Conservatives have been laughed at for claiming that the homosexual “marriage” pretense will open the door to a host of horrors.

Yes, We’ve Opened The Door To Polygamy And Incest: We Just Didn’t Want To Admit It Before

Conservatives have been laughed at for claiming that the homosexual “marriage” pretense will open the door to a host of horrors. On March 20, 2012, Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College, participated in this mockery by his review of amicus briefs that were given to the Supreme Court to defend the traditional (i.e. heterosexual) definition of marriage. He wrote in part:

“Then there’s the fixation on how a ruling in favor of gay marriage will start the nation down a slippery slope toward polygamy and incest.  Adam and Steve today; tomorrow Adam, Steve, with Cain and Abel along for the ride as well. But no one seems to notice that the slippery slope worries are as great with heterosexual marriage as same-sex marriage. The slope between gay marriage and polygamous or incestuous gay marriage is no steeper and no slicker than between heterosexual marriage and polygamous or incestuous heterosexual marriage. So how would this “slippery slope” danger play out? Is the worry that recognizing marriage equality for gays and lesbians will drive straight men into the arms of their sisters? Well, now you’ve lost me.”

That was written before the Supreme Court’s decision. Now that the decision has been made, Greenfield is suddenly changing message:

“It’s  been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something. You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.”

What follows is an examination of several attempts to stave off incestuous and polyamorous marriages. They all plainly fail. Most telling is this one:

“arguments for marriage equality do not really depend on the claim that people have no choice about who they are. Rather, the argument that resonates most with Americans is that LGBTQ people have the same right to make choices about their families as straight people. Let’s be honest: If science revealed tomorrow that sexual orientation is fluid and changeable, the arguments in favor of marriage equality would essentially be the same, wouldn’t they? Just like our arguments for religious liberty do not depend on whether people are destined by biology to be a Methodist, our arguments about the liberty to marry need not depend on science. In any event, if we throw all our eggs in the ‘it’s about the hardwiring’ basket, are we sure we have made the distinction we want? Are we confident that science will show that people who are polyamorous or who are attracted to a cousin are not hardwired that way?”

The whole article is good (and by good, I mean it exposes evil), but one other observation is especially important. The author asked homosexual “marriage” advocates about the distinction:

CONTINUED:  http://godfatherpolitics.com/11757/yes-weve-opened-the-door-to-polygamy-and-incest-we-just-didnt-want-to-admit-it-before/

How liberalism became our state religion

By Benjamin Wiker

March 25, 2013

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against gay marriage we might stand back from the whole judicial fracas and ask ourselves a larger and hopefully more startling question: “What is the government doing deciding what marriage is?” 

This is really two questions in one. First, how did it come to be that we, as a culture, are in a position where something seemingly so natural, something that existed long before any governments were around, is now up for debate? Second, why is it that we would look to a branch of the government to settle that debate?  The answer to the first question is rather complex. For centuries (not just decades) liberalism has been picking away at the Christian foundations of Western culture. Liberalism is, in essence, a secular and secularizing movement; it is historically defined by its opposition to Christianity. Wherever secular liberalism spreads, Christianity recedes. Look at Europe.

Christianity defined marriage by what we might call radical monogamy: a life-long, entirely exclusive union of one man and one woman. No sex before marriage. No concubines. No polygamy. No divorce (except for infidelity). No homosexuality. No fiddling with little boys.

The pagan Roman culture into which Christianity was born smiled on sex wherever, whenever, and with whomever it occurred. Marriage was an important social institution in Rome, but it was not defined by radical monogamy. Concubines? No problem. Sex with your male and female slaves? No big deal. Divorce? Happens all the time. Got a favorite boy? Don’t we all. Like pornography? We’ll paint the walls of your villa next week.   Homosexuality was as widespread in Rome as it was in Greece, and, yes, in Rome there was gay marriage. Right at the top of society. The emperor Nero married one Pythagoras, and we have reports of other such unions.

That was the marital, sexual status quo of the society into which Christianity was born. As Rome fell, and Christianity rose, the Christian understanding of sexuality and marriage transformed the Roman Empire—proto-Europe, we might call it. With that transformation the radical monogamy of Christianity became the social, moral, legal standard, so normal that it was regarded as natural.

It is only because Christianity won out over pagan Rome that we are having arguments about marriage today. If Christians had been summarily extinguished by imperial Rome, radical monogamy would have disappeared with it, along with opposition to homosexuality.  

CONTINUED:  http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/25/god-gay-marriage-and-the-imperial-court/

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.

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

SHAME ON BEV! Gov. Perdue is against marriage

Gov. Perdue is against marriage and against an amendment THAT IS TO AFFIRM A NORTH CAROLINA LAW already in place!!! Once again, Bev goes against the will of the people in favor of her marching orders from the special interests lobbying her and her party!

Didn't she take an oath to uphold the law/Constitution?????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUe-7Dd30kk

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

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.

The 10 Terrible Provisions of Obamacare You May Not Have Heard Of

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org/


The 10 Terrible Provisions of Obamacare You May Not Have Heard Of

Posted By Alyene Senger On March 7, 2012

Obamacare includes such a variety and volume of negative policies that it’s hard to keep track of them all. Here is a list of 10 terrible provisions that every American should be aware of:

1. It increases taxes on families earning over $250,000. [2] In 2013, the employee portion of the Medicare payroll tax will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for families earning $250,000 or more and individuals earning $200,000 or more. The income threshold is not indexed for inflation, so more and more middle-income families will be hit by the tax hike as time goes on.

2. It adds a new tax to investment income. [2] The increased payroll tax rate is also applied to high-earners’ investment income for the first time beginning in 2013. It will hit capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties, discouraging investment and harming economic growth.

3. It puts new limitations on those with HSAs and FSAs. [3] Starting in 2012, Obamacare restricts the products that consumers may purchase with a Health Savings Account (HSA) or Flexible Savings Account (FSA)—such as over-the-counter medications—and increases the penalty for such non-qualified uses of HSAs. It also limits the amount taxpayers may deposit into an FSA to $2,500 a year in 2013.

4. It adds a new tax on those who purchase medical devices. [4] In 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax will be applied to medical devices, causing a $28.5 billion tax hike on medical device manufacturers. The industry will pay for this tax by reducing jobs and passing additional costs on to consumers.

5. It penalizes marriage. [5] Obamacare creates new taxpayer-funded subsidies for the low and middle classes to purchase health coverage, but the structure of the subsidies allows two individuals to claim more in subsidies alone than if married. This discriminates against married couples and discourages marriage at almost all age and income levels.

6. It violates religious liberty. [6] The Department of Health and Human Services included the full range of contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, among the women-specific preventive services that Obamacare requires insurers to include with no cost-sharing. This mandate violates Americans’ conscience rights and religious liberty. Its narrow exemption for religious employers will force many who find these products morally objectionable—including religious charities, hospitals, and schools—to pay for them.

7. It puts Medicare decisions in the hands of an unelected board. [7] The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a board of 15 unelected officials, will have the power to cut Medicare spending without congressional approval. These unaccountable government appointees will be able to restrict seniors’ access to providers, treatments, and services.

8. It puts a premium tax on health insurers. [8] Obamacare adds a premium tax on health insurers that offer full coverage beginning in 2014. On average, the tax is expected to increase premiums by 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2014 and between 2.8 percent and 3.7 percent by 2023. Combined with the other provisions in Obamacare, this tax will have a huge impact on the cost of premiums.

9. It creates a new unsustainable entitlement program. [9] On top of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Obamacare created a new long-term care entitlement called the CLASS program. It is actuarially unsound, unworkable, and unsustainable. As a result, the Administration has already put its implementation “on hold.”

CONTINUED:  http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/07/the-10-terrible-provisions-of-obamacare-you-may-not-have-heard-of/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet

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

Marriage: America's No. 1 Weapon Against Childhood Poverty

Posted by Jared Law on November 14, 2011


.It is true that marriage, and the nuclear family, while not possible for all Americans, these days, is always the best option, whenever possible. My own personal experiences as a child weren't what I would have chosen for myself; to ensure that my kids have what I didn't, especially when it comes to having a loving, caring father present, and accounted for, who fulfilled his duty, and did so happily, is one of my greatest pleasures in life. I absolutely treasure my family, and I grieve and pray for those who don't enjoy such blessings at this time.

But despite my trials as a child, the fact remains that the nuclear family is the best possible situation for any child, and not just on the issue of poverty. Many measures of success drop significantly when a child doesn't enjoy the nurturing and good example that comes from a loving, caring nuclear family environment. Before the presentation with cold, hard facts backing this up, here's one of the best statements on the sanctity of the family that I've ever seen or heard. The bolded portions are the ones directly relevant to this discussion thread:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World
The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

CONTINUED:  http://www.the912project.us/forum/topic/show?id=2881797%3ATopic%3A2459209&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

NORTH CAROLINA FAMILY POLICY FACTS November 11, 2011

RESEARCH AND ISSUES

Why Marriage Makes the Difference--Glenn Stanton talks about the harms of living together before marriage, and explains why marriage benefits both adults and children. (Nov 11) listen
2011 Votes Paper--This valuable resource highlights important votes by the General Assembly during the 2011 legislative session. Every Senate and House member's votes on these issues are included. more

TOP STORIES
More Defend Informed Consent Law--Two national pro-life groups are seeking to defend North Carolina's new informed consent law on behalf of a group of North Carolina physicians, post-abortive women, and pregnancy resource centers. (Nov 11) more
Voting District Lawsuits Filed--A coalition of citizens from across the state filed a lawsuit last week in Wake County Superior Court, challenging the new voting districts approved by the North Carolina General Assembly this summer.

Legislative Update

Legislators returned to Raleigh this week, but this latest special session was over almost as soon as it began. Although there was speculation that substantive policy issues might be considered, including rumors of a proposal to expand gambling for the Cherokee, legislators stuck to the task of passing bills to correct errors in the redistricting maps that had been approved earlier this year.


Traditionally, the legislature would not be scheduled to return until the regular short session on May 16, 2012, but in the adjournment resolution passed late Monday evening, three additional special sessions were scheduled: a three-day session starting on November 27, and brief sessions from February 16-18 and April 23-25. It is likely that these sessions, especially the one later this month, will deal with policy decisions that will impact the family.

Abstinence--Congressman Randy Hultgren (R-IL) has sponsored H.R. 2874-The Abstinence Education Reallocation Act, a bill to renew the emphasis of abstinence education in public schools and reduce the funding disparities between abstinence education and comprehensive sex education. While the bill has 47 cosponsors so far, including North Carolina Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-2) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-3), the National Abstinence Education Association is seeking to gain as many cosponsors as possible for the bill.

DETAILS AND MORE AT:  http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe6416707262047c771d&m=fefc1d72746304&ls=fdf21773766500757d1c7173&l=fef8167974660d&s=fe28137273640278721171&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe2c167472600c7d761675&r=0

SHOCKING: Library association's 'Banned Book Week' really 'gay' promotion?

The First Amendment that assures Americans free speech has been hijacked for a political agenda that promotes homosexuality and other sexual alternatives to children through the nation's libraries, contends an advocate for safe and secure reading institutions.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=347293

You might also be interested in: 
‘Economic Terrorism’: Big Companies Targeted for Ties to Christian Groups That Oppose Gay Marriage


LET RETAILERS KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!  http://www.cardtoday.org/

North Carolina Could Institute Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

DEMOCRATS MAKING EXCUSES--SAY THE AMENDMENT MAY KEEP BUSINESS FROM LOCATING HER?  ARE YOU KIDDING?

September 12, 2011

RALEIGH, N.C. (The Blaze/AP) – It seems the gay marriage debate is heating up in North Carolina. Last month, The Blaze brought you the story of Pastor Nancy Petty, a lesbian spiritual leader at Pullen Memorial Baptist church in Raleigh, N.C., who is refusing to sign marriage licenses until a marriage equality is instituted in the state.

VIDEO AND MORE: 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/north-carolina-could-institute-constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriage/

NC Special session agenda dwindles

House Speaker Thom Tillis has said next week's special session will probably be only three days long. At this rate, state lawmakers may have to stretch to get three days out of it.


According to the resolution authorizing the special session, legislators can only take up certain kinds of matters next week. The main focus of the session is supposed to be constitutional amendments, but veto overrides and redistricting bills can also be considered.

The three constitutional amendments considered most likely to come up next week are a proposal to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, a proposal to limit the number of years a member can serve as House or Senate leader, and a proposal to limit government's power to take private property for public use, known as Eminent Domain.

Under state law, local governments can take private property for public use or public benefit. That ensures government's ability to build roads, schools, water infrastructure and other facilities needed by the public.

CONTINUED:
http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/10095082/

Cohabitation Linked to Unstable Families

North Carolina Family Policy Council
Special Report - August 17, 2011


Children today are more likely to spend time in a cohabiting household and to suffer a myriad of negative lifetime effects as a result, than they are to experience the divorce of their parents, according to a new report released Wednesday by a team of family scholars from some of the nation’s leading educational institutions. The report, “Why Marriage Matters: 30 Conclusions from the Social Sciences (Third Edition),” is the long-awaited comprehensive summary of the latest research pointing to the importance of marriage to child wellbeing. Co-sponsored by the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values and by the National Marriage Project (NMP) at the University of Virginia, the report is written by a team of 18 scholars chaired by W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the NMP.

The report’s major finding is that cohabitation, which it notes has increased 14-fold since 1970, has replaced divorce as the main contributor to the rising rates of family instability in the United States. In fact, by the age of 12, more children today will spend time in a cohabiting family than will experience the divorce of their parents (see figure 2 from report). While a decrease in parental divorce is certainly a good thing, the increasing rates of cohabitation, particularly for children, is not, because, as the report points out, “cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage.”

“In a striking turn of events, the divorce rate for married couples with children has returned almost to the levels we saw before the divorce revolution kicked in during the 1970s. Nevertheless, family instability is on the rise for American children as a whole,” explains Professor Wilcox in a press release. “This seems in part to be because more couples are having children in cohabiting unions, which are very unstable. This report also indicates that children in cohabiting households are more likely to suffer from a range of emotional and social problems—drug use, depression, and dropping out of high school—compared to children in intact, married families.”

Among the key findings in report regarding cohabitation:

About 24 percent of all children are born to cohabiting parents, which the report notes is more than the percentage of children born to single mothers.

An additional 20 percent of children will spend some time in a cohabiting household with an unrelated adult (often because of the divorce of their parents), meaning that “more than four in 10 children are exposed to a cohabiting relationship.”

Cohabiting parents with children are more likely to break up before the child turns 12 than married parents with children (see figure 5 from the report).

CONTINUED:  http://ncfamily.org/stories/110817s1.html