Texas Lawmaker Withdraws Amendment To Punish Universities For Offering LGBT Support

University LGBT resource centers in Texas may be safe for now. Thursday night, state Rep. Bill Zedler (R) withdrew his amendment to the appropriations bill that would have cut funding for any public universities that provided support service for LGBT students. Zedler did not explain his decision to withdraw, but his actions mirror those of Rep. Wayne Christian (R) who proposed then withdrew a similar measure in 2011.

Zedler’s bill not-so-subtly suggested that homosexuality directly causes disease:

An institution of higher education may not use money appropriated to the institution under this Act, or any property or facility of the institution funded by appropriations under this Act, to support, promote, or encourage any behavior that would lead to high risk behavior for AIDS, HIV, Hepatitis B, or any sexually transmitted disease.

Though Zedler’s amendment is not advancing, efforts are still underway to undermine the support for LGBT students, particularly at Texas A&M University, where students are attempting to opt-out of funding the campus’s center on religious grounds.

View the original article here

Court Cites Newly Enacted Louisiana Amendment To Strike Down Ban On Felon Gun Possession

In the wake of an amendment to the Louisiana Constitution that arguably makes state protection of gun rights even greater than under the Second Amendment, a trial judge has invalidated a statute prohibiting those convicted of “crimes of violence” from possessing guns.

The NRA-backed amendment, passed by ballot initiative in November, established that the right to bear arms is a “fundamental right” and any infringement of that right is subject to “strict scrutiny,” the highest level of skepticism courts apply to legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has never established a level of scrutiny for the Second Amendment — a failure that has led to disparate interpretations and confusion among lower courts. However, as law professor Adam Winkler notes, “challenged gun laws almost always survive.”

Even Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 that the Second Amendment does not impede “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Not so in Louisiana, where Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Darryl Derbigny held Thursday:

After applying the strict scrutiny standard to LA. R.S. 14.95.1, this court concludes that the statute is not narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s interest. LA R.S.14.95.1 applies without discretion to nearly every felony crime enumerated in the Louisiana Criminal Code. As such, the statute, ‘as-is’, is unconstitutional in its entirety. This court will not engage in a “judicial line item veto”, by deciding what predicate felony convictions should be included in LA R.S. 14:95.1.

Before the passage of the ballot initiative, many prominent figures including the Orleans Parish District Attorney warned that several laws crucial to public safety, including a requirement that 18 to 20-year-olds carry concealed permits, campus bans, and the law at issue here, could be subject to invalidation under the new amendment. Nonetheless, the amendment passed with an overwhelming 74 percent support.

The public defenders in the case had argued that, while a possession ban for violent felons could be justified even under the “strict scrutiny” standard by the compelling state interest in public safety, no such justification could be applied to less violent felons such as Glen Draughter, who had previously pleaded guilty to attempted simple burglary.

There are no doubt crimes considered felonies, such as possession of drugs, consumption of pornography or white collar crime, that have little relationship at all to gun possession. But the Louisiana statute explicitly limited its prohibition to “crimes of violence,” and there is every reason to believe that someone who burgles would be eminently more dangerous if they were carrying a gun.

As conservative blogger and law professor Eugene Volokh points out, the federal ban on gun possession by felons is still in effect, and federal officials could still prosecute Louisiana felons for carrying guns under their own law. But the feds alone would have to significantly reallocate their resources and are not equipped to fill local public safety demands.

View the original article here

Federal Appeals Court: Anti-Immigrant Arizona Law Violates First Amendment

Last year, the Supreme Court struck down much of Arizona’s harsh immigration law SB 1070, and stripped its “show me your papers” provision of many of its teeth. Earlier this week, another provision of this anti-immigrant law bit the dust. A bipartisan panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked SB 1070's restrictions on drivers seeking to hire day laborers:

Two provisions in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 make it unlawful for a motor vehicle occupant to hire or attempt to hire a person for work at another location from a stopped car that impedes traffic, or for a person to be hired in such a manner. These provisions raise First Amendment concerns because they restrict and penalize the commercial speech of day laborers and those who would hire them. Arizona defends the provisions as traffic safety measures, designed to promote the safe and orderly flow of traffic. We acknowledge that Arizona has a real and substantial interest in traffic safety. Arizona, however, has failed to justify a need to serve that interest through targeting and penalizing day labor solicitation that blocks traffic, rather than directly targeting those who create traffic hazards without reference to their speech, as currently proscribed under the State’s preexisting traffic laws. Laws like this one that restrict more protected speech than is necessary violate the First Amendment.

As the court notes, the day laborer provisions had at least as much to do with discouraging immigration as it did with any concerns over traffic. The provisions’ lead sponsor claimed the provision would “discourage the ‘shadow economy’ of day labor and address illegal immigration because ‘[a] large number of these people are illegal immigrants and this is the way they get work, and this work is one of the anchors that keeps them in the country.’”

View the original article here

An amendment to put our fiscal house in order

An amendment to put our fiscal house in order - The Hill's Congress Blog @import "/plugins/content/jw_disqus/tmpl/css/template.css"; li.item435,li.item437,li.item439,li.item441,li.item443,li.item497,li.item499,li.item501,li.item503,li.item605,li.item689,li.item691,li.item693,li.item695,li.item697,li.item683,li.item685{display: none;} var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "10314615" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); function getURLParameter(name) { return decodeURI( (RegExp(name + '=' + '(.+?)(&|$)').exec(location.search)||[,null])[1] );}(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); if (getURLParameter("set_fb_var") == '1') { jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var', 'true', { expires: 7, path: '/' }); return true; } if (!jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var') && d.referrer.match(/facebook.com/i)) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '340094652706297', status: true, xfbml: true, cookie: true, oauth: true }); }; }}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));if((navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i)) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i))) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('');} Follow!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");Advanced Search Options » Home/NewsSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsCampaignBusiness & LobbyingK Street InsidersLobbying ContractsLobbying HiresLobbying RevenueOpinionColumnistsEditorialsLettersOp-EdWeyants WorldCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkNew Member of the Week20 QuestionsMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAnnouncementsMeet the LawmakerJobsVideoGossip: In The Know Briefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter RoomOpinionA.B. StoddardBrent BudowskyLanny DavisDavid HillCheri JacobusMark MellmanDick MorrisMarkos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin BronkEditorialsLettersOp-EdsJuan WilliamsJudd GreggChristian HeinzeKaren FinneyJohn FeeheryCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkAnnouncementsNew Member of the WeekMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAll Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobsClassifiedsResourcesMobile SiteiPhoneAndroidiPadLawmaker RatingsWhite PapersOrder ReprintsLast 6 IssuesOutside LinksRSS FeedsContact UsAdvertiseReach UsSubmitting LettersSubmitting Op-edsSubscriptions   An amendment to put our fiscal house in orderBy Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.)-02/27/13 06:00 PM ET Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

This month House Democratic Leadership has attempted to persuade the country that Washington does not have a spending problem.
 
House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that “it's almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.”
 
Friends, this is laughable.
 
With the national debt at more than $16.5 trillion dollars and growing more every second, Rep. Pelosi is right, we do not have a spending problem — we have a spending crisis.

As a small business owner and tax attorney, I cannot comprehend Washington’s inability to manage its finances. Currently, our government is operating on piecemeal spending bills and has not had an actual budget in nearly three years. Can you imagine if your local supermarket, drugstore, and gas station operated without a budget? They would be in a mess come April 15, and probably fail to see the end of their fiscal year.
 
American families and businesses balance their budgets and pay their bills, why should Washington be any different?
 
Last week, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said that “the country has a paying for problem,”  which is backwards logic. If Washington did not have a spending problem, we would not have a paying for problem, Rep. Hoyer.
 
The taxpayer credit card has been abused long enough and I refuse to stand by and watch as politicians add billions to our children and grandchildren’s tabs.
 
Americans and South Carolinians are financially drained, which is why I have cosponsored an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. It is time to get our fiscal house in order, beginning with holding Washington politicians accountable for their actions.
 
The amendment requires Washington to balance the annual budget by not spending more than it receives in revenue in any given fiscal year, unless approved by a three-fifths vote of each chamber of Congress.
 
Also, the amendment would prohibit the debt ceiling from being raised without the same three-fifths vote of approval from each chamber of Congress.  Finally, the budget cannot be balanced through increased revenue, unless agreed to by a majority of each chamber.
 
Our country is up against serious fiscal problems and this amendment is the first step towards a prosperous future. I will continue to work with my colleagues to get spending under control, balance the national budget, and make sure more American jobs stay in America.
 
Rice represents South Carolina’s newly created Seventh Congressional District. He is a tax attorney, small business owner, and a former CPA. He serves on the Budget Committee, Small Business Committee, and Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, and is chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access.

Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); View Comments Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/285377-an-amendment-to-put-our-fiscal-house-in-orderThe contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | OpinionView News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & InfrastructureGO TO THE HILL HOME » More Videos »

Congress Blog
Most Popular StoriesMost ViewedPresident chooses tax tour over sequester solutionsThe Voting Rights Act: A continued march toward progressThe pro-rule of law argument against a 'drone court'Making immigration reform work for childrenKeeping our commitment to our veteransEmailedUS must bring STEM education up to par with overseas competitorsCampaign to Fix the Debt - a cause that enduresKerry goes to AnkaraMaking immigration reform work for childrenImmigration reform not to be rushed DiscussedMaking immigration reform work for childrenImmigration reform: Substance above rhetoric - Doing what is rightImmigration reform not to be rushed In your heart, you know Hagel is wrong for Pentagon jobProposed SHIELD law is nothing but a gift to infringersBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More Economy & Budget HeadlinesSequestration's impact on national defenseElizabeth Warren gives green light to whistleblowersBuyer beware: E-Verify's hidden costsMore Economy & Budget Headlines » Economy & Budget News RSS feed »  Congress Blog Topics Campaign » Cardoza's Corner » Civil Rights » Economy & Budget » Education » Energy & Environment » Foreign Policy » Healthcare » Homeland Security » Judicial » Labor » Lawmaker News » Politics » Presidential Campaign » Religious Rights » Technology » The Administration »Briefing RoomWoodward claims White House threatened himSupreme Court justices hint at striking Voting Rights Act provisionMichelle Obama praises lower childhood obesity rates in first stop of Let's Move! tour
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogAn amendment to put our fiscal house in orderFor health data, big isn't betterSequestration's impact on national defense
More Congress Blog »Pundits Blog5-year-olds victims of identity theftHas Speaker Boehner opened the door or is he just being cute?Why Sarah Palin? Why Ted Cruz?: 'Nationalists' and 'Federalists'
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomRubio, Netanyahu poke fun at water bottle gaffeRep. Polis discusses pot, drug laws on RedditHouse Republican caucus launches Spanish-language Twitter feed
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyOVERNIGHT TECH: House to consider email privacy billRepublicans blast 'wasteful' Internet stimulus programHollywood to launch media education campaign after Newtown criticism
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)Sen. Murkowski maintains hold threat for Interior nomineeOVERNIGHT ENERGY: European climate chief, nuke waste officials in focusAide distances White House from Keystone pipeline decision
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxBloomberg, buoyed by primary win, eager for 2014 fight vs. NRA on gunsSteve King in no rush on Senate decisionPoll: Roberts, though unknown, well-poised for reelection
More Ballot Box »On The MoneyKey House conservatives say they can support measure to fund governmentKennedy in line for US envoy to JapanStudy: Wealth gap between white, black families growing
More On The Money »HealthwatchOVERNIGHT HEALTH: Four in 10 say health law covers the undocumentedHealth groups urge Supreme Court to axe DOMAAdvocate says FDA mission 'at risk' from lack of funds
More Healthwatch »Floor ActionMcConnell introduces GOP alternative to sequester cutsSenate passes bill to strengthen emergency preparednessHouse Dem: LaPierre has 'lost all sense of reality' on gun control
More Floor Action »TransportationAirline lobby: Air travel should not be 'political football'PolitiFact rates sequester air travel delay warnings 'mostly true'TSA chief: Sequester would impact airport security most during summer
More Transportation »DEFCON HillOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Sequestration creeps closer DOD intelligence chiefs sounds alarm on sequester Boehner to suspend military flights for congressional trips
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsSen. Rubio: Time to provide ammunition to Syrian oppositionDem prepares bill to arm Syrian oppositionWhite House denies Brennan played major role in Benghazi talking points
More Global Affairs »In The KnowYoungest House member: It feels good to get cardedWrestler challenges 'The Barack' to get in the ringRosa Parks statue dedicated at Capitol
More In The Know »RegWatchChamber study claims to debunk EPA figures on job-creating regulationsReport: Obama falling short on executive appointmentsTemporary visa program for illegal immigrants begins
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSLanny DavisObama’s path for Mideast Dick MorrisSequester: A secret planMore Columnists »

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.

Home/NewsNews by SubjectBlogsBusiness & LobbyingOpinionCapital LivingSpecial ReportsJobsVideo Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact | Advertise | RSS | Subscriptions

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

View the original article here

The Second Amendment is a fundamental right

By Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) - 01/17/13 03:00 PM ET

As a member of Congress, I took an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. I did not swear to uphold only the sections I liked. The Bill of Rights contain civil liberties so fundamentally important that no matter how unpopular at times, these rights are guaranteed and no president, no Congress and no person can deprive them from us. The Second Amendment, hated by some, is a fundamental right as well. I, and millions of others, see the wisdom of the Second Amendment even as many do not. But whether you see its wisdom, all public officials were sworn to uphold it.

And this is where I part ways with the president. On Wednesday, President Obama sought to undermine constitutional guarantees when he unveiled 23 measures, in a combination of executive orders and proposed new legislation, to restrict gun ownership.

All of us share the grief of the criminal use of guns but we must realize there is no easy answer to the problem of violence we face in our country. Some of us recognize a simple reality — there are bad people who do bad things. No amount of laws will change that. Indeed, murder and assault are crimes but these events still occur. Some naively assert that just one more law, one more regulation, will change that.

Experience has shown that banning guns does not curb violent acts. One needs to look no further than states or cities with some of the nation’s toughest gun-restriction laws. President Obama’s home town of Chicago, for instance, is the gun-control capital of America, and yet the city witnessed 500 murders in 2012. Is gun control in Chicago effective? Clearly not. Still this president plans to double down on a policy that will not make people any safer.

When you limit an individual’s ability to lawfully purchase or carry firearms you allow only those with the intent to break the law to have weapons. According, to the Brady Campaign, Connecticut had the fifth toughest gun laws in the country before the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Connecticut had a number of gun-restrictions in place and all of these laws were broken by the shooter in Newton. A 1999 study by the Justice Department even concluded that Bill Clinton’s semi-auto ban did nothing to reduce crime or shootings. This goes back to my conclusion above: bad people do horrible things and criminals break laws.

President Obama and his anti-gun advocates, knowing that banning firearms has a long record of failure, show that their intent is to, literally, disarm their political opposition and trample on the Constitution for added effect.

The fact is, for the past few weeks, the Obama-Biden Administration has sought to take crass political advantage of high profile tragedies in its attempt to pass unconstitutional legislation.

I, along with many other Americans, found President Obama’s display at Wednesday’s press conference despicable; using children as actors in his political theater. The president, bringing fresh meaning to the term “nanny state,” based his proposals on recommendations from a group of first-graders. Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg should ask first-graders about the ban on soda. I would urge President Obama to start consulting the Constitution for advice.

We must focus on real and localized solutions to reducing violent crime and keeping our families safe. We can begin by encouraging our local communities to work with law enforcement and prioritize school safety. We should also look at ways to improve mental health services, so that we can intervene early and curb violent behavior before it happens. On the two prior points, the president and I agree. Yet, the rest of his $500 million-dollar proposal is an unconstitutional gun-grab.

Many of the potential solutions to gun violence should not come dictated from the federal government nor should they infringe upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. There are constitutionally sound ways of dealing with this serious issue. President Obama’s political jockeying cannot and should not overwhelm facts, experience, and the Constitution.

Gosar is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

View Comments

View the original article here

Ex-GOP Congressman Calls Out Gun Lobby: ‘This Is Not About Protecting The 2nd Amendment,’ ‘The NRA’s About Money’

Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ had a very public awakening to gun violence in the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left 20 children and seven adults dead. In recent weeks, the former six-term Republican congressman went from longtime supporter of the National Rifle Association to an advocate for more gun safety measures. But it appears Scarborough is not just waking up to the danger of guns — he’s also becoming aware of the dangerous gun lobby.

This morning, Scarborough took aim at the NRA, calling out the organization’s resistance to any gun safety by saying “this is not about protecting the second amendment,” “the NRA’s about money.” He also called out the Republican party for going along with the delusional policies of the NRA, which have nothing to do with safety, but rather with sales:

SCARBOROUGH: This is about gun manufacturers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. This is about retailers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. Do you know how much money these people have made over the slaughter of 20 innocents in Newtown? Do you know how much richer these rich gun manufacturers have gotten over the past month, and how the NRA uses that tragedy to gin up fears, and websites use that tragedy to gin up fears that they’re coming to take your guns away? Hey got news for you: They can’t take your guns away. We’ve got something called the Second Amendment to the constitution[...]

SCARBOROUGH: The NRA’s about money… This isn’t gun control. The big lie that the NRA is pushing on gun owners to try to whip stupid people into a frenzy is they’re coming to take your guns away. And I say stupid people because you have to be stupid in 2013 to believe that the federal government can come and take your hand guns, or come and take your shotguns.

Watch it:

(HT: Mediaite)

View the original article here

Remember to Vote Yes to Amendment 1 In North Carolina

Today voters in North Carolina will go to the polls to consider Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment to ensure liberal judges and gay rights activists are prohibited from changing the definition of marriage under North Carolina law. Polls suggest the measure will pass. But then polls suggested the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi would also pass and it did not.

The Republican Primary is largely over in North Carolina, except in some contested seats. Republicans may not want to turn out. I do hope they turn out to vote for Scott Keadle, however, in his race. And I hope they turn out and join Latino voters and black voters as they did in California to support traditional marriage.

In 31 states that have considered constitutional amendments to uphold traditional marriage, all 31 have passed those amendments. Republicans should go to the polls in North Carolina to make sure North Carolina becomes the 32nd state to uphold traditional marriage.

The last thing we need is for Anthony Kennedy to decide that one state out of 32 is an “emerging national consensus.”

In the past decade, spurred on by the siren song of happiness and fairness and claims for equality and progress when men and women in the country already have equal rights to marry, gay rights activists have systematically sought to redefine marriage as something other than what several thousand years of human history have come to define it. They have been helped by liberal activist judges and deteriorating cultural values. In a day when we should be doing all we can to save marriage, we’re on a course to have its meaning eroded.

Over several thousand years, whether by edict from on high or through trial and error, humans settled on the two parent, heterosexual nuclear household as the most stabilizing force in society. In the past few decades, many people have decided that several thousand years of human history can be ignored in favor of unproven claims of happiness, fairness, progress, and an expanded notion of equality. The standard argument is that with divorce already at 50% in heterosexual households, it is not like gay marriage can undermine what is already being weakened. If it’s already broke, why not break it further?

In fact, I take the reverse position — just because people have already devalued marriage does not mean it should be devalued further — particularly by changing long held definitions and claiming that the equal right we all have today to marry is somehow unequal. At no time in human history until the past few decades have people thought marriage should be anything other than between a man and woman. We should not be so quick to further erode the cornerstone of stability in society and slide further down the slippery slope.

Whether you believe it was a god or just nature, we should not think ourselves so unique as to be so brazen to upend the existing order of our nature when marriage, as it exists and has existed has been tried and tested by billions of people over thousands of years.

I hope North Carolina voters will reaffirm what marriage is within their constitutional framework as a sign that 32 states are not quite ready to give in to progressive norms. Oh, and Amendment 1 passing today would make the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC even more awkward than it already will be.

View the original article here