news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

NEWS

Marriage amendment passes, will be on May ballot

Tuesday, September 13, 2011
(Updated 1:49 pm)
By Mark Binker
Staff Writer

RALEIGH — Voters will decide in May whether to add a ban on same-sex marriage to the state constitution.

The state Senate passed the measure 30-16 today after a similar vote by the House on Monday.

Gov. Bev Perdue has no ability to veto the measure.

Opponents of the measure made a last-minute push to block the measure, presenting statements from religious leaders and business groups opposed to the ban.

Proponents said it was time to let voters have a say on the measure, which has been blocked for the past eight years.

"It is time for them to make that determination about their constitution," said Sen. Phil Berger, an Eden Republican and the top leader in the Senate.

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Apple

September 13, 2011 - 2:17 pm EDT

Great news for North Carolina. Thank You Sen. Berger for standing true to your promises. Marriage is a biblical term between a MAN and a WOMAN.

pragmatist

September 13, 2011 - 2:43 pm EDT

"a biblical term".
From the North Carolina Constitution: "there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other".

in the schools

September 13, 2011 - 3:24 pm EDT

Two points:
1. Your argument implies that heterosexual Jews, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, et cetera, also should also be banned from civil liberties in NC because they weren’t biblical.
2.There’s nothing religious about the legality of a marriage. Even the traditonal clichéd response to end a "biblical" marriage service says, “By the power vested in me by the State of North Carolina” not by the power of God or any other religious entity. Whether you’re married in church or at the courthouse, all that you need is to swear an oath to get a marriage license and then sign it with a witness and someone with the aforementioned “power” having been vested by the state of NC.

wrkeeney

September 13, 2011 - 4:30 pm EDT

If you want Biblical Marriage ennacted, this is what you get: http://i.imgur.com/Ii2VC.jpg

DaiyuHurst

September 13, 2011 - 5:03 pm EDT

It's precisely because marriage IS a religious ceremony and status that the state should no longer be involved in the marriage business, period. To do otherwise is a violation of the separation of church and state, and makes a mockery of our Constitution.

RandolphBloke

September 13, 2011 - 7:04 pm EDT

Apple, it's quite clear you know nothing about marriage and the history of it. It existed WELL before the Bible as a means to ensure property rights went where they were most wanted/needed. It had nothing to do with divine claptrap.

kenpofan

September 13, 2011 - 2:26 pm EDT

Yes..now the people get a chance to speak.
Not the MSM nor the leftist elites but the people.

DaiyuHurst

September 13, 2011 - 5:04 pm EDT

The last time I checked, "leftist" elites were people, too.

gsoreader

September 13, 2011 - 2:43 pm EDT

There is so little love and true commitment in this world ... why limit its legal expression? I say honor those who love and wish to express that love through a lifelong commitment. Oh - and I VOTE. Every time, every primary, general, you name it. I will be there in May.

aliluyya

September 13, 2011 - 2:45 pm EDT

I am appalled and disgusted by this attack on North Carolina's citizens' freedoms.

I am married, and there was NO BIBLE and NO MENTION of god at our union.

If anyone has a link to how each legislator voted, please post it here.

itsjustron

September 13, 2011 - 3:00 pm EDT

And there will probably be no mention of GOD, or the BIBLE at your funeral either.

I wo uld also like to know how each legislator voted so I can send a thank you card.

Panacea

September 13, 2011 - 8:52 pm EDT

You know nothing about her to know whether that's true or not.

Though . . . if she's atheist, not mentioning God or the Bible would probably be welcomed.

whatamessumade

September 13, 2011 - 3:06 pm EDT

and if you were married in NC, I guarantee you are a "one man and one woman" marriage.

Lets keep it that way!

gsoreader

September 13, 2011 - 3:34 pm EDT

There is nothing "greater" about a one woman/one man marriage than a one woman/one woman or one man/one man marriage. Marriage strengthens the community - and our communities need such sources of strength. I will be there in May, to support equality for all forms of commitment expression.

itsjustron

September 13, 2011 - 3:39 pm EDT

Nothing greater??? Sure there is, your not fighting over the same pair of pants..

gsoreader

September 13, 2011 - 4:02 pm EDT

Oh my. If "fighting over the same set of pants" is your objection to same gender marriage - is that what you fear? That spouses will 'fight' over articles of clothing? What about the wife who wears her husband's shirts and sweaters? THAT must be a reason to end heterosexual marriage! What a hoot.

itsjustron

September 13, 2011 - 4:24 pm EDT

Well, actually come to think of it, Im thinking the wife wearing the husbands clothes are better than the husband wearing the wifes clothes, but to each their own.

The other reason, is that the rational of what becomes normal gets blurred... Want to marry your pickup truck, or your pet?..

And as to your original comment about "nothing greater".. How about the ability to procreate? Sure some couples cannot because of a variety of medical reasons, but still , a man and a woman can have a child. A man, and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot..not naturally..

gsoreader

September 13, 2011 - 4:35 pm EDT

Bless those that adopt a child who would not have a loving home but for their adoptive parents.

satyra

September 13, 2011 - 4:45 pm EDT

itsjustron: So then elderly people who are beyond the age of procreating shouldn't get married then? And those couples who do not have children - whether by choice or by natural (or God's imparting of) infertility - should be forced to annul, I suppose?

Panacea

September 13, 2011 - 8:55 pm EDT

Clearly you've never heard of artificial insemination.

And may gay/lesbian couples will have heterosexual intercourse to produce a child, but remain otherwise monogamous with their partner.

What is normal? Normal is a loaded word.

And if you really understood what normal means, you would understand that since homosexuality is genetics, the practice IS normal . . . for them.

whatamessumade

September 13, 2011 - 7:08 pm EDT

nothing"greater"
Just the fact that the human race would be wiped out in one generation if everybody did it your way.
Talk about thinning the herd.
It must really tick you off when you can't reproduce, and yet God set it up for your so called "bigots" to procreate.
It's no wonder ya'll are so angry.

Leonard

September 13, 2011 - 3:08 pm EDT

Just another example AGAIN of government interfering with our personal lives.

Apple

September 13, 2011 - 4:08 pm EDT

"We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him"

Sec. 13. Religious liberty.

All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

That may bother some of you? Guess what this came from? Hint? North Carolina document?

North Carolina State Constitution

Panacea

September 13, 2011 - 8:57 pm EDT

You should read it a little more carefully: "and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience."

pragmatist

September 13, 2011 - 4:21 pm EDT

Jesus admonished not to judge others, but this amendment is based on judgment of others. Homosexuality is one of many sins documented in the Bible. In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees alleged a woman committed the sin of adultery and presented her to Christ. They reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by death and demanded He judge the woman. Knowing of his Mercy, they were poised to accuse Him of disobeying God's law. Jesus calmly said, “He that is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her.” The people were awed by His wisdom and no stones were cast.
When you go to the voting booth in May, you will be asked to cast your stone and Jesus will be watching.

Panacea

September 13, 2011 - 8:58 pm EDT

Nicely said :)

wrkeeney

September 13, 2011 - 4:41 pm EDT

Just to inform and educidate our Bible thumpers, this is Biblical Marriage:

http://i.imgur.com/Ii2VC.jpg

How's that working for you?

billhpt200909

September 13, 2011 - 5:40 pm EDT

As has been said, politics is like driving a car. When you put the lever in R, you go in reverse. Today our legislators have done so in spades. Pretty soon we'll get one of those laws that schools should teach only the science of creationism. Our legislature is moving backwards at an amazing speed.

Panacea

September 13, 2011 - 9:10 pm EDT

Fortunately, creationism is not a science, and the Supreme Court has been pretty good about slapping that nonsense down.

lilcaddman

September 13, 2011 - 6:18 pm EDT

1st Jesus's comments in regards to judging come from the sermon on the Mount in Matthew, and per usual are being interpreted out of context. I find it hard to imagine jesus was giving a blanket statement against (judging) discernment of wrongdoing by a state. Every single law we have is based on judging between right and wrong. So to assume if we pass a law is a bad thing would be to assume that since we shouldn't judge we shouldn't have law. I don't recall Jesus being an anarchist.

2nd After jesus make his statement and the accusers leave he turns to the woman and asks if anyone condemned her and she said no and then he said "neither do i, I condone your sin, go and have all the adulterous sex you want " ... no wait that's not how it went he said "go and sin no more" He didn't condone her adultery he called her to turn away from it.

3rd Now if you don't believe in the bible nor do you believe the marriage of homosexuals to be wrong well then we have a democratic process to add or keep this out of the constitution. What could be more democratic then directly voting on a law?

An interesting sidenote ...you can't be an atheist and hold elective office in NC that's in the NC Constitution too. Article 6 section 8

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search