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 - NOT another reader's comments. 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

Why is the liberal media allowing the Clinton campaign to push them around?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

  Mylan says it will expand programs that lower EpiPen costs
  Italy toll rises to 247 as anguish mounts over quake past
Navy says Iranian boats harassed US ship in Strait of Hormuz
Latest: About a dozen injured in Indiana tornadoes
Report: Syria and Islamic State blamed for chemical attacks
North Korean submarine missile launch shows improved ability

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Pushing Trump forward, Jerry Falwell Jr. pushes Christ to the rear
Louisiana cop: Red Cross stopped me from praying with flood victim
MLK's Niece: Black lives matter in the womb ... but they don't want to say that
Diversity is history’s pathway to chaos
Mega-military base breaks silence on 'martial-law memo'

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day

REASON & COMPANY

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.