5 Reasons Why NC's Black Church needs to stay out of the Amendment One Battle

The Amendment One battle in North Carolina is hitting inferno status. From folks shooting and pissing on signs to a slew of marriage commercials, the fight to define marriage has everyone talking.

Perhaps one of the most watched factors in this debate is the participation of the Black clergy. It's not a secret that the Black church is split on the matter. NOM and Vote FOR Marriage NC has pulled out all of the shiny anti-gay toys to win this battle and sadly, several Black clergy have taken the bait.

But if they would stop for a minute, they would realize this anti-gay fight is wrong. In fact, it goes against the practices they love to preach. I know they will disagree with me, but I would give them 5 reasons why they should NOT side with NOM and Vote FOR Marriage NC for Amendment One.

NOM was exposed for race baiting. The leaked documents proved that NOM purposely wanted to divide our communities and cause drama. With that said, why would any Black clergy work with a group who wanted to create an divisive atmosphere? 
1. And speaking of divisiveness, there are few Bible verses that strikes down the action. Titus 3:10, 11 says: "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned." Galatians 5:19-2l links divisiveness to witchcraft and enmity, and clearly states that anyone who is actively divisive will not inherit the kingdom of God. If these church leaders knew the Bible word for word, then they would see how NOM's tactics are not God-like.
Black clergy should also be mindful of the true nature of Amendment One; it's discriminatory. No church should support anything that reinforces discrimination. To use the Bible again, those who discriminate  “judges with evil thoughts,” you can find that one in James 2:1.
2. The wife of  North Carolina Sen. Peter Brunstetter, Jodie Brunstetter, was caught talking about one of the real reasons behind Amendment One. Supposedly, the anti-gay amendment was created to protect the White race. Once Jodie was confronted on this notion, she tried to cover her tracks; but the damage was done. Now, after hearing this story why would any Black church stand for this amendment? 
3. Some of the arguments used to support Amendment One mirrors the same arguments to keep Black people from working, going to school, voting and marrying outside our race.

For the leaders who are supporting Amendment One, please think about why you're doing this. Are to trying to protect God's way? If God is God, he doesn't need your protection. And if you are trying to preserve marriage, well you lost that battle years ago. So, please get out while you can.

Melissa Harris-Perry talks about Amendment One and the "wedge" between Black and Gay communities -VIDEO

Melissa talks with NC NAACP leader Dr. William Barber, Aisha Moodie-Mills, Kai Wright from Colorlines and Jennifer Chrisler from Family Equality Council about Amendment One and the trouble with Black and Gay voters.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In Ohio: Gays hope to Repeal the Gay Marriage Ban - VIDEO

Rep. Michele Bachmann wants to be Anti-Gay to Win Votes

The Eyes of Michele Bachmann don't lie... She's an idiot!

Especially after cheering her state's effort to ban gay marriage at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference this weekend.

She hopes that other states follow Minnesota's hateful stance. Listen to this she-mess:

Oh Snap! Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton Vetoes the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Great Hera! The Governor has vetoed the gay marriage ban in Minnesota! Please watch

Watch live streaming video from theuptake2 at livestream.com

WATCH: Rachel Maddow talks about the Gay Marriage Drama in Minnesota

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATED: Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment will be on the 2012 Ballot in Minnesota

In a late night move yesterday, the Minnesota House voted to put the Gay Marriage ban on the ballot for 2012.

And if the five-hour House debate is any indication, Minnesotans are in for 18 months of emotional and hard-fought campaigning. The campaign is expected to bring in millions of dollars for both sides.

An hour after the House voted 70-62 to ask voters to decide whether marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, those opposed to the amendment launched their campaign, Minnesotans United for All Families.

Bill sponsor Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, said the issue is so important that the public should decide it.

“Not all wisdom resides here in the state Legislature and not all wisdom resides in our courts,” Gottwalt said as debate wound down.

As votes were tallied, “just vote no” chants came from outside the House chamber.
Opponents said they do not like where the amendment campaign could take Minnesota.
“That makes me fear for our state,” Rep. Kate Knuth, DFL-New Brighton, said.

WATCH how this went down

All eyes will be on Minnesota in the upcoming months. I can't believe our rights are up for a vote.

source

Gay Marriage Drama from State to State

In Minnesota, their Rules Committee of the House approved a floor vote on the constitutional gay marriage amendment. The committee voted 13-12 to put it before the full House.

In North Carolina, thousands of haters rally for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Tony Perkins leads this group of ignorant fools in this silly crusade.

In Rhode Island, their House Committee passed the same-sex civil union bill, 9-3.

And in New York, gay marriage struggles to gain ground for support. However, Mayor Micheal Bloomberg endorses gay marriage and calls for a floor vote to see where folks stand.

WATCH: Rep. Steve Simon calls out the Supporters of the Gay Marriage Ban in Minnesota

This is from the House Civil Law Committee meeting yesterday in Minnesota. They were debating an amendment to make marriage solely between a man and woman. Rep. Steve Simon had this this to say:

Great point made by Steve, however the House committee voted 10-7 to allow Minnesotans to vote on a constitutional amendment that could ban gay marriage in their state.

For more on this story go here

In Minnesota: The Senate Committee approves Gay Marriage Ban

The gay marriage ban is moving fast in Minnesota. Yesterday, the haters in the state Senate committee passed a bill that will allow folks to vote on banning gay marriage.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill 8-4, with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed. Passage by the full Senate and the House appears likely with solid Republican majorities in both chambers, meaning voters in 2012 would be asked to enshrine in Minnesota's Constitution a prohibition on same-sex marriage that already exists in state law.

Supporters said the constitutional definition of marriage is important enough to give the final say to voters, rather than elected officials or judges. Critics said the bill reflects a narrow religious agenda that doesn't belong in the state Constitution and that a months-long, divisive debate will distract from more important issues facing the state.

It's the first time in five years that a Minnesota legislative committee held a hearing on gay marriage. Two hours of testimony from both sides grew heated at times, and an overflow crowd that didn't fit into the Capitol hearing room could nonetheless be heard loudly cheering at pivotal moments as they watched nearby on closed-circuit TV.

The chief Senate sponsor of the bill, Republican Sen. Warren Limmer of Maple Grove, said a recent Hennepin County lawsuit challenging Minnesota's statute banning gay marriage demonstrated the need for a stronger constitutional prohibition. A judge dismissed that challenge earlier this year, but Limmer said it showed the risk to the traditional definition of marriage.

"This issue is on track to go forward to our court system," Limmer said.

More to come as this issue continues.

source

Indiana Senate approves banning gay marriage

Mess! Mess! Mess!

The Indiana Senate has the nerve to approved a possible amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions by a vote of 40-10.

If the General Assembly passes the measure again in 2013 or 2014, it would go to the voters in 2014, before the state constitution can be amended.


The Indiana House already approved the measure.


Democratic Sen. Tim Lanane of Anderson argued that attitudes toward same-sex marriages are rapidly changing and the amendment would make it difficult for future changes in state law.


Current state law prohibits gay marriages. Amendment sponsor Sen. Dennis Kruse of Auburn says the measure would provide maximum protection for the basic family unit of society.

This is ridic! Protection for the family unit? How? How, does ban gay marriage protect the family? If they can prove that to be true... Oh, they can't!

Indiana Continues their Anti-Gay Marriage push

Indiana, come on! It's already known as one of the racist states in the US and now this?

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-3 Wednesday to pass a resolution amending Indiana’s Constitution to ban gay marriage.

The resolution now goes to the full Senate, where it has passed five times in the past.
The vote was along party lines, with Democrats against.

Indiana state law already limits marriage to between one man and one woman, but supporters want the language inserted into the state Constitution so judges can’t overturn the law in the future. 

The proposed language specifically says “only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

The second sentence effectively would ban legislators from enacting civil unions in the future.
If the resolution passes the Senate again, no other action is necessary this session because it already passed the House.

The General Assembly would need to approve the measure again in 2013 or 2014 before reaching a statewide ballot for Hoosiers to make the final decision in 2014.

Indiana, get with the times and get it together


source

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) leads the push for a Gay Marriage Ban in D.C.

In hopes to gain votes and support from hate groups, certain GOP fools will pursue legislation to ban gay marriage in D.C.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), told The Hill that he will push for a vote on the controversial issue in the 112th Congress. The RSC has 175 members. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it. I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it,” Jordan said.

In the last Congress, Jordan was the lead sponsor on the D.C. Defense of Marriage Act. The bill was introduced after the D.C. City Council and then-Mayor Adrian Fenty indicated they would recognize same-sex marriages.

Jordan’s measure garnered 53 co-sponsors last year. But it is expected to attract more support in the GOP-led House in 2011.

This is so ridic! Why are they interfering in this?  Idiots! And let's remember Jim's name. He should be on the list of folks to vote out of office.

source

Iowa House Committee Votes to Ban Gay Marriage

Goddammit, Iowa! Yesterday the Iowa House Judiciary Committee approved the proposal to amend same-sex marriages.

The vote was 13-8, with Rep. Kurt Swaim, a Bloomfield lawyer, the only Democrat to join Republicans in supporting it. The resolution is now eligible for debate by the full House.


The amendment would not only prohibit same-sex marriages but also would deny state recognition to arrangements such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

That prospect raises deep constitutional questions and almost certainly ensures that the measure, if approved, would be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, Drake University constitutional law scholar Mark Kende said Monday.

This mess will struggle in the Senate. Majority Leader Michael Gronstal has said plenty of times that he will has block a vote on the proposal.

Yes, Ban Gay Marriage, But keep this Ridic & Silly Laws

Huff Po listed 13 states that amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage, but for some reason, they kept these silly, silly laws.

Check the out:

Alaska: It is unlawful to view moose from an airplane.

Arkansas: "Sec. 18-54. Sounding of horns at sandwich shops. No person shall sound the horn on a vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9:00 p.m. (Code 1961, 25-74)" 

Florida:  Unmarried women who parachute on Sundays may be jailed.

Kansas:  In Topeka, servers are forbidden to serve wine in teacups.

Nebraska: It is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.

Cali-Cal: In Riverside, kissing on the lips, unless both parties wipe their lips with carbonized rose water, is against the local health ordinance.

Oklahoma:  A. It is unlawful for any person to: 1. Promote, engage in, or be employed at a bear wrestling exhibition or horse tripping event; 2. Receive money for the admission of another person to any place where bear wrestling or horse tripping will occur ...

South Carolina: It is unlawful for a minor under the age of eighteen to play a pinball machine.

Alabama: Section 30-1-3 Issue of incestuous marriages not deemed illegitimate. The issue of any incestuous marriage, before the same is annulled, shall not be deemed illegitimate."

Virginia: Unlawful to hunt, trap, possess, sell or transport wild birds and wild animals except as permitted; exception; penalty.
A. The following shall be unlawful: 1. To hunt or kill any wild bird or wild animal, including any nuisance species, with a gun, firearm or other weapon on Sunday, which is hereby declared a rest day for all species of wild bird and wild animal life, except raccoons, which may be hunted until 2:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings.

Arizona: It is legal for a man to beat his wife once a month.

Wisconsin: "97.18(4) The serving of colored oleomargarine or margarine at a public eating place as a substitute for table butter is prohibited unless it is ordered by the customer."

My home state in Tennessee"70-4-208. Unlawful importation of skunks
(a) It is unlawful for any person to import, possess, or cause to be imported into this state any type of live skunk, or to sell, barter, exchange or otherwise transfer any live skunk, except that the prohibitions of this section shall not apply to bona fide zoological parks and research institutions."

source