Plea to overturn NC's marriage amendment labeled 'farcical'

Thursday, April 10, 2014
 | 
Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to overturn North Carolina's marriage amendment – an action that one traditional values group describes as "the newest expression of fascism" in America.

North Carolina signOn Wednesday the ACLU petitioned a federal judge in Raleigh to quickly overturn the amendment, arguing it would help children as well as homosexual couples who are suffering with problems needing fast solutions due to the ban on homosexual marriage.

Dr. Mark Creech of the Christian Action League of North Carolina notes the suit has been filed on behalf of lesbians who left North Carolina to get "married" in other states where it is legal, then returned to their home state where they are attempting to force the state to recognize their view of marriage. The Christian activist takes issue with that tactic.

Creech, Mark (CAL)"Demanding that the state of North Carolina change its constitution to accommodate a lifestyle choice that not only mocks real marriage, the true building block of our society, but also attempts to turn a moral wrong into a civil right is farcical as well as shameful," he tells OneNewsNow.

Judges in eight other states have overturned constitutional marriage amendments, arguing there's no legitimate rationale for holding to the one man, one woman definition. Such arguments make no sense, says Jere Royall, legal counsel for the North Carolina Family Policy Council.

"I don't understand how they can make that statement when they have, I think in all cases, had put before them all of history with thousands of studies over decades showing the best environment for raising children is with their married father and mother," he offers.

Legal 1Royall believes if the federal judge in this case sticks to those known facts, North Carolina's marriage amendment should remain intact. But if the judge rules it unconstitutional, Creech says the prospects are bleak.

"It [would be] only further proof that we have moved away from the fundamental principle of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people but have become a government of the courts, by the courts, and for the courts," he laments.

"And this would not be our culture's listening to its better angels," Creech concludes. "Instead, it is the newest expression of fascism in the supposed land of the free."

Sixty-one percent of North Carolina voters approved the amendment in May 2012.


4-11-2014 - Clarified that those who filed suit were residents of North Carolina.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

What two questions would you ask Donald Trump when he meets with evangelical leaders?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Sanders: Democratic convention could be 'messy'
Clinton campaign declines invitation to Calif. debate
AZ city bars Satanic Temple prayer at council meeting
Breyer says Sup. Ct. not diminished with only 8 members
Head of TSA security operations removed from position
Officer acquitted in Freddie Gray case
Supreme Court throws out death sentence from all-white jury
Ferguson wants another tax increase to pay for Obama reforms

LATEST FROM THE WEB

500 evangelical leaders to meet Trump to test his faith, values
Hillary slams Trump on bankruptcies, including casinos
It’s On: Sanders already raising $$ for DNC chairwoman's challenger
Coca-Cola: The latest victim of Venezuela's disastrous affair with socialism
Union flips out over church's school pizza giveaway

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day
NEXT STORY
Just 5 words would disarm the public

An attorney with Liberty Counsel doesn't think much of a former Supreme Court justice's idea of modifying the Constitution to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to bear arms.