Preparing a floor speech against SB106 NC Definition of Marriage Amendment

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=s106

Mr speaker, I rise to oppose SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment.

Ladies and gentlemen - honorable colleagues, I stand today to oppose SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment. I am a passionate Christian and a strong believer in the sanctity of marriage. Marriage, to me and my God is a relationship that exists between one man and one woman whom God has joined together for the rest of their lives. More marriages are ending in divorce today because we have already forgotten that - and instead we have left it to the State to join people together instead of God.

In the auspices of State governmental power, we have seen fit to require and issue licenses in the way of permitting marriage to our citizens. State permission was originally required following the abolition of slavery in the hopes of preventing interracial marriages.

We have come beyond that nonsense, but we still issue licenses to be wed. This state involvement, which is really a trespassing upon the dominion of God, has led to the increasing chaos we have become accustomed to seeing in marriage today.

Government recognition of marriage has led to a family receiving more child welfare benefits upon divorce or if never married, fracturing families and leading to an epidemic of single mothers amongst the poor, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

Government incentivizing of marriage through tax breaks has led to couples getting married for the money, contributing to a spiking divorce rate.

Government control over marriage has led to the stagnating authority of the Church, which in abdicating her duty to regulate marriage to the government has given to Caesar what belongs to God, bringing the above-mentioned curses upon the institution of marriage, and leading to the chaos which we see today.

Why are we surprised to see that the more government gets involved in marriage, the worse the institution gets? Doesn't the realm of marriage belong to the Church under the authority of God, and not man?

For this reason I must oppose SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment, and implore my colleagues of faith on both sides of the aisle to do the same. If we care about the institution of marriage in North Carolina and the United States, then we must move to remove the authority of man from over the dominion of God, and not to stake our claim even deeper than it already is.

Please join me in voting "No" on SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I yield the floor.

 

[AZKing]

Good speech for certain. Glad to see you opposing the act.

When is the debate?

 

[economics102]

I'm not religious but I take the same view as you RE: government not being involved in issuing marriage licenses, good idea to use debate on an act that increases state control over marriage to introduce the argument to strip the state of that power entirely. Great job Gunny!

 

[olehounddog]

I'm 100% with you gunney.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

+:collins:

 

[sratiug]

+:collins:

:collins::collins:Yes, this is epic. Great speech.

 

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=s106

Mr speaker, I rise to oppose SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment.

Ladies and gentlemen - honorable colleagues, I stand today to oppose SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment. I am a passionate Christian and a strong believer in the sanctity of marriage. Marriage, to me and my God is a relationship that exists between one man and one woman whom God has joined together for the rest of their lives. More marriages are ending in divorce today because we have already forgotten that - and instead we have left it to the State to join people together instead of God.

In the auspices of State governmental power, we have seen fit to require and issue licenses in the way of permitting marriage to our citizens. State permission was originally required following the abolition of slavery in the hopes of preventing interracial marriages.

We have come beyond that nonsense, but we still issue licenses to be wed. This state involvement, which is really a trespassing upon the dominion of God, has led to the increasing chaos we have become accustomed to seeing in marriage today.

Government recognition of marriage has led to a family receiving more child welfare benefits upon divorce or if never married, fracturing families and leading to an epidemic of single mothers amongst the poor, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

Government incentivizing of marriage through tax breaks has led to couples getting married for the money, contributing to a spiking divorce rate.

Government control over marriage has led to the stagnating authority of the Church, which in abdicating her duty to regulate marriage to the government has given to Caesar what belongs to God, bringing the above-mentioned curses upon the institution of marriage, and leading to the chaos which we see today.

Why are we surprised to see that the more government gets involved in marriage, the worse the institution gets? Doesn't the realm of marriage belong to the Church under the authority of God, and not man?

For this reason I must oppose SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment, and implore my colleagues of faith on both sides of the aisle to do the same. If we care about the institution of marriage in North Carolina and the United States, then we must move to remove the authority of man from over the dominion of God, and not to stake our claim even deeper than it already is.

Please join me in voting "No" on SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I yield the floor.

Whoa Glen. This is great. Agree with every word.

 

[erowe1]

"You must spread some reputation before giving it to GunnyFreedom again."

 

[american.swan]

Fantastic speech! Agree fully.

 

[Kotin]

 

[XNavyNuke]

+1!

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Not a fan of overt religious references or justification, but I'd vote with ya on this issue for sure.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Not a fan of overt religious references or justification, but I'd vote with ya on this issue for sure.

Come, run in my district.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yeah, I know you're in the Belt. To be honest, I wouldn't be able to consistently frame issues like that. I'd slip up somewhere and get sniffed out pretty quickly.

 

[Brett85]

But wouldn't this amendment simply prevent the government from recognizing same sex marriages and becoming even more involved in marriage then it is already? That seems like a small government position to me. I would've voted for it.

 

[dannno]

LOL, I read the following portion like this:

Why are we surprised to see that the more government gets involved in marriage, the worse the institution gets? Doesn't the realm of marriage belong to the Church under the authority of God, and not the man?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

But wouldn't this amendment simply prevent the government from recognizing same sex marriages and becoming even more involved in marriage then it is already? That seems like a small government position to me. I would've voted for it.

The governments of fallen men have no place claiming authority over the dominion of God. Doing this, in essence, places man above God, and that ought not to be. The government defining marriage would not be such a big issue if they didn't license marriage in the first place. Without licensure, the definition would be irrelevant. As it is, the proposal renders unto Caesar what is God's and is therefore a violation of scriptural doctrine.

"But," many will say, "most of the churches support it." Indeed they do. Also, most of the churches ALREADY place the dominion of God under the authority of man by allowing their chosen status as a 501(c)3 corporation to dictate what they are and are not allowed to say. Any church under 501(c)3 speech restrictions is already corrupted with the willingness to place the governments of men over and above the Kingdom of God, and thus their opinion on this matter (theologically speaking) is invalid.

I am the last vote they need on this bill. It would have already gone forward in July except I am the last vote they need and they do not have my vote.

This one is particularly tough, as my former district is really in support of this issue, and my impending district may or may not be. I certainly am not.

The pressure is seriously mounting also. they have brought in experts from around the country to try and talk me into supporting this bill. this will be the toughest vote of my career, because my home county GOP is 1000% in support of it, and I will become a pariah in my own home for voting my conscience here.

If you ever thought that one person could not make a difference, well, with my vote they will pass this Amendment, and without it they will not. More of us need to run for State Legislature.

 

[Oldsouljer]

I'm going to dissent in part on this one. While defending against government intrusiveness is an eternal task and duty, I don't think this is an out-of-bounds issue for the government to take up here. It has been the official position of many governments both authoritarian and representative from time immemorial, that the union of man and woman is a good thing in that it not merely supports procreation but it has never been proven that any other environment is more conducive to the optimum upbringing of the result of that procreation. I speak in general terms here, there is no guarantee that any one traditional marriage shall result in the children of that marriage growing to be happy, healthy, and productive citizens. Nevertheless, it has been observed that traditional marriage TENDS to foster that outcome. And the optimal upbringing of children is essential to the maintenance of a healthy society, and the first duty expected of government by the citizenry is the promotion of all things that contribute to a healthy society. Encouraging the state of marriage as we traditionally know it entails the provision of tax incentives, legal recognition of that marriage (the crux of this matter which I will further address in a minute), and the endowment of special legal rights to each participant in a given marriage. Healthy means stable but stable doesn't necessarily mean happy. Thus in the 1940s and 1950s, we had a more stable society even while our more "creative" members chafed under what they perceived as a stifling set of morals which limited their free expression. But I digress. I would submit that government encouraging but not mandating traditional and traditionally-defined marriage is not a departure of libertarian ideals because traditional marriage serves a valuable, society-stabilizing purpose and thus the promotion of traditional marriage is one of the limited number of things that government legitimately does. From a constitutional standpoint, its worth noting that traditional marriage was an ingrained societal feature of the people of the thirteen original states, and therefore I would submit that there is nothing wrong with the government of today seeking to shore up a crumbling yet still valuable institution whose maintenance has not been proven to be either harmful nor non-beneficial to our society and system of government, and which was obviously good enough for our founders. Furthermore, I question your assertion that people marry for financial reasons, yet failing to remain married. That would seem to be contradictory, since the mutual benefit of financial gain through tax incentives is nullified when the marriage ceases. Furthermore, the spiking divorce rate is a comparatively recent phenomenon, while people were more inclined to enter into marriage for material reasons in times long since past than they are in modern times. Indeed, during the present Recession, we hear of people who can't afford to get a divorce, so dependent are they on each other. Lastly, I would vociferously deny that governmental recognition of marriage has anything to do with the bestowal of taxpayer-funded subsidies for anyone having custody of children as the result of a divorce or for anyone having children outside of legal marriage. That is a separate issue which truly IS bad government policy. For that reason, I would suggest the removal of paragraphs/sentence groups 5 & 6 because unless you have supportive evidence to offer, they may be perceived as non-sequiturs.
Secondly, this entire issue has arisen because of certain entities pushing for inclusion of legal recognition of unions not traditionally defined as marriage. Let us be very clear on one thing....homosexuals aren't campaigning for the right to marry, they already have that. That's right, they have the right to marry. No one is going to jail them or fine them if they declare themselves to be married. What they want, and in fact demand, is that we the people RECOGNIZE such "marriages". Since some states already have granted this, that is the prerogative of those states, but if the people of North Carolina want this, then it should be put to the popular vote. The problem is that we are heading down the road to this decision being forced on us by the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution and I do not believe a minority of states should be able to impose their will on the majority. To me, this bill is more about state's rights than upholding traditional morality, and that is why I would like to see it enacted as a first defense in the inevitable constitutional crisis that is coming when this movement toward government recognition of any kind of union other than traditional marriage is forced upon us.

As for your constituents, I'm not one of them and you're not bound to consider my opinion. And if I was one, I don't know that I'd urge you to smother your conscience for political reasons. But I did want to point out that A) there are seriously good reasons why government should be involved in the recognition, promotion, and regulation of marriage (there are good reasons why we don't legalize incest) that have nothing to do with religion or morality; and B) this legislation is intended to a major extent to serve as a legal delaying action while we fight the coming attempt by other states and/or the federal government to impose their will on us.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

So, what response did you get from this speech, anyway?

 

[MozoVote]

I bet the rural Democrats are also under a lot of pressure to vote for the amendment. Odds are when the vote is called, there will be some on board.