• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

We will likely have a pretty good idea Tuesday night.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
From Suzanne Reynolds:


Dear Friends:

Just posted the blog below to the Greensboro News and Record. Doug Clark was taking issue with the law professors who point out the dangers. Doug was relying on law professors (not family law law professors, by the way) who disagree with our conclusions. So I posted the following. And please - get out the vote against Amendment One.
As usual, Doug, your comments are thoughtful. But family law professors from every law school in the state – including Campbell – agree with the UNC white paper on the dangers that Amendment One poses to domestic violence protection for unmarried couples. The Campbell white paper ignores a critical distinction between the Ohio amendment and Amendment One. The Ohio Supreme Court eventually concluded that the Ohio amendment did not require denying domestic violence protection to a victim unmarried to her abuser. But the Ohio amendment merely prohibited THE STATE from CREATING a legal status for unmarried relationships. Amendment One is much more far-reaching. Amendment One declares that the only “domestic legal union” that the state shall find “valid” or “recognize” is a marriage. In other words, all other “domestic unions” are “illegal,” or “not lawful.” Surely, lawyers who represent batterers who live with victims to whom they are not married will argue for this interpretation. I certainly hope that ALL the district court judges in the state who hear this argument will reject it, which seems a vain hope indeed. And I hope that when after some district court judges accept the argument, the appellate courts of this state will eventually reject it. But how much domestic violence are we willing to tolerate until that happens – assuming the appellate courts reject the argument? There is no reason to tolerate any. Marriages in North Carolina have been limited to a man and a woman for 150 years. Fifteen years ago, we passed yet another marriage statute, making clear that if same sex couples marry in a state that permits their marriages and then move to North Carolina, North Carolina will not honor their marriages. If Amendment One is defeated, which I fervently hope it will be, nothing changes. Marriages in North Carolina will continue to require the “consent of a man and a woman,” as they have for 150 years. If Amendment One passes, things change: unmarried families – some of whom are prohibited by the state from marrying – are a lot less safe. That’s why family law professors from every law school in the state – including Campbell – have joined this statement:

We are family law professors who teach at every law school in the state of North Carolina. We speak on behalf of ourselves, rather than our institutions. Based on our professional expertise, the language of the proposed North Carolina amendment is vague and untested, and threatens harms to a broad range of North Carolina families. The amendment is phrased more broadly than most similar amendments in other states, and would therefore likely be construed by courts more broadly than in other states. The amendment would certainly ban same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and would very likely ban the domestic partnership health insurance benefits that a number of municipalities and counties currently offer to same- and opposite-sex unmarried couples. It also threatens a range of other protections for unmarried partners and their children, including domestic violence protections and child custody law. We are aware that some law professors at Campbell Law School think otherwise. In our view, this disagreement simply underscores the fact that Amendment One is vaguely worded and that it is not possible to know how broadly it will eventually be construed.

April 20, 2012

Jean Cary
Professor of Law
Campbell Law School

Scott Sigman
Associate Professor
Charlotte School of Law

Katharine Bartlett
A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law

Kathryn Bradley
Professor of the Practice of Law
Director of Legal Ethics

Carolyn McAllaster
Clinical Professor of Law
Director, Duke Legal Project
Duke Law School

Sonya Garza
Assistant Professor
Elon School of Law

Kia H. Vernon
Assistant Professor of Law
North Carolina Central School of Law

Maxine Eichner
Reef C. Ivey II Professor of Law

Holning S. Lau
Associate Professor
UNC School of Law

Jennifer Collins
Professor of Law

Suzanne Reynolds
Executive Associate Dean and Professor of Law
Wake Forest School of Law
Click to expand...

Attorneys should be for it.....according to them it would give them more business.....
 
BeachBumDeac said:
From Suzanne Reynolds:


Dear Friends:

Just posted the blog below to the Greensboro News and Record. Doug Clark was taking issue with the law professors who point out the dangers. Doug was relying on law professors (not family law law professors, by the way) who disagree with our conclusions. So I posted the following. And please - get out the vote against Amendment One.
As usual, Doug, your comments are thoughtful. But family law professors from every law school in the state – including Campbell – agree with the UNC white paper on the dangers that Amendment One poses to domestic violence protection for unmarried couples. The Campbell white paper ignores a critical distinction between the Ohio amendment and Amendment One. The Ohio Supreme Court eventually concluded that the Ohio amendment did not require denying domestic violence protection to a victim unmarried to her abuser. But the Ohio amendment merely prohibited THE STATE from CREATING a legal status for unmarried relationships. Amendment One is much more far-reaching. Amendment One declares that the only “domestic legal union” that the state shall find “valid” or “recognize” is a marriage. In other words, all other “domestic unions” are “illegal,” or “not lawful.” Surely, lawyers who represent batterers who live with victims to whom they are not married will argue for this interpretation. I certainly hope that ALL the district court judges in the state who hear this argument will reject it, which seems a vain hope indeed. And I hope that when after some district court judges accept the argument, the appellate courts of this state will eventually reject it. But how much domestic violence are we willing to tolerate until that happens – assuming the appellate courts reject the argument? There is no reason to tolerate any. Marriages in North Carolina have been limited to a man and a woman for 150 years. Fifteen years ago, we passed yet another marriage statute, making clear that if same sex couples marry in a state that permits their marriages and then move to North Carolina, North Carolina will not honor their marriages. If Amendment One is defeated, which I fervently hope it will be, nothing changes. Marriages in North Carolina will continue to require the “consent of a man and a woman,” as they have for 150 years. If Amendment One passes, things change: unmarried families – some of whom are prohibited by the state from marrying – are a lot less safe. That’s why family law professors from every law school in the state – including Campbell – have joined this statement:

We are family law professors who teach at every law school in the state of North Carolina. We speak on behalf of ourselves, rather than our institutions. Based on our professional expertise, the language of the proposed North Carolina amendment is vague and untested, and threatens harms to a broad range of North Carolina families. The amendment is phrased more broadly than most similar amendments in other states, and would therefore likely be construed by courts more broadly than in other states. The amendment would certainly ban same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and would very likely ban the domestic partnership health insurance benefits that a number of municipalities and counties currently offer to same- and opposite-sex unmarried couples. It also threatens a range of other protections for unmarried partners and their children, including domestic violence protections and child custody law. We are aware that some law professors at Campbell Law School think otherwise. In our view, this disagreement simply underscores the fact that Amendment One is vaguely worded and that it is not possible to know how broadly it will eventually be construed.

April 20, 2012

Jean Cary
Professor of Law
Campbell Law School

Scott Sigman
Associate Professor
Charlotte School of Law

Katharine Bartlett
A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law

Kathryn Bradley
Professor of the Practice of Law
Director of Legal Ethics

Carolyn McAllaster
Clinical Professor of Law
Director, Duke Legal Project
Duke Law School

Sonya Garza
Assistant Professor
Elon School of Law

Kia H. Vernon
Assistant Professor of Law
North Carolina Central School of Law

Maxine Eichner
Reef C. Ivey II Professor of Law

Holning S. Lau
Associate Professor
UNC School of Law

Jennifer Collins
Professor of Law

Suzanne Reynolds
Executive Associate Dean and Professor of Law
Wake Forest School of Law
Click to expand...

There is no one in the world that I would trust on any issue related to family law, especially in North Carolina, more than Suzanne Reynolds.
 
lol, dunno if you meant to or not, but you negged me, BeachBum. it's cool, i can use a few negs.
 
MBDeac08 said:
I only made it through about a minute of it and had to turn it off. What a repulsive human being.
Click to expand...

This is the quote:

"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,' you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed.
Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male. And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you reign her in. And you say, 'Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.'"
 
DieHardDeacon said:
This is the quote:

"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,' you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed.
Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male. And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you reign her in. And you say, 'Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.'"
Click to expand...

Appalling. I bet his own kids love him.

It is trending on facebook, so there is awareness. Put this guy behind the pulpit 60 years ago and his sermon is about whites and blacks marrying. Guy probably comes from a long line of bigots.
 
“And such were some of you.”
20
Past tense. What does he mean? He means the gospel of Jesus Christ delivered me from
being selfish. The gospel of Jesus Christ delivered me from being a fornicator. The
gospel of Jesus Christ delivered me from the sin of lust. I do not drive around the city of
Fayetteville lusting anymore. Why not? Because I have been washed. I have been
sanctified and I was justified and that justification resulted in a day by day process
whereby God is making me a new creature in Christ. You get that or not?
Click to expand...

Is he saying that he no longer sins?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top