Weather by

View Full Forecast

Login | Register

facebook Icon rss Icon twitter Icon

Update: Wreck kills 2, injures others Read More

Editorial: Reject 'marriage' amendment

22 Comments | Leave a Comment

On May 8, Pitt County voters will cast ballots in this year’s primary election. Today, The Daily Reflector offers its editorial board’s recommendation on the proposed amendment to the N.C. Constitution.


The Republican-led General Assembly stepped directly into the culture wars last year when it approved for voter consideration an amendment to the state Constitution that would define marriage between one man and one woman as the only domestic legal union that will be valid or recognized in North Carolina. That issue appears on the primary election ballot and will be decided next month.

For the complete article, please pick up a copy of The Daily Reflector. Current home delivery and electronic edition subscribers may log in to access this article at no charge. To become a subscriber, please click here or contact Customer Service at (252) 329-9505.


What the amendment actually says:

The editorial above does NOT include the actual wording of the amendment. Well here is the full wording of the amendment as it will be in the NC constitution if passed: "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."


Homosexuality is an invention of man. If nature had anything to do with it there would be other homosexual species. Despite what the gay community says to the contrary, to further their agenda, there are none. A dog humping another male dog, a leg, a pillow, or stuffed animal does not mean he is gay. A pair of male or female animals that show affection does not mean they are gay. If people want to live that type of lifestyle, go for it. Keep it to yourself and live with the consequences that it entails.

Vote "Against"

If marriage were truly about procreation and child-rearing and nothing else, then we would make couples pass a fertility test before getting married, and annul the marriages of couples who fail to procreate or adopt children within a certain number of years after getting married. But of course we wouldn’t dream of doing those things because we understand that marriage has positive benefits for the 2 people involved in the marriage, and for society in general — whether they raise children together or not. And, if it’s all about being in a long term stable relationship, why no constitutional amendment banning heterosexual divorce? To advocate a voter referendum, which could ultimately write discrimination into the constitution, is not the Christian thing to do. BTW the NAACP in NC has come out AGAINST the marriage amendment. So have over 250 Clergy leaders.

If the right wing crowd felt

If the right wing crowd felt so strongly about this being the people's will, they would have held the vote in November. Blacks and Whites were once not allowed to marry. But then that was before we considered black people a full person. Or allowed women to vote. One day the world will pass you by, too.

I'm sure Blacks appreciate your luming them in with homosexuals

Using other minorities for your arguement is hatefull

It was the left wing's idea, I do believe

From the News & Observer, Sept. 13, 2011:
Bill supporters decided to put the question on the May primary ballot next year rather than the November 2012 general election ballot, ensuring the proposal would win support from enough Democrats to clear the 72 House-vote hurdle for proposed constitutional changes. Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/09/13/1483783/house-oks-amendment-banning-gay.html#storylink=cpy
Sounds to me that the Republicans did want the marriage amendment vote in November but changed to May so that they could get enough Democratic votes to get the measure on the ballot. But at least the good people of North Carolina have an opportunity to be heard on this issue. I feel confident that the people of North Carolina will make the right decision. I have faith in my neighbors.

in favor

I'm voting for it. It's reverse logic to say that the economic impact of supporting such an amendment will be negative. How many people will "flee" NC if it passes? The editor writes as though the gay community and its supporters form a vast majority, all of whom will leave. Hogwash. The facts are that expanding the definition of marriage will itself have a negative economic impact -- more people paying less taxes due to "married filing jointly" status; more people paying less for health care due to being carried on their "spouse's" insurance. On and on. All because of a bogus definition. Same-sex people can't be married. Marriage is between man and woman, and has been for millennia...what makes people nowadays think they're so much smarter than those who have gone before us?

actually marriage is a social

actually marriage is a social institution defined by man, so it can really be whatever we want it to be. people use to reject shrimp and cloven hoofs, too.

All the mistakes they made.

All the mistakes they made.

*the editorial staff should

*the editorial staff should not be telling us HOW we should vote on this issue.

umm... definition of

umm... definition of editorial - an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.

NC should tolerate anything that promotes

Transexuals and Tranvestites......and Bisexuals and Homosexuals...i mean, come on people If it feels good, do it!

gosh, i wish we hadn't grown

gosh, i wish we hadn't grown all that tobacco. tastes so good when it touches your lips. now we have all that silly, silly cancer. at least it didn't make us start humping dogs (like gay marriage undoubtably will).

I really don't care

how the editorial staff thinks I should vote. News outlets are supposed to report the news not make it or influence it. You should just stress the importance of voting.

umm... definition of

umm... definition of editorial - an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.

AGAINST this Amendment.

Thank you to the Editorial Board for their well-informed, intelligent assessment of this Amendment. The ramifications of this Amendment are much farther reaching and detrimental than just a repeat vote for traditional marriage law. It will not only harm gay people, but will harm everyone, including the State of North Carolina. Please vote AGAINST the Amendment.

Change the headline

The headline reads: "Reject 'marriage' amendment." Drop the "amendment" and you will have it right. Reject marriage. Isn't that what you are asking?

it isn't that weighty. we're

it isn't that weighty. we're just asking you to reject the old definition of marriage. but it's all good. we made the institution up to begin with!! think of it this way, we use to drown people to prove they weren't witches. now we don't.

Comparing Homosexuals to witches?

maybe you've got something..

I too support the amendment

Why so worried if this state is so progressive and tolerant! Let the voters have there say. Are you concerned that those Obama referred to as bitter clingers wil turn out and pass it.

A law cannot change nature

Marriage will always be only between a man and a woman. It always has been. It will always be. That is just plain common sense. No constitution, no law, no court decree will ever change nature. There is no better family unit than that of a mother, a father and their children. I support the amendment.

whoops. you're talking about

whoops. you're talking about procreation. marriage is an invention of man. if nature had anything to do with it, we probably wouldn't see so much divorce messing up the sanctity of it all. know what i mean?

Add comment

Login or register to post comments


Bless your heart
Bless your heart