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]

:D

[XNavyNuke]

+1!:D

[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.

[Southron]

Gunny, if this doesn't pass, what will keep the judiciary from legally defining marriage as it has in other states?

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, if this doesn't pass, what will keep the judiciary from legally defining marriage as it has in other states?

The thing is that if government had nothing to do with marriage whatsoever, it would not matter what the judiciary did here. Government control of marriage is a blasphemy.

I will do everything I can to pass an amendment on this bill that will add a question to ban the government licensure of marriage. As it stands, both of my bases, the NCGOP base and the NCRonPauler base are lining up together to lobby me in favor of this thing. The Pauler base mostly because they want me reelected I am sure.

Here is the argument I have been responding with:


I support marriage as being exclusively one man and one woman, but I believe that control rightfully belongs to God through the authority of the Church, and not to a government of fallen men.

The Definition of Marriage Amendment is a bad idea. Not because of some alleged separation between Church and state, but because it meets the biblical definition of blasphemy, and the fundamental premise it is based on is precisely what is already at the heart of the decline in Church membership and congregations and the deterioration of the institution of marriage in America and North Carolina today.

The biblical definition of blasphemy is to assign the attributes, privileges, powers, or authority of God to a fallen man, or a group of fallen men. Granting power and authority that belongs exclusively to God to a government of fallen men gives unto Caesar what belongs to God. This is a clear and direct violation of Jesus Christ's teaching to "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's."

When an alcoholic feels sick, more alcohol is not the answer. To the alcoholic, it feels like the answer, but it is not. It will only make them more sick, and accelerate their deterioration into cirrhosis and death.

Government control over marriage, instead of Church control of marriage, is exactly what is wrong with marriage in America today. Just like more alcohol is not the solution for the alcoholic, MORE government control of marriage is not the answer to save marriage in North Carolina today. It will only increase and accelerate the deterioration of the institution of marriage.

You may ask why, if this is such a fundamental premise, do not the Churches in America see this? Why then do the vast majority of American Churches support the North Carolina Definition of Marriage Amendment?

The vast majority of Churches in the United States have at their foundation the exact same kind of fundamental blasphemy as that which is at the heart of Government licensure and regulation of marriage. Because the same kind of blasphemy has (since 1967) become attached to the foundation of the American Church like a kind of cancer, it has created a blind-spot where pastors and congregants see nothing wrong with the government regulating Church's authority, powers, and speech.

On the 501(c)3 status in the modern American Church.

President Lyndon B Johnson was in office from 1963 to 1969. One of his projects was the implementation of the 501(c)3 organization for churches. This status has as its fundamental premise the blasphemous notion that government is allowed to tell God what He can and can not say from His own church pulpits. As a direct result, the population of every Christian denomination in America has been in decline since 1970, which becomes even more remarkable when plotted as a percentage of total US population.

From the founding of the United States until 1960, Church congregations and membership grew on pace with the growth of population. From 1960 to 1970, Church membership and congregations maintained a flat rate neither growing nor declining, and then from 1970 onward, Church membership and congregations entered a decline in real numbers, and a sharp decline as a function of US population growth.

Many Church members and even pastors believe that the government-imposed speech restrictions required by the 501(c)3 status do not harm the specific message that the Churches are commissioned to preach, and therefore it's OK. While I disagree with that assessment, even if the status did not interfere with the message, it has as it's fundamental premise that a Government of fallen men have the power to dictate to God what He can and can not say from His own pulpits, which meets the Biblical definition of blasphemy.

God blesses those people and congregations which walk uprightly in His ways, and curses those who do not. The correlation between the adoption of the 501(c)3 status for American Churches and the onset of the sharp decline of Church congregations and membership in America is too blatant to ignore or to dismiss out of hand, and any student of theology will recognize that any Church or congregation that has within it's foundation a fundamental blasphemy will wither and die on the vine in the exact same manner as we have seen the American Church do in these last 40 years.

Correlation does not imply causation, but applying Occam's Razor to explain the decline in Church congregations and membership tracing back to the moment of the implementation of the 501(c)3 status leaves only one viable conclusion -- God does not bless any Congregation founded on blasphemy. The decline of Church membership, attendance, and congregations can be traced directly to the acceptance of such blasphemy, and the Church will not be restored in America until we reject Government interference in the work of God and abolish the 501(c)3 status for Churches altogether.

How does this relate to the Definition of Marriage Amendment?

The biblical definition of blasphemy is to assign the attributes, privileges, powers, or authority of God to a fallen man, or a group of fallen men. In the case of the 501(c)3 status, the authority to regulate the speech of God is assigned to a government of fallen men. In the case of marriage in the United States and particularly North Carolina, the authority of God to allow or disallow marriage (licensure) and the power to join man and wife (marriage) is also assigned to a government of fallen men. It is the same kind of blasphemy at the root of Government controlled and regulated marriage as it is at the root of the 501(c)3 status.

Marriage belongs to God, and God alone. "What God has joined, let no man put asunder." Just as Church membership and congregations have been in decline since the late 1960's adoption of the 501(c)3 status, marriage has been in decline since the 1840's adoption of state licensure of mariage, and both for the exact same reason: they have as a fundamental premise the blasphemy that government has powers and authorities above and beyond that of God Himself. Elevating the creature above the Creator.

Marriage, being controlled, licensed, and regulated by government is already founded on a fundamental blasphemy, which explains it's current decline and slide towards dissolution. The Definition of Marriage Amendment, instead of solving the fundamental blasphemy by removing marriage from the authority of government and returning it to God and the Church where it rightfully belongs, instead, doubles down on the very blasphemy which is degrading marriage in the first place -- i.e. the alcoholic thinking more alcohol is the cure for his ills.

The current rate of decline in Church attendance posits that only 9% of Americans will regularly attend Church by 2050. Doubling down on blasphemy will not slow the decline in Church attendance but accelerate it. If (when) we pass the Definition of Marriage Amendment, I am certain that the decline in regular Church attendance will reach 9% by 2030 instead of the projected 2050, not to mention the sharp increases we will see in broken homes, divorce, single parent families, and dysfunctional families.

So what is the solution?

If we want destroy marriage and undermine the Church, then passing the Definition of Marriage Amendment is the path to take. If, however, our goal is to SAVE marriage and the American Church, then we have to eliminate the core central blasphemy that like a cancer is damaging both the Church and marriage today.

State licensure of marriage is blasphemy, and the only way to save marriage in America is to ban state licensure of marriage altogether. The regulation of marriage belongs exclusively to God through the authority He has given to the Church. To save marriage from it's current crisis, we must put an end to the State licensure of marriage, ban the issuance and requirement for the licensing of marriage, and prohibit the government function of pronouncing people married. This will restore marriage exclusively back to the authority of the Church where God has put it, and where it rightfully belongs. This, and only this, will save the institution of marriage.

The fight to restore the Church in America and stop the decline in her membership and Congregations can only be fought at the Federal level, and it must accomplish the revocation of 501(c)3 requirements, restrictions, and regulations -- and preferably the complete repeal of the 501(c)3 status -- that forms the fundamental blasphemy ultimately infecting every aspect of Church operations in America today.

In conclusion.

The hearts are hardened, the necks are stiffened, and the American Church has become blinded to her own blasphemy. Just as the prophet Jeremiah did not expect Israel to repent from her blasphemies, I do not expect the American Church to repent from hers.

We are approaching the end of days, as most Christians recognize, and as Jesus Christ taught there will first come a falling away. The American Church is apostate even now, and her own membership can not see it. The only way back, is to end the blasphemies at the heart of the 501(c)3 restrictions on God's speech, and the regulatory and licensure restrictions on God's power to initiate and regulate marriage.

When I stand before the judgement seat of Christ to account for my works on the Earth, I do not want to have to explain why I helped to further the Church's descent into blasphemy. I am not the first person to be correct while nearly all the people of God are in the wrong, and I will not be the last. We do have the opportunity to reverse the decline in our Churches and in marriage, but we as the people of God must repent from this blasphemy and restore the Church and marriage to God alone where it rightfully belongs.

I hope this helps to explain my position. Unlike what you may have been told, I do not support gay marriage. I do oppose the blasphemy of government claiming primary authority over a dominion that belongs exclusively to God. I remember coming up in the Church and being told that one day there will be someone who believes every single word in the Holy Scriptures without question. I did not anticipate that when I took it upon myself to be that person, my biggest opponents would be the people of the Church. In retrospect, I am not surprised. Historically, that is the way it has always been.

It will continue to be my prayer that the Church in America and specifically in North Carolina will repent of this blasphemy and thus save both marriage and the Church in our day. My understanding that the end of days is close at hand tells me that we probably will not. Nevertheless, I know that God always preserves a remnant, and I wil continue to bear witness as long as I am able.

Thank you for your time, and attention to this critical matter in our day.

Glen Bradley

It hasn't been received very well, even though it is pure and unadulterated truth. The voters don't give a damn about truth only comfort. This is why America is dying today. These people don't care about what is right and what is wrong. Even the Christians do not care about what is Biblical. They only care about their personal comfort and their personal comfort alone. If the Church has to go extinct to maintain their comfort level, they'd be the first to push the button. If marriage has to be deteriorated beyond salvation just to preserve their personal comfort level, then they will be the first to plunge the knife with shouts of 'hallelujah!' If America has to be destroyed just to keep them comfortable, they would be the first ones to sell her off to China.

The old saw comes to mind "be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it!" I'm starting to think they deserve to get exactly what they are asking for, except that when the American Church collapses by 2030 from the weight of 501(c)3 and marriage goes extinct by 2040 due to DOMA, the first person they will blame will be the one who warned them exactly what would happen if they did this thing.

God warned Israel what would happen if they set a King over themselves, and when the King did exactly everything that God warned them he would do, they didn't blame themselves and repent, they blamed God.

Every thing I am seeing confirms for me that God was right all along. The people are hopelessly unrepentant and set in their ways. I am doing what I can, but all by myself it amounts to little or nothing.

[Southron]

That's a good argument. Hopefully you can get your point across without making this "the hill you die on", so to speak.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's a good argument. Hopefully you can get your point across without making this "the hill you die on", so to speak.

God relented in 1Samuel 8 because the people were too stubborn to listen to Him. I intend to use this as a "teaching moment." Now, BOTH my bases are lining up to ask me to support this horrific nonsense. I may follow the example of God in 1Sam8 but they won't know it until I press the button. Or, maybe slightly before during floor speeches.

[YumYum]

I have to commend you for being courageous and going against the status quo. Does the government have the ability to read a person's heart? No, only God can read hearts, and the scripture at Matthew 5:28 is proof that only God has the authority to authorize a marriage, or view the marriage vow as having been violated. What judge of the land can say "You stand guilty of breaking your marriage vow for committing adultery in your heart!"?


But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[TonySutton]

The old saw comes to mind "be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it!"

So true, reminds me of the Equal Access Act.

[GunnyFreedom]

Speaking the first time on SB106 (5 minutes allowed)


I rise to oppose SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment.

Thank you Mr Speaker, Ladies and gentlemen, 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 it is God who the the sole authority in marriage, and instead we have left it to the State to join people together and regulate marriage 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 first required in the 17th century as a Calvinist innovation, and then in the 18th Century in North Carolina marriage was required to be registered, but permission was not required until following the abolition of slavery in the hopes of preventing interracial marriages.

While we have come beyond that nonsense, we still issue licenses to be wed. This state involvement, which is really a trespass upon the dominion of God, has led to the increasing chaos we have become accustomed to seeing in marriage today. By the biblical definition, usurping the authority of God in marriage is blasphemy. It should come as no surprise that incorporating blasphemy into the institution of marriage has led to a massive increase in divorce, broken homes, and single parent families 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, thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Do we really stand here today in the belief that Jesus Christ would have us perpetuate 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. Is it really the position of those who advocate for this amendment that God would have us do the very things that lead to an increased 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 exclusively to God, bringing the above-mentioned curses upon the institution of marriage, sowing the seeds of blasphemy in this most important building block of our society, and leading to the very chaos which we see today.

Why are we surprised to see that the more government gets involved in marriage, the worse the institution gets? Everywhere else we recognize that government involvement is universally detrimental, but now, when it comes to our pet issue, we suddenly want more, bigger government? Doesn't the realm of marriage belong to the Church under the authority of God, and not man?

For this reason I oppose SB106 the Definition of Marriage Amendment, and implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. If we care about the institution of marriage in North Carolina and in 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.

Towards that end, and in the way of removing the existing blasphemy that is already destroying marriage, Mr Speaker, I have an amendment which I now move to send forward.


Speaking the first time on the licensure ban amendment (5 minutes allowed)


Thank you Mr. Speaker, this amendment is the only thing that will truly save marriage in our era. The entire reason that marriage is in crisis is because we have committed blasphemy in removing the power and authority over marriage away from God and given it to a government of fallen men.

Instead of doubling down on blasphemy which the original bill proposes, this amendment will simply add a second question that will restore marriage to the sole authority of God. By having both of these questions, then the issue put to the people is properly balanced, and the citizens of North Carolina will have a genuine opportunity to restore marriage to the kind of relationship our Creator intended.

Marriage belongs to God exclusively, and the State has no business doling out permission to her citizens to be wed. This amendment simply adds a second question directly below the definition question that will allow people to return marriage back to God and the Church exclusively by prohibiting the State licensure of marriage.

This is the proper Godly model for marriage, and it removes the blasphemy that is destroying this all-important institution in our society. If we are doing this out of concern for the sanctity of marriage, for the health of the institution, then we must include the option on the ballot referendum to restore marriage to the providence of God exclusively.

I urge you to vote yes on this amendment.


Speaking the second time on the licensure ban amendment (2 minutes allowed)


Thank you Mr. Speaker, we have heard all the reasons why we cannot trust God to maintain the integrity and the sanctity of marriage. The very people who are supporting the Definition of Marriage Amendment because they are calling upon the government to do what they believe God is incapable of, demonstrate an even more profound lack of faith by arguing that giving marriage to God alone will lead to utter chaos in this most holy institution.

I beg to differ. It is only by taking the leap of faith and trusting God, that will actually save the institution of marriage. Contrariwise, if we demonstrate that we have no faith in God to maintain the integrity of marriage by His power alone, that very lack of faith is exactly what will destroy marriage.

Therefore let us demonstrate our faith in God and our trust in the citizens of North Carolina by voting yes to approve this amendment that will add a second question to the referendum returning sole authority over marriage to God through the Church alone by prohibiting the practice of Government licensure over marriage.

I urge my colleagues to restore the sanctity of marriage and vote yes on this amendment.


Speaking the second time on SB106 (2 minutes allowed)


Thank you Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, the months-long debate over this issue has demonstrated to me a profound lack of faith in God. For we have decided that we must go and ask Caesar to do those things which we apparently think God is incapable of. We think God is unable to maintain the integrity of marriage, so we go to Caesar with his swords and prisons and ask him to do it instead.

In 1st Samuel Chapter 8, the children of Israel are jealous of the nations, so they go to God and beg Him to give them a king. God refuses, and lists the entire litany of all the evil things a king would do to them. They don't care. Despite all the warnings that God has issued, they continue to demand a king. Eventually God relented and gave them a king, who did all the evil things that God warned them he would do.

The Church wants this blasphemy, despite having been warned of it's consequences. Five years after enactment, divorce will be up nearly 15%. Ten years after enactment, regular Church attendance will by hovering around 10%. They don't care. Despite all of these warnings, they continue to demand this blasphemy. During my campaign, and this year at a Town Hall, I promised that I would vote according to the will of my district because I am not here to represent myself, but the people who elected me. I will follow the model that God has set forth and give it to them. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

While I am going to vote yes, I have never been more ashamed of my party and this body than I am today. May God have mercy on our souls -- we are going to need it!

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJ2iF9oLi0&feature=player_embedded#!

From the 1st floor speech

[MozoVote]

Good speech, but have to admit, it'd be a better video without the three yawning heads below you. It's almost like Mystery Science Theatre 3000. :D

[jacque]

Nice job.

[cucucachu0000]

you could say that you dont trust govt to run your healthcare you dont trust it with your tax money. your gonna trust it with the institute of marriage? bring it back to the people where it works the best!

[GunnyFreedom]

cucu -- I touched on that at a later point that was not covered by the UNCTV coverage.

It's funny how whenever I get involved in the debate, the Democrats run way, way to the right of the Republicans. It just demonstrates that the Republicans are just as "Big Government" as anybody. It's all about who is in charge.

When Democrats are in charge, then Democrats are BigGov and Republicans are for smaller government. However, when Republicans are in charge, then Republicans are BigGov and Democrats are for smaller government.

It's comical, really. And sad.

[GunnyFreedom]

Good speech, but have to admit, it'd be a better video without the three yawning heads below you. It's almost like Mystery Science Theatre 3000. :D

Republicans eyerolling at the crazy small government guy arguing why government should be out of the marriage business since they do nothing but mess it up.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow, check out this coverage:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/09/12/1482834/may-vote-likely-on-amendment-to.html


The debate took an unusual turn when Rep. Glen Bradley of Youngsville, a Republican with a wide Libertarian streak, argued that state involvement in marriages usurped God's authority.

"If we care about the institution of marriage in North Carolina, we must move to remove authority of man over the dominion of God and not stake our claim even deeper than it is."

He offered a change that would have asked voters to prohibit state licensing of all marriages in addition to the same-sex marriage ban. His amendment failed.

Bradley ended up supporting the bill in a preliminary vote, but did not participate in the final vote. His Twitter feed said he left the chamber in disgust.

ETA -- the N&O is hard-left mainstream (as opposed to hard-left fringe)

From an org like them, this is positively glowing.

[GunnyFreedom]

This one may be the most balanced.

http://m.fayobserver.com/articles?path=/articles/2011/09/12/1122271

I may have stumbled by pure accident into the best possible outcome for doing the will of my district while still demonstrating how deeply retarded this whole thing is.

[phill4paul]

I was just about to post "The Charlotte Observer" article but see you already came across it. Way to go Glen. You are the BEST North Carolina has. Hands down.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow, I appreciate it. Wish I were stronger, but with my disposition that will come with experience. The way it worked out, my opposition is being reported even MORE strongly than had I simply been a no vote. It's actually somewhat amazing to me, I tried to chart the best course I could balancing principles, promises, integrity, and my genuine faith in God. I left what I thought was a complete disaster, but in the light of the next day it turns out to be the best possible course I could have taken.

There is no doubt in my mind that a guiding hand is at work, because by the time I got home I was convinced that I had performed an unmitigated disaster with my attempt at balancing all the factors. Turns out I could not have had a better outcome from this thing had I tried.

But bottom line, we have to stop this DOMA thing from letting gov't claim more control over marriage. Gov't has no business in marriage period. It will be tough since the snakes put it in the primary instead of the general, but if we focus on bringing leftward unaffiliateds to the polls, we have a real chance...AND it will help any Paulers running in the 2012 primary.

[Working Poor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJ2iF9oLi0&feature=player_embedded#!

From the 1st floor speech

I watched your video and could not help noticing the people sitting behind you. they look like a pretty ho hum crowd and like they need a fire built under their asses. I will call my reps in support of your position. I am in Meck county.

[Imperial]

Wow, I appreciate it. Wish I were stronger, but with my disposition that will come with experience. The way it worked out, my opposition is being reported even MORE strongly than had I simply been a no vote. It's actually somewhat amazing to me, I tried to chart the best course I could balancing principles, promises, integrity, and my genuine faith in God. I left what I thought was a complete disaster, but in the light of the next day it turns out to be the best possible course I could have taken.

There is no doubt in my mind that a guiding hand is at work, because by the time I got home I was convinced that I had performed an unmitigated disaster with my attempt at balancing all the factors. Turns out I could not have had a better outcome from this thing had I tried.

But bottom line, we have to stop this DOMA thing from letting gov't claim more control over marriage. Gov't has no business in marriage period. It will be tough since the snakes put it in the primary instead of the general, but if we focus on bringing leftward unaffiliateds to the polls, we have a real chance...AND it will help any Paulers running in the 2012 primary.

I have seen some debate on this, and some people argue that the date is a good thing. We will not have large numbers of African American voters to vote for the amendment, since a general rule is that that constituency has poor turnout in primaries. It is going to take a very well organized no campaign, coupled with strong turnout for the Price/Miller primary in NC-04, to win the vote.

[GunnyFreedom]

I have seen some debate on this, and some people argue that the date is a good thing. We will not have large numbers of African American voters to vote for the amendment, since a general rule is that that constituency has poor turnout in primaries. It is going to take a very well organized no campaign, coupled with strong turnout for the Price/Miller primary in NC-04, to win the vote.

I'm trying to figure out how to campaign effectively against the measure without killing myself in a primary. That's another thing that putting it in May makes it harder on my end.

While I am officially counted as a no on the final vote on this thing, my actions on Sept 12th effectively set up a Rorschach blot that from the distance of time people will see whatever they want to in it. I still think I shoulda just told em all to go to hell, but NC needs a Republican advocate for civil rights, medicinal cannabis, and ending the drug war, so I tried to play the game where my official 'no' looks a lot like a 'yes' depending on who is looking.

Government clearly has no business whatsoever being involved in marriage or the bedroom. I want to find a way to campaign against this on the referendum without killing me in a primary, and if my position on this does kill me in a primary, well, I'm still better off standing on principle whenever I can make a difference.

Sept 12th was basically an attempt to 'live to fight another day,' where I am officially a no on the bill, but demonstrated enough of a willingness to obey my district so they won't crucify me going into 2012. I won't be stuck in the same quagmire if I run in SD18 because Wake County has a far more cosmopolitan composition.

[KCIndy]

Wow.

What can I say except this: Big ol' +Rep for Glen Bradley, a man who stands side by side with Ron Paul on the integrity yardstick.

Hold fast, Gunny!

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Gunny, do you have the amendment you proposed? I am trying to use this argument with both sides.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, do you have the amendment you proposed? I am trying to use this argument with both sides.

We have a copy of the amendment here:

http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2011&DocNum=1481&SeqNum=0

:-)