#ncpol: A Berger-Tillis split on gay marriage?

bergertThe past legislative session was marked by the GOP-dominated House and the GOP-dominated Senate often taking different paths.  It appears that trend is continuing here out-of-session as the leaders of the two chambers appear to have different approaches to the newly-discovered “right” to gay “marriage” in North Carolina.

State House speaker Thom Tillis — the GOP’s standard bearer in the US Senate race — filled out a candidate questionnaire from the NC Family Policy Council.  He reportedly did not answer a question about whether he thought homosexuals should become a protected class (like blacks and women)  under federal anti-discrimination laws.  This didn’t sit well with our friends at The Triad Conservative: 

[…] Thom Tillis did not respond to four of the questions.  But there was one particularly important question for which he “took the 5th”.   It was question #6:

Should the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” be included as protected classifications in federal anti-discrimination laws?

Again, Tillis did not respond to that question.  That is worrisome, because this type of law is being used to violate the religious liberty of orthodox Christians throughout the nation.  It is being used to force them to violate their religious conscience.  This issue is particularly timely in view of the violations of religious liberty we see unfolding before our eyes, right here in North Carolina.

Why would Tillis have such a difficult time openly opposing this kind of law?

Tillis might be in a good position to win his election at this point because citizens are rapidly becoming quite disgusted with Obama.  That affects the senate race.  The Democratic turn-out machine, of course, is always a factor.

But if Thom Tillis wins, what will we have at that point? […] 

Meanwhile, state senate president pro tem Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) called a press conference denouncing the pressure being put on court officials and registers of deeds over the new gay marriage federal court ruling.  He promised to introduce legislation in the upcoming  session to ensure religious convictions of court officials and registers of deeds  would be respected if they refused to participate in gay marriage-related matters. state seal

We here at Haymaker HQ applaud senator Berger for his courage and stance on this issue.  But we honestly believe he should take things one step further.  Start the process of getting the State of North Carolina OUT of the marriage business.  

Remove marriage and any marriage-related activities from the job descriptions of magistrates and other court officials.  Reform state tax code to a flat rate that does not differentiate between married and single people. Marriage has been twisted by the statists to become a new venue for squeezing some cash out of the welfare state.  Get the state out of it.  Return it to what it has been since the beginning of time — two people formalizing a contract between themselves and their God. 

When marriage is no longer a vehicle for sucking more of other people’s money into your pockets,  let’s see how important this so-called marriage “right” truly is.

7 thoughts on “#ncpol: A Berger-Tillis split on gay marriage?

  1. Thom Tillis ducked his own county GOP convention this year to go out west to hobnob with an organization that promotes gay marriage, and then just before the primary, the leading money man in the gay marriage cause held a fundraiser for Tillis in New York City. Tillis is a liberal on this issue, and probably most other social issues. He is no different than Hagan. Skipping these questions speaks volumes.

    Karl Rove really did a number on North Carolina when he bought the nomination for Tillis. I cannot think of a single issue I trust Tillis on, but lots of them where he has shown that he is simply not trustworthy. With ”Republicans” like Tillis, who needs Democrats?

    I have hoped that Tillis would be trying to earn conservatives support by taking some solid stands on issues, but instead he seems to be kicking us in the teeth and trying to win liberals support.

    1. Your First Amendment views, and those of the Conservative Supreme Court (Citizen’s United decision) give Karl Rove the power to buy any candidate he wants in NC or any state for that matter.

      1. It’s the liberals who are doing the buying, not the conservatives. Campaign finance reports show that Dem candidates have been the largest beneficiaries of money under Citizens United.

        Walt-in-Durham

        1. I would be the first to admit that big money, on any and on both sides, corrupts our elections/government. Raphael brought up Karl Rove and that is what I responded to.

      2. And Karl and others should be able to spend enough to counter the liberal media.

        How much advertising must you do to counteract the N & O or Charlotte O?

        How much positive press do the Republicans get?

        If the media gave the save coverage to Obama that they gave to Bush then the Republicans would win every seat in every race down to the Rotary Club board elections.

  2. although I cannot speak to other religions, within the Christian religion marriage has always been a contract observed by God, between two people: a man and a woman. As stated above, the government intervention into the marriage of two people has been solely for the purpose of subjugating its people and collecting these funds, fees and other taxes. Persons of deeply held religious beliefs should never be forced to violate the tenets of their religion by our government.

    Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. The civil union between two people overseen by the government is not related in any way, shape, form or fashion – except that it uses the union established by that sacrament as a way to confiscate property.

    If one wishes to establish a civil union by contract with another person, let the government set up that process. In that same vein, the government has no business automatically establishing a union and contract based on a religious ceremony – the purpose of which on its face and in detail is nothing other than a way to confiscate personal property outside of the boundaries of the Constitution.

Comments are closed.