Thursday, May 10, 2012

Thoughts on North Carolina Amendment One

North Carolina is not the outlier everyone thinks it is. Thirty states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Personally I believe the amendment is stupid and a waste of time. If marriage is so self-evident, why does it need to be defined?

The main reason for the amendment and other movements like it is fear. Fear drives all of these social issues. Obviously this is not something government should waste its time on. Government should focus on schools, police, roads and infrastructure. But social issues are an easy distraction, and they blind us from our government not doing its job.

Yes it is unfortunate North Carolina enshrined discrimination in a document meant to protect peoples' rights. As a practical matter, the amendment is so poorly worded it won't make much of a legal difference. Same sex marriage wasn't legal before the amendment. So not much has changed.

11 comments:

  1. It was a huge disappointment Michael. This state is better than that.

    What shocked me were the voters that helped put it over the top. A huge section of Democrats and a big portion of Obama's base (in 2008) voted FOR the amendment. I think that made it even more brave of him to come out in FAVOR of same sex marriage the next day.

    But the aftermath has been really interesting. I don't remember this much hoopla when the other states passed similar amendments. So maybe all the attention will actually be a good thing.

    It is my belief that if the gay community had pushed stronger for civil unions and left that (apparently) untouchable word "Marriage" alone... they would have been more successful. But I also understand they didn't start this fight.

    A somewhat well known Democrat said this at a forum I attended: "This is not about gay people getting married. This politics pure and simple. This is all a smokescreen to take your eye off of what is really going on in Raleigh in terms of the budget cutting especially in education. If the Republicans want to charge the base they turn to one of the 3 G's. God. Guns or Gays."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that states shouldn't be wasting its time on issues such as this but many people are against the lifestyle not gay marriage. I don't care if they get married or not, I believe people have a right to live their life as free as possible. I will defend anyones right to free of government but people don't have to accept how they live their lives.

    This normally wouldn't have been a big deal but for Biden chewing on shoe leather again. Obama isn't brave either, its a political move to help with the gay community. Romney is equally wrong, government has no business here for why does government get to decide who gets married anyways? These people only care about gettng elected, nothing more and nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You make good points Blaine. But that is the part I have never understood... "the way the live their lives". It makes no difference to me whatsoever what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom... and that's what people seem to have the problem with.

    As a Christian I also have people throwing a couple of Bible verses at me. But for everyone they point to I can find 20 more that pertain to them.

    I know of NO ONE who can live by the laws of Leviticus. If there out there... I've yet to meet them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If THEY'RE out there. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The reason all of these type issues cause such as stir, is because there is no absolute authority or foundation to look to for the definitve answer...other than the BIBLE. The BIBLE used to be the authority and the absolute standard looked to when determining what was right or wrong. People of faith and even those who were not, still looked to the BIBLE as an authoritative source. That is lost in today's world. This is no more. People have their opinions and their view of the world from their finite perspective, based on their belief system, values or personal circumstances. The people have spoken with their vote, but those that disagree do ot accept it becasue it didn't do their way. Chirs, we all fall short of the BIBLE and we are all sinners. If anything goes, with no boundaries, where does it end?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with you Anonymous that we are ALL sinners. I absolutely agree. I just don't agree with ranking one sin above the other.

    I love my church. I have a wonderful church. But we discriminate against no one. I just hate that some pastors took this issue to condemn others.

    Case in point... a young kid I am trying to help. He is 19 years old and sadly, this week of ALL weeks he got "outed" on a social website. His mother told him he is going to hell and kicked him out. His Grandmother told him to go and immediately kill himself. It was better to die now than live the life of a gay man. What makes it extra sad that these really are two nice women who THINK they are doing the Christian thing.

    I don't understand how churches can minister to prisoners convicted of murder (which they should) build homes in countries where they don't believe in God (as they should) and yet completely condemn law abiding people for loving someone who has to be of the same sex.

    When are we going to stop rating sins? The ones doing the condemning are sinning too. We ALL sin. Each and every one of us.

    Gay doesn't make the top ten but it is THE sin of sins in so many eyes.

    Some very well known ministers have been caught with prostitutes, in affairs, stealing, lying... you name it. But that's all okay because they get forgiven.

    It all boils down to the fact that people will NOT accept the fact that you are born gay. Period. You don't wake up one day and say "Dang. I think I'll be GAY! I think I will CHOOSE a lifestyle where I will be taunted, berated, passed over for jobs, put down and made fun of". You just don't choose that. I promise you do not. I PROMISE.

    The Bible is a wonderful book. I love the Bible. I wish that I could live as good a life as some in the Bible did. But I can't. And if you read some of the laws in the Bible I don't you could either.

    And the finest man that ever walked the face of the earth, my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ never ONCE... not ONE time condemned homosexuality. Not once. He DOES mention sexual immorality in Mark but he does so along with theft, murder, adultery,greed,malice,deceit,lewdness,envy,slander,arroganceand folly. But again... only one sin gets pulled from that and then they exclude straight people from their "immoral acts".

    God is love. God is grace. God is forgiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sin is sin and is not ranked. You can't live a life pleasing to God to the point it will get you to heaven. The religious people of olden days couldn't so it, and we can't either. That's why Christ died for our sins and lives today as a living Savior. Only a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, according to the BIBLE will esnure your place in the Book of Life. Of course if you or anyone does not see the BIBLE as the ultimate authority, then this means nothing. People rationalize their behavior based on how they want to live. It's called self-interest. We don't live under the law, we live under grace, by faith. It's agood thing, because none of us can live perfect lives. Man will always fail, Jesus Christ never fails. There has to be a wrong and a right way. Everyone can not have it their way just becasue they feel a certain way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well... it looks like you're agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great comments. The amendment was used to deflect attention from our legislature, which I refer to as a Rump Parliament.

    The Bible is a wonderful book, but government cannot endorse it. This is unconstitutional. Also, I don't like people telling me what the Bible means. It isn't that simple. It is open to so many interpretations.

    This country isn't in a state of decline just because the party you dislike is in power.

    ReplyDelete
  10. All of you (just like the public) are missing the point. It's not about being born gay or choosing to be gay because you can't be born gay... I have 2 points.

    1. Nobody is "Gay." Gay is a sexual act between two people of the same sex. Thus, if you never engage in a sexual act with anyone, you can't be gay. Thus, kids aren't gay. And 40 year old virgins aren't gay. Even if a man had sex with another man 10 times, that doesn't "make" him gay... I can steal 10 times but I'm not a thief UNLESS I continue to steal. The urge to steal is called TEMPTATION, my friends; the act of stealing is succumbing to that temptation. Whether or not the sin is thievery, murder, homosexuality, polygamy, etc., it's all a choice.

    What is going on in this country is the equivalent of prisoners saying they were "born to rob" or "born to write fraudulent checks." How can you tell someone they weren't born a certain way? If gay people were "born" gay, then can't a thief be "born" a thief?

    We need to hold each other accountable and stop letting certain groups in society make us feel guilty for having our beliefs. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

    2. If we allow gay marriage then how can the government stop me (I'm a man) from marrying my friend Robert (a man) simply for tax purposes? We're best friends and it'd be great to enjoy the benefits that our society places on married couples. If you think it's wrong for someone to tell self proclaimed gays they can't marry, then who are you to tell me I have to be in love with someone to get married? Who even knows what love is? And how do we prove our love? It's a slippery slope and you can bet the bank that as soon as we allow things like this to happen, many groups will argue that they should enjoy the right to marry (polygamists, family members, friends, etc). If we think it's "discrimination" to vote on something we, the majority, believes in, then what does the majority even have the power to do? I thought this was a democracy...

    ReplyDelete
  11. You can be born gay. This will be proven scientifically soon enough. Your logic breaks down when you say being gay is a sex act. The same could be said for heterosexual. Both are biological imperatives.

    And you miss the point regarding the legislation. This is a horribly drafted, backwards, regressive piece of legislation. As written, it would deprive same sex partners from acting as next of kin when their partner is incapacitated. Tell me: how is it just to deprive someone of the benefit of their partner because of some arbitrary law? This mentality is what isolates homosexuals and leads to society scorning them.

    This law was totally unecessary. The whole thing was a waste of time, but I've come to expect no less from our legislature.

    ReplyDelete