Romney and Obama do not believe in restoring such individual freedom; their desire is for more power and control for themselves and their fellow government elitists over the lives of the people.
-Scott Lazarowitz
http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz44.1.html
Well, quite frankly i don't care. NC finally did it right. Passed an amendment to stop the queer agenda. They had civil unions and everything that everyone else has, yet they weren't satisfied until they tried to dictate religious rights. when that happened they lost it all and good for the people of NC. Time to stop this preferential treatment of a special interest group.
Political considerations aside, I'm still amazed (though not surprised) at the number of people who profess to be Christians yet don't seem to understand the clear meaning & ramifications of Romans 1:18-32 and how the numbers of those professing to be Jews who claim the Law of Moses can openly defy the applicable portions in Leviticus 20. Guilty as hypocrites all. Spiritual cowards at best.
Regarding the political implications... if the foregoing weren't a reality, then there would be no such leaders in power and this subject wouldn't even be an issue. Moreover, given the founding construct of our nation and the plain meaning of our Constitution, Ron Paul is right... the state has no business in the marriage business.
In both cases, ignorance is no excuse.
Your right Patriot, but you know what, interesting thing about it. The people actually voted it in, in NC. And it was done at a state level which is constitutionally correct. It is the states right to handle. And i find it even further amusing that NC did it right. They not only denied Homosexuals civil unions but they also denied it to heterosexuals which makes the law unchallangeable. The law or amendment must mete out the same thing to all citizens not just a select few i order to be exempt from challange. Since they said no one gets civil unions then there is no discrimination.
Quote from: srkruzich on May 13, 2012, 12:31:03 PM
Since they said no one gets civil unions then there is no discrimination.
In principle, true. But what is state sanctioned marriage if not a civil contract & therefore nothing more than a civil union? And if the state is sanctioning & dictating the terms of marriage (something that is historically an affair of the religious), isn't the state then meddling in laws that sanction and/or establish religion (or religious preferences) contrary to the Constitution? I still say the government, be it state or fed, have no business in the marriage business... from dictating its' terms to tax treatments. The historical argument of a compelling public interest by government in such matters (because of children, property matters, etc.) is thin, at best.