Why I WILL be Voting
FOR Amendment One
- I have the opportunity to be apart of amending my state’s constitution in such a way as to reflect what the One who created marriage defined it to be.
- If the state is going to bestow benefits on people who get married because it is observed as being a stabilizing influence on society and is beneficial to the perpetuation of said society through the children that are conceived and born in those marriages then there is no reason for the state to offer the same privileges to same sex couples because they can not produce these affects.
- The question of heterosexual couples who can’t have children or choose not to has no bearing on this argument because governments make laws for the masses and not for exceptions to the general rule. Governments are trying to macro manage when they make laws.
- Because I do not view government sanctioned marriage as a human right. If government sanctioned marriage were a human right then arguments concerning discrimination would be valid and correct.
- If the government of the US and/or state of NC did not recognize or provide benefits for heterosexual marriage I for one would not be prevented from going before God with Amy and entering into a covenant relationship. That’s the marriage recognition I care about. I would only complain about the government if they arrested me and incarcerated me because I married a woman
I will NOT be Voting
FOR Amendment One…
- Because
not doing so will legalize same sex marriage in NC. There is already a law
on the books for that purpose and so those who are trying to scare people
into voting for Amendment One for that reason should be ashamed of their
dishonesty. Likewise those who use that fact as an argument for not needing
a constitutional amendment should not ignore the fact that if
- In
order to define marriage for
- Because Christians believe marriage is sacred. Although individual Christians may believe marriage to be sacred we do not as a group. If Christians, as a group, believed that marriage was sacred for the reasons we claim it be so then the divorce rate among our people would not be the same as the rate of those we are trying to convert. If Christians, as a group, believed marriage was sacred “no fault divorce” couples, individuals engaging in sex before marriage, and adulterers would be biblically dealt with in the Church instead of ignored. We are rightly labeled as hypocrites when we focus on homosexuality but ignore heterosexual sins. I dare say I will not be seeing Christians rallying for state laws that would make “no fault divorce”, adultery, and fornication illegal.
- Because
I believe the Church needs the State in order to prevent homosexual or
polygamist unions. Marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and God.
The State is not necessary for this equation. If I’m not mistaken on my
history this was the view of people in western cultures until the state run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in who
could and couldn’t get married in order to have control over the
institution and help raise revenue through issuance of licenses. This
evolved over the centuries and was continued after church and state was
separated in the
I have more reasons, but I do not have time to write them all out. I am happy to discuss any/all of my reasons with anyone who
agrees/disagrees with my reasons. If you have a question or counter argument
your comments are welcome. If you have a rant then your comment will be
deleted.
Well said my brother. Joyous to call you my brother.
ReplyDeleteThanks brother.
DeleteWe are joining you in your vote, Caison.
ReplyDeleteThanks Heather. I hope your family is doing well. I see you've had another addition! That's awesome.
DeleteHeather, what vote is that you will join, because according to Caison, he is not voting.
ReplyDeleteYou may want to read the post again Unknown.
DeleteWhy I will vote against Amendment One:
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that anyone’s personal religious beliefs should be the foundation for legislation, especially when it is designed to impose limitations on either a specific group or more generally, those who differ from myself. What an individual believes the One says about marriage can differ enormously from what someone else believes, and with our long-held cultural acknowledgement of the wall of separation between church and state, it is imperative that we not allow personal belief systems to take root in the state’s constitution with the intent to exclude. There was a time in our country’s past when I would not have been educated because I’m female, when my children would have been denied equal rights because they are of mixed race, when the “majority” endorsed stripping freedom from the natives of this land, all supported with someone’s view of what the Bible said. None of those things were right and good, and neither is this proposed amendment. As you have stated, if this amendment passes, it will do nothing to lower the divorce rate; it will not make marriage any more “sacred” in the eyes of individuals than it already is. Furthermore, the second part of the proposed amendment will go further than providing a definition (a deceptively innocuous perspective), and will put in place an addition to the North Carolina constitution that is so vaguely worded that numerous lawyers and legislators have gone public with concerns that it will open doors leading to restrictions in health care coverage, domestic violence protection orders and the validity of personal legal contracts. I am not saying these actions will absolutely occur; I’m saying that, in other states with similar amendments, these actions have occurred, to the great detriment of children, women, and the elderly. These concerns arise from the contradictory phrasing of the second sentence of the proposal: “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.” I have yet to hear a convincing presentation of why any of this is necessary, but continue to encounter legitimate concerns about why it is dangerous. The One I believe in tells me to serve, to make every effort to see to the needs of “the least of these.” If this proposed amendment passes, not only will “the least of these” not be helped; they very well may be harmed. I cannot and will not be a part of that.
Thanks for the comment E. Davis. I would like to better understand what your point of view is so do you mind if I ask you some questions about your comment?
DeleteThat's fine.
Delete1. Since I can't write legislation is it ok that my personal religious beliefs determine how I vote when given the opportunity?
Delete1a. If I could write legislation and I viewed my personal religious beliefs to be objectively true then should I be prevented from holding public office?
2. If we should honor a long held cultural belief like separation of church and state then why shouldn't we honor a long held cultural belief like marriage being between a man and woman?
3. How will this affect people's health care? I honestly am ignorant of how this would happen and am curious to know.
4. Do you think law officers will ignore instances of assault if this amendment passes because it wouldn't be considered domestic abuse?
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Thanks for your response.
You, of course, may vote as your conscience leads you. I'm puzzled that you felt the need to ask since you invited discussion and that's how I responded. If you feel lead to pursue political office, I would hope that you would be able to set your personal preferences aside and recognize that you must represent all members of your constituency, whether or not their belief systems align with yours. The long-held cultural belief in the separation of church and state is the foundation of numerous judicial and legislative decisions all around the country, to the degree that many people consider it to be part of the US Constitution (although it isn't). Nevertheless, its role in the shaping of our society is undeniable. Many people do believe that marriage should only be allowed between a man and woman; many people do not hold that view. There have previously been many widely-held cultural beliefs that had a negative impact on entire segments of the population; many are gone but others linger. The separation of church and state is specifically designed to protect the freedoms of individuals; the proposed amendment does the opposite. Regarding health-care, there are families who have one member working for a public agency and carrying the other family members on her or his insurance through domestic-partnership benefits. Passage of the proposed amendment, while perhaps not immediately affecting individuals employed by private companies, would prohibit state agencies from recognizing domestic partnerships, thereby eliminating coverage for thousands of people, many of them children. As to the domestic violence issues, no one has stated that law officers would ignore anything; the concern is with existing domestic violence protection orders which are often in place based on laws established from a recognition of domestic partnerships/common law marriages; removing those recognitions could invalidate the protection orders, leaving many people more vulnerable than they already are.
DeleteThanks again for the response. I hope you don't mind, I have at least one more questions.
DeleteWhat exactly do you mean when you say that elected officials must put aside their personal preferences and represent all of the members of their constituency? To be more precise are you saying that you should side with what the wishes of the majority of your constituents are on any given matter? If that's not what you mean could you elaborate?
Again, if you have any questions for me I'll be happy to answer.
I certainly don't mean that elected officials should go by the majority opinion. At one time, the majority of southern states outlawed miscegenation, often based on someone's idea of Biblical principles. That certainly didn't make it right. It is incumbent upon those in elected office in this country to always weigh their decisions on the scale of the United States Constitution rather than one's personal faith and/or sacred texts. While the majority of Americans may identify with Christianity (although that's debatable), the dogmatic differences in the various sects of that one religion are substantial. Factor in people of other, and no, faith backgrounds, and it's easy to see how we must guard against forcing others into a framework that may seem so natural to us but is completely contrary to their beliefs. I may believe very strongly in Jesus as my personal Savior, but in making decisions for society, I may not force that belief on others. I guess I see this as "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."
DeleteCaison,
ReplyDeleteI have always respecting you and your beliefs. Despite our different views I always thought that it was nice that we could banter back and forth about the differences and yet respect each other's opinions. I hope that if you have created a blog to voice your opinions then you will at a minimum allow others to voice their dissenting opinion as well.
With that being said...your arguments are a bit confusing as to what you are planning to do. Essentially it is impossible for you to vote and not vote at the same time. Given that you appear to be a reasonable man and indeed the opinion of the ONE is the only one that matters, I am going to assume that you are not going to vote for the amendment as you recognize the inconsistencies in the arguments made by those that are promoting it. I applaud you for the wit in the phrasing of your title as a means to highlight those incongruencies posed by an Amendment that serves no purpose, but to potentially harm people. You are a closet genius of prose and should come out as the linguist that you are! We could debate the bible and we could debate the intrusion of government into something that is between two people and god, but ultimately we both can conclude that this Amendment is unneccessary.
I appreciate you taking the time to delineate the inane nature of this Amendment and applaud you for the courage to speak out about.
Thanks for commenting Sari. Dissenting opinions don't bother or offend me. However, some people can't give reasonable and respectable responses, but instead feel the uncontrolable urge to emote. In the past I have deleted more comments from people who agree with me than those who disagree because they couldn't stop ranting about the other person's character or mental faculties. That's the only type of comments I delete.
DeleteI did vote for Amendment One, but I do see inconsistencies on both sides of the FOR and AGAINST arguments. I think your last paragraph was "tongue in cheek" but if it wasn't you didn't correctly interpret my post. I'll be happy to clear it up if it doesn't make sense to you.
Thanks again and I look forward to the discussion.