Local News

Raleigh council opposes gay marriage amendment

Posted December 6, 2011
Updated December 7, 2011

— The Raleigh City Council voted Tuesday to formally oppose an amendment on next May's statewide ballot that would define marriage in North Carolina as between a man and a woman.

The resolution passed 6-2, with councilmen John Odom and Bonner Gaylord voting against it.

The Raleigh Human Relations Commission asked the council to issue a public proclamation against the proposed amendment, which would ban recognition of all same-sex couples, including marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, statewide.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • nurse.k Dec 7, 2011

    cbuckyoung - abuse against children is a criminal act. Speaking of illogical... I believe that being gay is no different than having green eyes... you are what you are. You may not feel that way, I respect that. I'm unsure what you mean by "orthodox" but I'm fairly sure I'm pretty typical. I'm a married, educated woman, mother, nurse, friend. You single me out with your faulty logic, erroneous argument and for no reason at all. If you believe that God defined marriage somewhere and it's between a man and a woman - fabulous. I respect that. I hope your marriage is as happy as my own. This country thrives on a diverse belief system... which is why laws in our country serve to protect diversity, not abolish it.

  • djofraleigh Dec 7, 2011

    How does the Raleigh City Council feel about other issues:


    Capital Punishment?

    The attack on Libya?

    The assassination of Osama?

    The war in Afghanistan?

  • STRAWBERRY LETTER 23 Dec 7, 2011

    nurse.kristen said: "But when you limit the rights of some, you threaten the rights of all."

    I love that! Short and sweet!


  • cbuckyoung Dec 7, 2011

    You have broken your own posting guidelines in post concerning this story. You state that post can not make "generalizations about a group of people. Yet, a posters call people that are favor marriage as defined by God as "bigots" and another post slanders orthodox people as causing "BIGOTRY in this STATE". Under their definition of equal rights pedophiles would be allowed to practice their "beliefs" because we should tolerate "equal rights for everyone, not just people we agree with. The tortured logic of homosexuals and their "supporters" is untenable morally or logically.

  • SailbadTheSinner Dec 7, 2011

    Very fine sentiments....

    I’d be much more impressed if they would devote their time to doing things that might actually improve our fair city ....


  • Chairman of the Bored Dec 7, 2011

    They should be against it. Gay marriage is already illegal in the state. The amendments wording will affect businesses that allow private businesses to offer benefits. This is why so many people are against it. It is business unfriendly.

    The amendment should be called something entirely different because you have ignorant people who know no better voting for something they don't read because a few bigots tell them to do so.

  • nurse.k Dec 7, 2011

    Equal rights for everyone - not just people you agree with. Personally, I'm a proud member of PFLAG and I believe this is the human rights issue of the century. If you don't agree with gay marriage - fine, don't get one. But when you limit the rights of some, you threaten the rights of all.

  • xgen69 Dec 7, 2011

    I hope there is enough "closeted" gays that will vote "No" for this amendment in May. I know there are thousands of gays in this state that are still to this day, "CLOSETED" due to the BIGOTRY in this STATE. I HOPE WE OVERCOME THIS AND BEGIN TO TURN THIS STATE INTO A FORWARD THINKING STATE AND NOT BACKWARDS.

  • Bartmeister Dec 7, 2011

    Who cares what they think on this subject, wonder what their thoughts are on tax increases and public services?

  • Bartmeister Dec 7, 2011

    What? A vote opposing the amendment? Who cares. They just wanna be "on the record" as not being opposed to a gay marriage proposal. Typical politics.