Pam’s House Blend – More Support For Defeating Amendment One

This is good news!  Go to Pam’s website (link below) to read the rest of the story!


More support against Amendment One: Chelsea Clinton, George Takei, Jason Mraz

By: Pam Spaulding Friday May 4, 2012 9:47 am

There’s a lot of support from all corners against Amendment One to report – the latest well-known names:

Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former President Bill Clinton, urges people to sign up for get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat it:

I believe that everyone must stand up for what is right, whenever possible, wherever possible.  I also believe that when the civil rights of any one American or group of Americans in one place are questioned, all Americans, everywhere, should care that the answer is the right one.  Those are lessons I learned at a young age from my parents and they are guiding principles in my life.

That is why I am joining you in opposing Amendment One in North Carolina. Amendment One unfairly targets women, children and families, gay and straight, who fall outside of the narrow definition of family articulated by those who drafted the legislation.

It is our duty to join the fight on behalf of both the gay and lesbian North Carolinians who were the original targets of the amendment and the tens of thousands of straight male and female North Carolinians who will be collateral damage if the amendment passes next Tuesday.

via Pam’s House Blend.


Understanding North Carolina’s Proposed Amendment One |

Excerpt from a great article on Amendment One pin NC…

What if the government told your boss he or she could not provide benefits to your spouse or even your children? You might have a problem with that. While it might sound unbelievable that the government would take away those benefits, some fear that could happen here in North Carolina.

We’re talking about Amendment One. It’s the amendment some call the “gay marriage amendment,” but this amendment is about a whole lot more than marriage. It’s also about benefits and economics.


via Understanding North Carolina’s Proposed Amendment One |

Associated Baptist Press – Southeastern Seminary rallies support for gay-marriage ban

Associated Baptist Press - Southeastern Seminary rallies support for gay-marriage ban

 I’m sorry, but I can’t let this little gem slide.  This article isn’t surprising at all, but the logic present is just ludicrous.  Here is a clip from the article…


Another panelist at the seminary forum, Mark Creech of the North Carolina Christian Action League, said proponents of gay marriage are trying to have it both ways by arguing the gay marriage ban “imposes a religious bias into the law” while recruiting liberal clergy to their cause.

“There are, unfortunately, a number of churches, small as they may be, that erroneously support same-sex marriage,” Creech said. “So if we are to hold to a strict separation of church and state, then churches who argue for same-sex marriage shouldn’t be a part of this dialogue, either.”


Mr. Creech, the pastors and churches joining the fight against this amendment are NOT trying to impose laws based on their holy books onto all citizens.  That is what you are trying to do. They ARE speaking out to let conservatives and Christians alike know that there are people of faith that oppose Amendment One.  I’ll add, that there are those who are opposed to gay marriage are opposed to this legislation.  SMH.

Associated Baptist Press – Southeastern Seminary rallies support for gay-marriage ban.

Repost: Ted Olson argues the case for Marriage Equality

Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California’s Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California’s constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.

My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the “traditional” definition of marriage and press for an “activist” interpretation of the Constitution to create another “new” constitutional right?

My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize…


Here is the full article.