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

If Democrats choose Rep. Keith Ellison to head up the DNC, it will ...

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Warehouse fire death toll climbs to 33, includes teens
Renzi quits; Italian populists seek quick vote to win power
Trump continues to defend his call with Taiwan's leader
Chilean court rejects demand against Israeli judges
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key resigns after 8 years
Latest: 24 dead in Oakland fire, more expected
Gun-rights backers vow to 'go on offense' during Trump years
For now, Trump bears signs of a dealmaker, not a policymaker

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Rexnord employees ask for Trump to save their jobs next
Trump expands secretary of state search; more interviews this week
Ryan thought Clinton easily had presidency in hand
Gatlinburg wildfires: 4 things you should know about worst Tenn. fire in 100 yrs.
Trump threatens payback for US companies that move abroad

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.