

NC Marriage Protection Amendment

Vote For Marriage On May 8--Placing the Marriage Amendment in the North Carolina Constitution will keep the courts and legislature from redefining marriage. Bill Brooks discusses why this is an important issue for North Carolina voters—“ A good friend said to me, “I’m having a hard time getting my head around this whole Marriage Amendment issue. Who would believe that we would ever be considering such a thing as same-sex ‘marriage’ and an amendment to the Constitution to prevent it?” I couldn’t agree more, but the fact is, on May 8, voters in North Carolina will go to the polls and decide if they want to reserve to themselves the final say on the definition of marriage, or whether they want the courts and legislature to be able to redefine this fundamental institution.

Given the continual push by homosexual advocates for same-sex “marriage,” coupled with the demand for special rights for homosexuals, it is wise to remove the power to redefine marriage from the hands of courts and the General Assembly.

READ MORE:  http://ncfamily.org/FNC/1204-FNC-Commentary.pdf


District Attorneys Refute Deceptive Ads--As the battle over the Marriage Protection Amendment heats up during the last week before the May 8 primary, homosexual advocacy groups are desperately resorting to scare tactics in their efforts to defeat the proposed Constitutional amendment that would protect the institution of marriage in North Carolina as between one man and one woman .

These tactics include a new 30-second ad that erroneously claims that the Marriage Protection Amendment could potentially interfere with legal protections for unmarried domestic violence victims in the state. The ad features Wake County Assistant District Attorney Amily McCool pointing to pictures of female domestic violence victims that she pulls from a large stack of case folders on her desk. “Amendment one could take away protections for domestic violence victims," she claims.

These claims were refuted yesterday by a coalition of law enforcement officials, district attorneys and family law attorneys who responded in a joint statement that, “the proposed amendment will not impact legal protections against domestic violence for unmarried women and others.” The statement, which was released at a May 1 press conference at the General Assembly, includes the signatures over a dozen individuals from the law enforcement and legal community in North Carolina, including several current and former District Attorneys, a former Superior Court judge, and two sheriffs.

READ MORE:  http://ncfamily.org/stories/120502s1.html

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage

Why a Marriage Amendment?

by Diane Rufino, April 21, 2012

My state of North Carolina is the latest state to face a possible erosion of traditional marriage. The question will be: How will its people react? Marriage is a solid bedrock foundation of communities - the source of modeling, morality, and values. The lessons children learn go far beyond the mere words that parents speak.

Redefining marriage as a genderless institution has consequences. First, public schools will be legally required to teach same-sex marriage on an equal footing with traditional marriage. It will therefore take away the most fundamental right that parents have - to raise their children according to values they hold dear and according to their rights of religious conscience. James Madison said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property - our greatest possession."

Look at the situation in the schools in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. One can find the book "King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland in their elementary school libraries. The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels "a stir in his heart." But it was for one princess’s brother, Prince Lee. The two men marry and the book reads: "Everyone lives happily ever after." On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.

The book glorifies the idea that it’s perfectly OK to have same-sex marriage.

A grade school boy in California returned home from school and asked his mother: "Mom, am I gay?" She wanted to know why he would ask such a question. He told her that his teacher told the class that "anyone can be gay." Children shouldn't be confronted with such questions. They shouldn't have to entertain such possibilities or have to deal with such unnecessary confusion. Growing up is hard enough.

Parents have a tough enough time raising their children with proper values and morals and they can't keep fighting with a school system that wants social change rather than social stability. Providing a definition to the institution of marriage in NC would help ensure that teachers assign classic reading and not books like "King & King."

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage

by Diane Rufino, April 29, 2012

Years ago, and indeed, the whole of history, will show that marriage has always been intended to bind a man and woman together in a special union for the purpose of procreating and raising children. It was not until 2001 that countries have begun allowing same-sex marriage. And the historical tradition makes sense.

In the Bible we learn the roots of marriage. In Genesis 2:7 we learn: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In verse 18, God said: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper." And so we learn, in verses 21-22 that "the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and as he slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh. And the rib He had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto him."

In 1 Corinthians 11:8-10, the Bible teaches "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to hold a special place... "

Genesis 2:23-24 reads: "Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

The "helper" that God created for Man was a woman and not another man. It was woman that was intended to complement Man, not another man. The word “helper” that was used in the Bible to describe Eve means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy and then the mixing of a half complement of DNA from the father and a half complement of DNA from the mother to form "one complete" genetic offspring. A child.

The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:6). It is from these Biblical roots that marriage has become so strong a union and one that society is cautioned to protect.

Even more fundamental are the scientific and biological laws that underlie the purpose and uniformity of life and existence here on Earth. Scientific laws are essential to life because only then can actions and natural events be explained and even predicted. Predictable scientific laws are the basis for free will. Biology teaches that all species are guided by certain biological imperatives, which are the requirements absolutely necessary to perpetuate their existence and their species. This is the core principle explaining Darwinian evolution.

In order for a species to persist, it must, by definition, reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so are universal among living organisms, and as we know, they are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms. The urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multi-cellular organisms. Self-preservation and reproduction are the strongest of biological imperatives. And it is for that purpose that we protect marriage as an institution and pay so much attention to the family structure and gender interactions. There is clearly a productive gender interaction and a counterproductive gender interaction. The former serves the interests of the laws of nature and the latter frustrates them. Left alone, without any cooperation from heterosexual unions, homosexuality would be an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

Understanding that homosexuals love the children that they raise together (but not conceived from their union) and want the best for them, their conduct is not of a natural design and their interaction as a "married couple" cannot satisfactorily stand in the place of a proper heterosexual married couple. Gender interactions, gender roles, gender inclinations, tendencies, proclivities, etc are all the crucial "unspoken" lessons that children need to learn to take their place in an ordered society. Each parent, wired biologically and genetically through their gender, offers his/her child something unique and teaches something invaluably which guides that child through childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood so he/she can follow in the same natural footsteps. Children in a non-traditional household (same-sex parents) are programmed differently and suffer psychological confusion that may or may not manifest itself later in life. Physicians, scientists, and psychologists all understand that the mental and psychological development of a child is fragile and even as an adolescent, proper processing by the brain is often not possible because development of the brain and its connections are not complete. Any biological programming which could serve to compromise the integrity of the species, its effectiveness to procreate, and its survival runs afoul of the laws of nature. Eroding the blessed institution of marriage, protected for the purpose of procreation and the proper raising of children, and allowing and erasing gender requirements by its nature is against the normal and natural evolution of a species and its continuance of life.

There is no fundamental right to marriage. It is not included in the Constitution's Bill of Rights for a reason... It was not considered one of those basic rights that would prohibit government regulation. Judge N. Randy Smith, of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in San Francisco), was correct in his dissenting opinion of the Prop 8 appeal: "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8. [pg. 195]

[What was Proposition 8? Proposition 8 - titled "Constitutional Amendment Initiative: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" on the California voter ballot and called the "California Marriage Protection Act" by proponents - was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state election. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, a statute which had passed in California in 2000. But, as an ordinary statute, it was easily invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008].

Biblical and biological emphasis aside, I believe the Marriage Amendment as drafted in North Carolina for the primary vote on May 8th should not prohibit all legal unions between same-sex couples where legitimate contractual and property rights are involved, but only those that involve the raising of children. If two homosexual men or two women want to live together in a "committed type of relationship" and want enter into a contract for the purpose of protecting property rights (such as insurance, etc), then there should be laws to protect those contracts - just as it would protect other contracts. Opponents of the NC Marriage Amendment are correct that contract rights are a fundamental right and ones very much on the minds of our Founding Fathers. But the spirit of the Marriage Amendment is to define the institution of marriage as that between a man and a woman and to ensure that only such a union is acceptable for to bringing forth children and raising them so that there is a proper vehicle to instill historically moral and biological (gender) values.

It is unfortunate that the gay and lesbian agenda requires the erosion of such a fundamentally important institution and requires courts to get involved in a matter that was intended to be beyond the reach of judges. We all heard of the old saying that when groups are unsuccessful in getting favorable legislation the legitimate way, they take their chances with liberal judges... and often win. That is a sad state of affairs, especially considering that the strength of our nation rests on the fact that it is a constitutional republic... a nation of laws and not of men. For those who don't or can't appreciate the harm in getting the courts involved in the definition of marriage, check out the article written by Dr. Earl Taylor, current president of the National Center of Constitutional Studies, in April 2004 in which he discusses the topic of marriage and the US Constitution. In his article, he asks the question - With the deplorable state of the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now, should the Constitution be amended to define the institution of marriage? He looked to renowned law professor Richard Wilkins for advice. Wilkins writes that years ago he would have suggested to leave the Constitution alone. But, he notes, these are troubling times and now urges people to push for a constitutional definition of marriage. He is quite serious when he states "Unless the people clearly establish the constitutional meaning of marriage, the judges will do it for us – and, in the process, erode the very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial power and upset the vital balance of power established by the Framers of the United States Constitution.”

Richard Wilkins - law professor, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and the founder and managing director of Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International) - explained why a constitutional amendment might be necessary:

"Ten years ago, I would have explained that amending the Constitution to define marriage is clearly wrong - for at least three important reasons. First, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Second, marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people within their respective states. Third, and finally, the last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts. Why tempt the judges by inserting a new topic into the Constitution? But that was then and this is now. Now, when I hear devotees of the Constitution repeat arguments that are almost a part of my DNA, I shake my head in disbelief. The very concerns that, ten years ago, would have prompted my opposition to a marriage amendment now compel my support.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage. But judges have. (Likewise, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, but that hasn't stopped judges from manufacturing a reference). Federal courts have managed to intrude in areas where the Constitution gives them no license to tread.

It clearly appears that the Constitution was written to leave questions like marriage to the States. Any constitutional scholar can attest to that. Yet an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same" has not been enough to prevent judges from giving us an entirely new Constitution. In its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, announced that the Constitution prohibits state legislatures from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality. Specifically, the Court said that challengers, Lawrence and Garner (homosexual lovers) were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas opposed the decision. But the majority did something extraordinary in that case; it did something it historically refrains from doing. It reversed its earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that the Constitution confers no fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy.

Professor Wilkins asks: "What does this decision and this new Constitution do to marriage?" He points to the state of Massachusetts as a perfect example. He said: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question. Relying on the high Court's decision in Lawrence , the Massachusetts court has allowed same-sex marriage. It merely relied on the reasoning of the US Supreme Court in that decision to interpret its own state constitution." The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, in unilaterally issuing marriage licenses contrary to controlling California law, likewise relied upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality of his actions.

Our Constitution, which once said nothing about marriage, now appears to says a lot about marriage. (Just interview the mayor of San Francisco. Why did he issue marriage licenses not authorized by California law? 'The Constitution demands it,' he said.) Wilkins asserts: "The last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts."

Marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people to decide in their respective states. And again the judges have taken that power away. As Professor Wilkins wrote: "Whatever the Constitution once provided has changed. All rules related to marriage have now been subsumed by a ‘constitutional analysis’ previously unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people they represent, no longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds and thousands of legal rules associated with marriage. All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by decisions of state and federal courts. And, in light of the expansive ‘constitutional analysis’ adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will be guided neither by the words of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people."

Wilkins went on to write:

“In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about preserving the structure and content of the American Constitution should understand why the words ‘marriage’ and ‘constitutional amendment’ need to be linked, to save the social viability of marriage, and integrity of the Constitution itself.”

The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is capable of transcending not only the wording of the Constitution but the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people. Even though the Constitution says nothing about 'sexual liberty;' even though the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people do not support an unrestrained 'right' for consenting adults to engage in any kind of sex they want; the Court has created this very right out of thin air. Lawrence created this 'right,' not by relying upon the wording of the Constitution or the traditions and practices of American society, but by invoking (and I am not making this up) the 'meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.'

The judges are now so powerful that they feel free to invent the Constitution as they move along. (If the definition of marriage - an understanding as old as time - violates constitutional strictures, one wonders what centuries' old legal notions the "mysteries of the universe" will invalidate next.) In light of these astonishing developments, it is absolutely clear why so many people are putting the words 'marriage' and 'constitution' in the same sentence. An amendment is necessary to preserve not only the social viability of marriage, but the political integrity of the Constitution."

But the Constitution provides for limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. In fact, the U. S. Constitution states:


"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article 3.2.2, emphasis added)

Some Constitutional devotees have relied on this clause to indicate all Congress has to do is pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But this is not what it says. As Dr. Skousen, author of such books as The 5000 Year Leap, The Making of America, and The Naked Communist, explains: "This provision was not designed to give Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but simply to make decisions on many topics conclusive after a hearing in the lower courts. It was the purpose of the Founders to protect the Supreme Court from being submerged by a mountain of trivial cases when it should be concentrating its attention on matters of national importance." ( The Making of America, p. 612. See quotes from the Founders on pages 612-613 to support this position)

Even if Congress were to pass a law limiting the kinds of cases which could be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may have the opposite effect. Imagine not being able to appeal sensitive cases to the Supreme Court. That would make the lower court decisions final. The lower courts have been just as active in destroying the Constitution as the Supreme Court has been, and there are so many more of them! (Examples include abortion, flag burning, homosexuality, and pornography cases).

A much better solution is to begin to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to the eleven kinds of cases outlined in Article III of the Constitution. However, this still would not undo the damage of past cases.

And so Professor Richard Wilkins believes the only course left is for the good people of the United States to amend the Constitution to define the institution of marriage according to traditional values. He believes that the traditional family is the vehicle of the decent, moral, and productive values of a free society. He believes that if this vehicle is destroyed - if the family is destroyed - then we will see increased anarchy and eventually the country will be ripe for revolution or submission to government indoctrination. (In fact, he believes that there are forces out to destroy the traditional family for this very reason). He explains why the time is ripe for a constitutional amendment:

"1. A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial understanding that American government operates under a written Constitution.

As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written constitution' and 'the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.) Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury , 'would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.'

Modern courts have dangerously ignored the teachings of Marbury. The 'new Constitution,' announced by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, frees judges from any need to tie their decisions to either the words of the Constitution or the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Many people applaud the idea of a 'living Constitution;' a document that transcends words, definitions and the restrictive bonds of history and tradition. But a document as fluid, unfettered and free as the 'new Constitution' unveiled in Lawrence bears little resemblance to the Constitution that, for most of its 215-year history, has demanded that the people (and not the courts) resolve society's controversial moral and social debates.

Under the 'new Constitution' announced in Lawrence, the more divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the more likely it is that a court - rather than a legislature - will settle the matter. Why? Because (according to the judges, the law professors and other elites) the 'meaning of life' and the 'mysteries of the universe' become more and more important as social debates become more and more divisive, difficult and debatable.

Of course, this is not the Constitution the Framers intended. It is not what the written text demands. But it is what the courts have now decreed. We need an amendment on marriage, not only to protect marriage, but to demonstrate to the courts that they exceeded their power in constitutionalizing marriage in the first place.

Modern courts feel free to ignore or alter constitutional text at will. A constitutional amendment on marriage, by forcefully rejecting the judges' latest excursion from constitutional text and history, will forcibly (and quite properly) remind the judges that their role is to adjudicate, not legislate. A constitutional amendment is necessary to revive the idea which provides 'the very foundation of all written constitutions;' that is, that the Constitution is 'a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' Marbury v. Madison (emphasis in original).

2. A constitutional amendment will restore the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government.

Under the 'new Constitution' drafted by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, state legislatures may not 'demean' the sexual practices of 'consenting adults' that are closely connected to individual views regarding 'the meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.' (For those of you who either aren't familiar with legal lingo or simply like people to write clearly: legislatures may not suggest that there are any differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality.) To reach this result, of course, the Supreme Court had to ignore the words of the Constitution and the history and traditions of the American people. In their place, the Justices have given us a poem - a poem as vague, expansive or restrictive as the next metaphor or lyrical couplet favored by five members of the Supreme Court.

This departure from text, history and tradition is a serious matter. It dramatically upsets the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government. If government action encroaches upon core constitutional values (as contained in clear constitutional text construed in light of actual American practice, experience and tradition) the judiciary must act. But the Founders intended the judicial role to be exceptional and rarely invoked. Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, proclaimed the judiciary the 'least dangerous branch' because it does not create policy but merely exercises 'judgment.' The really difficult questions, Hamilton and the other Founders thought, would be left to the people.


Modern social activists (and too many judges) have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that most governmental decisions are not controlled (and can't be controlled) by the precise language of the Constitution. If the 'correct' answers to pressing questions are fairly debatable, those questions must be - indeed, can only be - resolved by legislative action.

The expanding reach of American constitutional law has rendered the public increasingly oblivious to its role as the primary source of decision-making power under the United States Constitution. By inventing and enforcing 'rights' nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people, lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded democratic decision making, reducing or eliminating the people's popular control over an ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.

The Constitution was not drafted, nor was it intended, to turn over marriage and marital policy to the federal courts. But, because the courts have now concluded otherwise, a constitutional amendment is needed to restore democratic balance. Without a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court - and not the people - ultimately will determine what marriage means. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, this is too important a decision to be made by five people in black robes.

The question is: What does the Constitution demand? I fully understand the concerns of those who assert that, since the Constitution has never addressed marriage before, it should not be amended to address marriage now. But whatever the Constitution said (or did not say) about marriage for the past 215 years, whatever the history, traditions and practices of the American people confirm (or do not confirm) about the meaning of marriage, marriage is in the Constitution. The Founders did not do it. But the courts have.

By placing marriage in the Constitution, the judges have taken marriage out of the hands of the people. The judges have done violence to the very idea of a written Constitution, have eroded legislative power, and have significantly expanded their own power. It is now up to the people, by constitutional amendment, to remedy these errors. A constitutional amendment is needed, not only to preserve marriage, but to restore constitutional order."

Steve Farrell writes: "We can’t turn over the fate of the family to nine folks in robes. Judicial tyranny is not for you and not for me. It’s time to reign these judges in, and remind them that constitutions are set up to preserve the values of a society, not overthrow them."

References:

Richard Wilkins, Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment

Earl Taylor Jr, "Marriage and the Constitution", NCCS, April 2004. Referenced at: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/apr04nl.html

W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 1985; The National Center for Constitutional Studies.

Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Newsmax, March 3, 2004. Referenced at: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/134302.shtml

Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Federal Observer, April 29, 2012. Referenced at: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7369

"California Proposition 8," Wikipedia. Referenced at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

Diane Rufino, "Perry v. Schwartzenegger: California Becomes the Latest Battleground for Gay Marriage Rights," August 2010. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article was originally written as a response to an article written in the Fayetteville Observer which bashed the NC Marriage Amendment (Amendment 1). In fact, I submitted the first few paragraphs of my article in response to that article. I was inspired to do so by Pastor Jeff Long, who had emailed me and who himself had responded with a powerful message, which is attached below.

Response to Article in Fayetteville Observer Bashing the Marriage Amendment --

Jeffrey Long (Former NC Public Health Study Commissioner)

Another ANTI-Marriage Amendment opinion piece which denies social realities unfolding all around us which threaten to bring a negative "sea change" to North Carolina society and culture in days to come if we do NOT reinforce OUR state law by putting it in our constitution--as 30 other states have already!

Virginia adopted a Marriage Amendment more restrictive than ours in 2006. The Old Dominion is not in social turmoil as a result, nor are perceived "inconveniences" imposed upon homosexuals there appearing to be so insuperable because they are not allowed to be called "marrieds," nor accorded official status, benefits and privileges traditionally given to espoused men and women.

Plus, upon constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court of that state has since upheld it!

The Obama Administration has now unilaterally determined that its Justice Dept. will not defend any more cases under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Bill Clinton. This blatant act of Executive non-feasance now sets the stage for the perfect storm of judicial activism which will ensue shortly--most likely after the November election--in which our little statute restricting state recognition to only man-woman marriage will be gobbled up as has been the fate of similar laws in other states (cf,: Prop 22 in California).

When Proposition 8 was passed in a referendum vote by a majority of Californians, homosexuals were allowed to have their state recognized "civil unions." BUT, in short order this did not prove to be enough for them as they walked off in a snit and demanded full recognition and DEFINITION IN LAW as marrieds with marriage licenses identical to that of men and women.

A case was promptly brought by deep-pocketed homosexual activists against Prop 8 which succeeded in getting it overturned. The case was presided over by homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, who unethically did not recuse himself from sitting in judgment, and in a case of bald judicial activism he wrote an opinion overturning it.

<> (Wiki)

A three-judge panel of the most liberal federal appeals court in the nation, the Ninth District, took up the appeal and by a 2 to 1 vote upheld Walker's decision. However.....

<< Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[195] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[195] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[195] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.[196]

<>

In the meantime, statesmen in 30 states who years ago wisely foresaw these types of shenanigans on the horizon, began reinforcing their own marriage laws by incorporating them in their own constitutions. And they succeeded in doing this with a show of overwhelming support of their states' voters, in some cases by over 70%.

North Carolina voters must move now to protect our families and children from a movement which is well-funded and which is bent on redefining marriage as a genderless institution and which will (is already in other places and on many college campuses) bring in its wake demands for acceptance and approval of pedophilia, transgenderism, self-mutilation, etc., not to mention give official government sanction to reprehensible disease- (read: AIDS) transmitting activities -- NONE of which we want to see incentivized in the Tar Heel State!

This is why not only a religious person, but a rational and sound thinking--and yes, a truly compassionate voter --will VOTE FOR the Marriage Amendment on May 8th

Sun Journal Letters to the Editor--New Bern, NC

Marriage Amendment Letters:

Of the 12 letters published today on the Marriage Amendment 9 were against and 3 for it. Shows the paper’s left leaning doesn’t it. Not surprising of those 9 folks against the amendment were 5 Democrats and 3 unaffiliated and one person who does not appear to be from Craven County at all. The three folks who wrote in favor of protecting the sanctity of marriage 2 were Republicans, again, not surprising. Most of the letters were out and out lies and nonsense.


For the real facts on the issue:  Read “What It Does” a letter fro Jerry Schill, Co-Chairman of the Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition, my friend and a very honorable man.

Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: What it does by Jerry Schill


April 22, 2012

Regarding the Marriage Amendment:

• Gay marriage and domestic partnerships are illegal under CURRENT North Carolina law, passed by the General Assembly.


• If the Marriage Amendment passes on May 8, gay marriage and domestic partnerships will CONTINUE to be illegal. However, the definition will have the added protection of a constitutional amendment. The amendment makes it clear that marriage shall be the only domestic legal union recognized in North Carolina.


• The passage of the Marriage Amendment will not ADD any rights to gays but neither does it take any away.


• The amendment does NOT take away private contractual rights for unmarried couples.


• The amendment does NOT prohibit local governments or the UNC System from providing benefits to unmarried partners.


• The amendment does NOT interfere with benefits that private employers provide to gay couples.


• The amendment will NOT harm North Carolina’s economy. Gay marriage has been illegal in our state for several years, and the amendment will not change that fact from an employer’s or business standpoint.


So, if it’s already illegal and does not ADD any gay rights or take any away, what’s the point with all this?


Activist judges! By putting the measure in our state’s constitution, we add protection from judicial activism which has been way too prevalent in our country.


Another question is why are Christians so engaged on this issue? I certainly cannot speak for all but I know many of us have been concerned about the eroding moral fabric and the disintegration of our family structure for a lot of years. We have witnessed what’s been happening but have done little to reverse it. We have had little help from the leadership in our churches, especially from the pulpit. We love our state and our country, and have decided to get engaged rather than just go to another meeting and talk about it and complain about “those in charge”.


To paraphrase Popeye the Sailor Man, “That’s all we can stands and we can’t stands no more!”


On May 8, please vote FOR the Marriage Amendment, which will define marriage IN OUR CONSTITUTION between one man and one woman as the only legal union recognized in North Carolina!

Jerry Schill
Co-chair
Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition and Craven County coordinator for the passage of the Marriage Amendment

http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/regarding-105961-amendment-letter.html

Video…4,000 Christians Show up at North Carolina Capital to Support Marriage Amendment

Video…4,000 Christians Show up at North Carolina Capital to Support Marriage Amendment


http://ncrenegade.com/elections/breaking-video-4000-christians-show-up-at-north-carolina-capital-to-support-marriage-amendment/#more-14294

Video…4,000 Christians Show up at North Carolina Capital to Support Marriage Amendment

Video…4,000 Christians Show up at North Carolina Capital to Support Marriage Amendment


http://ncrenegade.com/elections/breaking-video-4000-christians-show-up-at-north-carolina-capital-to-support-marriage-amendment/#more-14294

WALLBUILDERS: NC Exercise Your Right to Vote!

Let each citizen remember that at the time he is offering his vote that he is ... offering one of the most solemn trusts in society for which he is accountable to God and his country.  Samuel Adams

With the Presidential primaries in full swing, we want to encourage you to exercise your right - and duty - to vote Tuesday, May 8, 2012. Don't miss out on this historic opportunity to make a difference! Make sure you register to vote by Friday, April 13, 2012! Also, North Carolina has the opportunity to vote on a state Marriage Amendment, so now, more than ever, your vote is needed!

(If you missed the registration deadline, you may use the one-stop voting process to register and vote.)

This short video clip is a great resource on the importance of voting as a part of a Christian's duty. (Be sure to share with your pastors and churches!)


North Carolina, be sure to vote May 8, 2012! For more information about the upcoming Presidential primary, to find additional information, or to check your voter status and voting site visit North Carolina's Board of Elections website.

Christians must stand up for Biblical truth by voting in every election (even primaries)! To make sure you cast an informed vote, you can obtain additional information by visiting ChristianVoterGuide.com.

Thank you for being involved and exercising your Christian and civic duty by voting for the candidate that best represents your Biblical views!


God Bless!

NC Reneagade: Love and the Marriage Amendment

The upcoming marriage amendment in North Carolina has been twisted into an issue between homosexuality and its place in a Christian nation. The Bible clearly outlines in both the Old and the New Testament that homosexuality is a sin. Any church that preaches otherwise is not teaching the Word of God. A comment on an earlier article used a fallacious argument concerning this issue stating that Jesus said to love one another. Although this is true, this is twisting the Word of God by not understanding the definition of love in different contexts. Part of this problem is due to translation from Hebrew, Greek, Latin into English and most recently, politically correct English. There are four different types of love in the Bible. Our English translations do not differentiate between the four types of love and our churches are at fault for not teaching what may be offensive to their parishioners.


My response to the comment concerning Jesus saying to love one another is shown here:

What is the judgment for those who twist the Word of God: 

Romans 1

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Which was countered back with this:

You can’t twist this. This is directly from the Son of God.

New International Version (NIV)

John 13:34-35

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Here are the four types of love in the Bible that will hopefully clarify this issue:

Agape is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love, the highest of the four types of love in the Bible.

This Greek word and variations of it are found throughout the New Testament. Agape perfectly describes the kind of love Jesus Christ has for his Father and for his followers:

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. (John 14:21, NIV)

Eros is the physical, sensual love between a husband and wife.

Although this Greek term does not appear in the Bible, eros, or erotic love, is portrayed in the Old Testament book, The Song of Solomon. God is very clear in his Word. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden.

God created humans male and female and instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden. Within marriage, sex is used for emotional and spiritual bonding and for reproduction.

Philia means close friendship or brotherly love in Greek. It is one of the four types of love in the Bible.

Philia and other forms of this Greek noun are found throughout the New Testament. Christians are frequently exhorted to love their fellow Christians:

Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. (Romans 12:10 ESV)

Storge is family love, the bond among mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers.

As with eros, this Greek term does not appear in the Bible. However, many examples of family love are found in Scripture, such as the love and mutual protection among Noah and his wife, their sons and daughters-in-law in Genesis; the love of Jacob for his sons; and the strong love the sisters Martha and Mary in the gospels had for their brother Lazarus.

The family was a vital part of ancient Jewish culture. In the Ten Commandments, God charges his people to:

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. (Exodus 20:12, NIV)

If two people want to have a civil union and enjoy the same rights and benefits as provided by the government, that is between them and the government. Marriage however is a union between God, one man and one woman by definition. You do not need a marriage certificate issued by the “state” in order to be married in the eyes of our Lord, you need a marriage covenant overseen by the church. This is another example where we allow the state to control our religion. Using Eros love as a substitute for Philia love does not justify homosexuality or its application in the holy union known as marriage.

Let us be clear: this issue is not about marriage but an attack on religion. As for the argument that Jesus said to love another (in the context of Eros love), then this argument can next be expanded to allow a man to love children in the same manner.

For more information about how to be married in the God’s eyes, click here for instructions. Here is first of four videos listed on the instructions’ article.

CONTINUED:  http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/love-and-the-marriage-amendment/

VOTE FOR MARRIAGE NC

Dear Marriage Supporters,


I have exciting news to share with you. Just in the last two days, Boards of Commissioners in Ashe County, Avery County, Caldwell County, Columbus County, Craven County, Watauga County, and Yancey County passed resolutions endorsing the Marriage Protection Amendment. With recent polling showing that support for the Marriage Protection Amendment remains strong at 61 percent, it’s clear that we as North Carolinians stand ready to preserve marriage in our state constitution on May 8th. And with poll numbers that strong, few local politicians want to be left behind and be seen as against marriage in their local communities.

In addition, we have uncovered the opposition’s plan for our state.

Since we are the last state in the Southeastern United States to preserve marriage in our state constitution, activists from all over in the country have their eyes on us. The opposition knows that they are climbing an uphill battle because public opinion is not on their side. For this reason, the opposition is fabricating lies to distract us from the real issue at hand: preserving marriage as the union between one man and one woman. According to one of the opposition’s consultants, Celinda Lake, the distraction plan is as follows:

I mean we have been in our movement on the run on "kids" for decades. And it's time
to take it back. And we can. We can in tough terrain, in a tough state, and I think we
can change forever the terrain in which we're operating -- and that alone, I hope, will motivate people to give money to make sure that this campaign gets that message out (Read the full article here).

In case you didn’t catch it, our opponents are basing their campaign on using lies about children on the marriage issue in an attempt to “change forever the terrain” in our state. Not only is the opposition seeking to effect permanent value shifts in North Carolina, but they’re also willing to use children as the very means to keep us from preserving marriage in our state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.


The opposition has rallied activists across the country to pour funding and resources into our state in an attempt to confuse voters with their false messaging. And of course we can’t ever depend on the media to present the facts. Only with your support can we spread the truth about the Marriage Protection Amendment. Please consider giving $25, $50, $100, or more today to protect marriage from activists who want to radically change our state.

With May 8th rapidly approaching, we need you to continue standing with us as we preserve marriage in North Carolina.

Sincerely,
Rachel Lee, Communications Director
Vote FOR Marriage NC

Wilson NC Tea Party Events this Week

Wilson NC Tea Party
Affiliated with the Americans For Prosperity Foundation


THIS Wednesday @ 12:15p @ the Wilson County Courthouse steps, Wilson area pastors are gathering to sign a public resolution in support of the Marriage Amendment which is coming up for a vote in NC on May 8th. ALL are encouraged to attend!

THIS Thursday @ 6:30p @ Western Sizzlin is the Wilson NC Tea Party Monthly Meeting. Come and bring a friend! We have work to do before the primary (May 8) and general election (Nov 6) and we need every hand on deck. What we do in 2012 will determine if America stands or falls! It took prayer AND work to make us FREE --- we must pray AND work to remain FREE!

For more info, go to http://www.wilsonncteaparty.com/.

Vote "yes" on the Marriage Protection Amendment and convince everyone you can to do the same!!

Note:  We must urge everyone to come out and vote in the May Primary on this amendment!  Those opposing this protection for marriage will be out in full force and they are counting on voter laziness to defeat this amendment! 
~Lynn

On May 8, 2012 NC voters will have the choice to amend the state constitution to read:
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Opponents of the measure argue that the amendment is unnecessary because there is already a state law prohibiting same sex marriages and that the language of the amendment could be used to deny benefits to heterosexual families. But this marriage protection amendment law would prevent a judge from overturning the already existing ban on same sex marriage in North Carolina, as it has been done in MA, VT, NH, and other states.

I am amazed at the people who say they are voting against the marriage amendment because it doesn’t go far enough. That bothers me greatly. I do not understand why anyone would say they are voting against it because it doesn’t go far enough. This bill is a start! If it doesn’t go far enough, we can amend it later.

The institution of marriage is the heart of the whole reason for which God created us . God says the purpose of marriage is to preserve the human race, according to Genesis 9:1. “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. He sent Noah and his wife, male and female, into the ark. He used similar wording regarding the animals in Gen.6:20: They are to reproduce after their kind. He made sure there was male and female of every kind, to preserve them.

Nearly two-thirds of likely North Carolina voters in the latest Civitas poll support the Marriage Protection Amendment that will be on the primary ballot on May 8, and support for the amendment increases among those who are opposed at the mention of a recent lawsuit challenging the state’s marriage laws.

Please vote “yes” to support the marriage protection amendment.

Linda Harper, President
Citizens for Constitutional Liberties ( Wayne County Tea Party)
citizensforconstitutionalliberties.org
so-sewdesigns.org

Conservatives must: Do our own research. Operate on principle, follow the law, respect the rights of others, behave calmly, and trust the God of the Bible.

NC VOTE TO PROTECT MARRIAGE

As you know, time is drawing near, May 8, for the all important Vote to protect marriage in NC, as it is currently defined, the union of one man and one woman. There are important materials available, a kit, for informing the voters on this issue. The kit includes all of the various pieces we have made available to pastors and others for assisting in the passage of the NC Marriage Amendment. This kit is available online at http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/materials/

Please feel free to share within each of your networks as well. Especially make certain that your Church is aware of the materials that are available.

The kit includes the following:
- Letter outlining pastor and church rights in supporting the passage of the
amendment
- Full page church bulletin for inserting in church newsletters
- Voter Registration information and form
- Instructions for collecting an offering
- Donation form

Please make certain that you have signed up at the website to receive updates and remain informed. We need all hands on deck, united and informed, to Protect Marriage in NC.
http://www.voteformarriagenc.com

Wilson NC Tea Party: 'Preparing for the NC Marriage Protection Amendment Vote (on May 8)'

Joel Killion has invited you to the event 'Preparing for the NC Marriage Protection Amendment Vote (on May 8)' on Wilson NC Tea Party!


March 23 [NEXT FRIDAY! (Not tomorrow!)] @ 11a-1p @ Wilson Community Church. If you are planning on coming RSVP to Virginia Morris vkm@embarqmail.com.

Time: March 23, 2012 from 11am to 1pm

Location: Wilson Community Church (WCC)
Organized By: Virginia Morris

Event Description:

“There is no issue of greater significance to this state than the way we will define marriage. It is the definitive issue of this generation.” -- Rev. Mark Creech, Executive Director of the Christian Action League

On May 8th, North Carolinians will vote in the primary on where they stands on the definition of marriage, and we need to do all we can to help NC preserve traditional marriage in our state.

"According to a poll released earlier this month by Public Policy Polling, support for the Marriage Protection Amendment has declined with 56 percent of voters surveyed in January supporting the amendment to preserve traditional marriage by protecting it in our state constitution. In October, support for the amendment stood at 61 percent, according to the same poll. This is a 5 percent drop in support in just two short months." (Source: christianactionleague.org/news/urgent-christian-action-alert-campaign-for-marriage-needs-funds) Now is the time to get involved!

What can you do? Well, on Friday, March 23, from 11am to 1pm, Wilson County area clergy will be gathering at Wilson Community Church for an informative and empowering workshop where Rev. Mark Creech (Executive Director of the Christian Action League) will address the issues surrounding the Marriage Protection Amendment and some possible ways the Wilson community and its Christian leaders can become involved.

NOTE: A home cooked meal will be provided for participants. More details will be provided as the planning proceeds.

For more info about Rev. Mark Creech and the Christian Action League, please go to christianactionleague.org.

To learn more about the May 8th Marriage Protection Amendment vote go to www.VoteFORMarriageNC.com.

See more details and RSVP on Wilson NC Tea Party:
http://www.wilsonncteaparty.com/events/event/show?id=5407582%3AEvent%3A27212&xgi=4S0FVBeMDGvINc&xg_source=msg_invite_event

Vote FOR Marriage NC

February 19, 2012

Raleigh,NC – Vote FOR Marriage NC, a broad coalition of policy organizations and faith leaders in support of the North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment- an amendment to the state constitution preserving marriage as a union between one man and one woman- launched its campaign and website today. A bi-partisan majority of the North Carolina Legislature voted in September 2011 to place the North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment on the May 8, 2012 ballot.


“The Marriage Protection Amendment will protect against attempts by activist judges and legislators to redefine marriage by placing in North Carolina’s constitution our current definition that marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of the Executive Committee for Vote FOR Marriage NC.

Vote FOR Marriage NC plans to unveil a comprehensive grassroots effort that will target individuals and churches across the state.

The campaign’s website, http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/, provides information about the Marriage Protection Amendment, the importance of preserving marriage, and ways for voters to stay connected and get involved in the campaign.

“The marriage amendment is simple and straight-forward,” said Rev. Mark Harris, state president of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. “It’s about preserving marriage as we’ve always known it and making sure that activist judges can’t redefine it in the future. Despite what some of our opponents want people to believe, the amendment is about preserving marriage, and that’s all it is about.”

Vote FOR Marriage NC is comprised of a multitude of policy organizations, denominations, and civic groups. Its Executive Committee consists of the Christian Action League, NC Values Coalition, a coalition of African American pastors, NC Baptists, and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

“We look forward to a dialogue with North Carolina citizens about the definition of marriage in our state,” said Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League. “Voters in 30 other states have already had the opportunity to protect marriage in their own constitutions and we are pleased that we will finally be able to do so as well. We’re the last state in the south to be able to vote on marriage and we are confident of victory. The margin of passage in southern states has been 74%.”

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

###

AFA ACTION ALERT--NC Marriage Amendment

Information on North Carolina's Marriage Protection Amendment


February 7, 2012

As you likely know, the North Carolina Legislature voted to put a Marriage Protection Amendment before voters on the May 8, 2012 primary ballot.

The NC marriage protection amendment will protect against redefining marriage by placing our current definition of marriage - the union of one man and one woman - directly into the state constitution. That's the only way to make sure that liberal state judges or a future legislature are not able to redefine marriage. It makes sure that voters will always be in charge of the definition of marriage in North Carolina because marriage could only be changed by voters themselves.

Thirty states have adopted marriage amendments preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Every state to consider a marriage amendment has adopted it. North Carolina is the only southern state not to have yet voted on a marriage amendment. This is our one and only chance to preserve marriage from being redefined by activist judges and aggressive special interest groups.

Our friends at VoteForMarriageNC.com have put together these resources that can be distributed to friends, family and church members:

Fact sheet: http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/docs/nc_mpafactsheet.pdf

Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/docs/nc_faq.pdf

Please forward this message to everyone on your email list and encourage them to...

Vote "YES" on the Marriage Protection Amendment

Sincerely,

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

Responding to Marriage Critics

Questions and responses surrounding the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Questions/Responses to Marriage Amendment

http://ncfpc.org/FNC/1201-QandR.pdf

North Carolina: Why Christians Are Called to Defend Marriage

Dr. Mark Harris discusses the importance of voting in the May 2012 primary, when North Carolinians will finally have the opportunity to vote on amendment to the State Constitution that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman.

http://ncfpc.org/radioshow.html

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: September 17, 2011

Thanks to the NC Federation of Republican Women for this Update!

NC General Assembly


Defense of Marriage Amendment

As you know, the Marriage Amendment passed in the Legislature this week. It will be on the ballot for the May 2012 primary so that the people of North Carolina can vote on it.

The bill states that Article 14 of the NC Constitution is amended by adding a new section that states, "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

A Pro-Marriage Amendment rally was held on Sep 12th at the Halifax Mall adjacent to the Legislative buildings in Raleigh. The rally was hosted by The Upper Room Church of Christ in Raleigh and was attended by a diverse group of concerned citizens of both political parties. As we were walking toward the rally, some of them were saying that they just couldn't believe that in NC marriage would be controversial.

Inspirational leaders from The Upper Room Church of Christ addressed the crowd, including Pastor Patrick L. Wooden and his wife Pamela. Church coordinators for the event were Wanda Thomas and Anthony Wilson. They did a commendable job in getting people out because it was a huge crowd. Our own Felice Pete, of the congregation and President of the Wake County Republican Women, was there with her new baby. What dedication to the Defense of Marriage!

Kevin Daniels, President of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of NC was also a speaker and drew praise for his comments. The rally was inspiring and uplifting while giving evidence that marriage between one man and one woman is beneficial for families and reflects on our nation's Christian heritage. The people attending the rally made a difference in the legislative vote by showing that they care about the definition of marriage in NC.


During the next eight months there will be much debate from both sides. The White House has already responded to North Carolinians by stating that "President Obama opposes laws 'designed to take rights away.'"

In related news, House Republicans are seeking ways to delay the termination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," enacted during the Clinton administration. Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) expires on September 20, 2011. In brief, under DADT military members keep their sexuality preferences private.

US House of Representatives

Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act (HR2587)
G. K. Butterfield (D-1st), David E. Price (D-4th), Larry Kissell (D-8th) Melvin L. Watt (D-12th, and Brad Miller (D-13th) DO NOT WANT TO PROTECT NC JOBS!The bill "Amends the National Labor Relations Act to deny the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) any power to: (1) order an employer (or seek an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate any work, product, production line, or equipment; (2) rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be engaged in production or other business operations; or (3) require any employer to make an initial or additional investment at a particular plant, facility, or location."

The House passed the measure in a vote of 238 to 186 with 9 not voting on Sep 15, 2011.


NC Representatives voting for the legislation to prevent the NLRB from overstepping its authority as in the case of the NLRB against Boeing in SC, resulting in potential job losses: 
Renee Ellmers (R-2nd), Walter B. Jones (R-3rd), Virginia Foxx (R-5th), Howard Coble (R-6th), Mike McIntyre (D-7th), Sue Myrick (R-9th) Patrick T. McHenry (R-10th), and Heath Shuler (D-11th).

NC Representatives against the bill: G. K. Butterfield (D-1st), David E. Price (D-4th), Larry Kissell (D-8th) Melvin L. Watt (D-12th, and Brad Miller (D-13th).

In a press release, Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger said that Governor Beverly Perdue should "stand up to the federal government and defend North Carolina's right to work status, the state's most important jobs law that gives North Carolina a competitive edge over other states competing for new businesses." To date, she has been mum.

Sources: ncga; Observations from Sep 12 Marriage Amendment Rally and General Assembly; Washington Blade, "White House Responds to N.C. Marriage Amendment by Chris Johnson, Sep 13, 2011 and "House GOP Seeks to Delay End to 'Don't Ask'" by Chris Johnson, Sep 15, 2011; News Release: "Berger: Perdue Shoud Stand Up to NLRB, Encourage Job Growth," Sep 15, 2011; and house.gov.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE September 14, 2011

Thanks to NC Federation of Republican Women and Brenda T. Formo for this update!

NC General Assembly


1. Defense of Marriage Amendment (SB514)

The Defense of Marriage Amendment passed in the Senate in a vote of 30 to 16 with 4 excused absences on Sep 13. All Republicans present voted for the bill and all Democrats present voted against it.

The four excused absences were:

•Republican Senator Fletcher Hartsell (Cabarrus, Iredell). Recall that we asked that you call him because we had information that he might waver on the vote.
•Democrat Senators Eric Mansfield (Cumberland); Michael P. Walters (Hoke, Robeson); and Stan M. White (Beaufort, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Tyrrell, and Washington)
 
SB514 Defense of Marriage Act states that "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."


The bill passed in the House on Monday, Sep 12th.

The Defense of Marriage Amendment will be on the ballot in the first primary in 2012, which is May 2012. The people of NC will determine its outcome.

Senator Phil Berger, President Pro-Tempore, said of the Senate vote: "We think the people of this state--not judges, bureaucrats, or politicians--should define marriage, which I personally believe should be between one man and one woman. We look forward to eight months of healthy debate before voters decide this issue at the polls."

(Thanks again to everyone who worked for this amendment so that the people can vote on it. See the NCFRW Special Report dated Sep 13, 2011.)

2. Speaker/Pro Tem Term Limits (HB823)

The bill is an amendment to the NC Constitution to "limit the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate to serve for four consecutive two-year terms in those offices."

•On Monday, Sep 12, the Senate passed the bill in a vote of 35 to 9 with 1 not voting and 5 excused absences.

All Republican Senators voted 'Yes," except Senator Hartsell who had an excused absence.  Five Democrats voted "yes:"

Senator Daniel G. Clodfelter (Mecklenburg)
Senator Malcolm Graham (Mecklenburg)
Senator Ed Jones (Bertie, Chowan, Gates, Halifax, Hertford, Northhampton, Perquimimans)
Senator Josh Stein (Wake)
Senator Don Vaughan (Guilford)

Nine Democrats voting "no:"

Senator Bob Atwater (Chatham, Durham, Lee)
Senator Doug Berger (Franklin, Granville, Vance, Warren)
Senator Dan Blue (Wake)
Senator Charlie S. Dannelly (Mecklenburg)
Senator Eleanor Kinnaird (Orange, Person)
Senator Floyd B. McKissick (Durham)
Senator Martin L. Nesbitt (Buncombe)
Senator William R. Purcell (Anson, Richmond, Scotland, Stanly)

Senator Gladys A. Robinson (Guilford)

Senator Stan White (Beaufort, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Tyrrell, Washington) did not vote.

The following Democrat Senators had excused absences: Linda Garrou (Forsyth), Clark Jenkins (Edgecombe, Martin, Pitt); Eric Mansfield (Cumberland), and Michael P. Walters (Hoke, Robeson).

•In the House on Tues, Sep 13 the bill passed in a vote of 118 to 0 with 1 not voting and 1 excused absence. Democrat Representative Marcus Brandon (Guilford) did not vote; and

Republican Representative D. Craig Horn (Union) had an excused absence.

Star News reported that Senate leader Phil Berger said,"the change approved Monday would keep any single person from holding power for decades." Star News added, "His predecessor as president pro tempore, Sen. Marc Basnight, D-Dare, served a record 18 years at the post."

•The Term Limit Amendment will be on the November 2012 ballot for the people of NC to decide.

September 14, 2011 Calendar for NC House

The following vetoed bills may be reconsidered today: Voter Photo ID (HB351), the Energy Jobs Act (SB709), No Dues Checkoff for School Employees (SB727), and Water Supply Lines/Water Violation Waivers (HB482).


US Congress

1. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act regarding patent awards. The Senate passed the legislation in a vote of 89 to 9 with 2 not voting on Sep 8. Both Senators Burr and Hagan voted for the bill.

2. Motion to Proceed on Debt limit disapproval - The Senate rejected the motion in a vote of 45 to 52 with 3 not voting. The motion would have initiated a resolution to disapprove a $500 billion debt limit increase, according to MEGAvote.

"Under the budget law enacted on August 2, the debt limit was increas[ed] by $400 billion. A second increase of $500 billion will take effect unless Congress passes a disapproval measure."
(Megavote)

Senator Burr voted for the Resolution to stop an automatic increase of $500 billion to the debt limit. Senator Hagan voted against the Resolution to stop the automatic $500 billion increase.

The bottom line is that Senator Burr does not want the debt limit automatically increased another $500 billion; and Senator Hagan agrees with an additional $500 billion added to the debt limit already enacted ($400 billion), resulting in a total of $900 billion in increased debt limit to date.

3. "Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act" HR2218 - On Sep 13, the House passed the legislation in a vote of 365 to 54 with 12 not voting. The legislation replaces current laws on charter schools with special attention to grants. All NC Representatives voted for the legislation.


Sources: ncga; Press Release from Senator Phil Berger, Sep 13, 2011; Star News Online, "Gay marriage ban will be on May ballot in NC," by Gary D. Robertson, AP, Sep 13, 2011 and "House, Senate versions on NC leader limits differ," AP, Sep 12, 2011; senate.gov; house.gov; Megavote: NC 6th, 9/12/2011.