NC County Bravely Opposes Marriage Equality

The Columbus County Board of Commissioners in North Carolina really doesn’t like it that gay people are now allowed to get married in that state. And even though it has nothing to do with anything they have oversight or control over, they wanted to make sure the federal courts know they don’t like it.

The Columbus County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution Monday night opposing the recent federal court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in North Carolina.

The measure states that commissioners “strongly request that this ruling be reviewed and reconsidered to protect the foundation that America was established on.”

And they’re making brilliant arguments for their position:

Bullard is the only commissioner on the November ballot who has a challenger. When asked if politics drove the proposal, Bullard said it was his religious upbringing in the Pentecostal Holiness church.

“In the Bible, it always talks about Adam and Eve. I’ve never heard it talk about Adam and Steve,” he said.

I like Jamie Kilstein’s take on that argument, that the only response anyone should make when someone makes it is, “Shhh. Grown ups are talking.”

"See, are you EVER going to learn that, "Well, you are even worse." is not ..."

Trump Wars 4: A New Hope
"The sad and hilarious part of this is it took this long for McConnell to ..."

McConnell Thinks Trump May Be Gone ..."
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Larry

    I wonder how many times he practiced that in front of a mirror so that he didn’t sound like a complete, frickin’ moron.

    It wasn’t enough.

  • John Pieret

    When asked if politics drove the proposal, Bullard said it was his religious upbringing in the Pentecostal Holiness church.

    Wait a minute! Is he running for a seat on the Pentecostal Holiness church board or a seat on the Columbus County Board of Commissioners? His religious upbringing might be relevant if the former but not the latter case, where he is seeking to represent people of all faiths or none. Christian Sharia law is no better than the Muslim version.

    commissioners “strongly request that this ruling be reviewed and reconsidered

    I’m sure the Federal courts will give this grandstanding political ploy all due consideration … before carefully putting it in the circular file in order to protect the real foundation that America was established on.

  • matty1

    Steve is absolutely in the Bible. OK not in the same part as Adam but remember with God all things are possible.

  • Abby Normal

    I like Jamie Kilstein’s take on that argument, that the only response anyone should make when someone makes it is, “Shhh. Grown ups are talking.”

    I know your right, but I’m going to go ahead and do the wrong thing and let him drag me down to his level. It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Just like it’s Lot and his daughters, not Lot and his sons.

  • http://www.facebook.com/park.james.102 parkjames

    Yea, when someone drops the “Adam an Steve” thing, the only appropriate response is to just fart and walk away. It’s the only response I think they might understand.

  • eric

    to protect the foundation that America was established on.”

    Test question: on what principles was America founded?

    Acceptable answers: quoting the DoI or Constitution. Mentioning pilgrims seeking religious freedom. No taxation without representation. Some mention of general liberty. Saying ‘heterosexual marriage’? Can’t see giving points for that.

  • eric

    Yea, when someone drops the “Adam an Steve” thing, the only appropriate response is to just fart and walk away.

    Well, I thnk its also appropriate to say “thank you for revealing your religious purpose. I’ll be sure to quote it in court.”

  • matty1

    to protect the foundation that America was established on.

    I don’t see how the genocide of one population and enslavement of another is anything worth protecting.

  • Chiroptera

    …the recent federal court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in North Carolina.

    Legal philosophy question here: did the courts legalize same sex marriage? Or did they recognize that under the Constitution they cannot be made illegal to begin with?

    eric, #7: Well, I thnk its also appropriate to say “thank you for revealing your religious purpose. I’ll be sure to quote it in court.”

    My thoughts exactly. But if the the intelligent design “debates” are any indication, I suspect they’re so clueless that they’d respond, “yeah, so?”

  • John Pieret

    Chiroptera @ 9:

    Legal philosophy question here: did the courts legalize same sex marriage?

    Technically, no. The state could, if it wished, do away with all marriage (and all the benefits and responsibilities that presently go along with the status of “marriage”). The courts have been saying you can’t create such a status that, with no rational basis, denies a certain segment of the population access to that status in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. However, since there is no state that is about to do away with marriage benefits widely enjoyed by much of the populace (i.e. political death on toast), the effect is that they have legalized gay marriage.

  • scienceavenger

    I like Jamie Kilstein’s take on [the Adam and Steve] argument, that the only response anyone should make when someone makes it is, “Shhh. Grown ups are talking.”

    I just burst out laughing in their face. It’s no brilliant strategy, I just can’t help myself.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    What a maroon. Why can’t he find a so-phisticated argument, like that presented by Rep. Don Young (R-as if you didn’t know) of Alaska:

    And the congressman shocked some of the students when he was asked about why he opposes same-sex marriage and he compared it to bull-sex.

    “You can’t have marriage with two men,” Young said, according to Spargo. “What do you get with two bulls?”

    Young “then said something about ‘bullshazzle’ or some word resembling the more familiar obscenity,” according to the Dispatch News, prompting the school’s faculty to shut down the circus.

    link

    That was to an audience of high school students.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Abby Normal #4: Just like it’s Lot and his daughters, not Lot and his sons.

    I’m going to remember that one. I’ll even use it if the opportunity arises, but I do my best not to hang out with complete morons.

  • eric

    “You can’t have marriage with two men,” Young said, according to Spargo. “What do you get with two bulls?”

    A bachelor herd. Something found in quite a lot of different animals, not just bovines. Apes don’t form them, so the analogy to humans is probably poor. But hey, if you’re going to invoke a bull-analogy, I’m going to tell you how your bull-analogy plays out.

  • dhall

    # 6 – Eric – “Mentioning pilgrims seeking religious freedom.”

    Whatever else the pilgrims wanted, it wasn’t religious freedom. Those hard-line Calvinists were some of the most intolerant people on the planet. They ended up in North America because they could not compel all English people to become Calvinists, and the Dutch Calvinists were not strict enough for them.

  • marcus

    @15 Yeah, I heard that the Dutch Calvinists were just way too fucking liberal. They actually allowed heretics (anyone not Calvinist) to live.

  • dogfightwithdogma

    Bullard picked the wrong couple to be the poster representatives for marriage. Where in the Bible does it say that Adam and Eve were married? I don’t recall any mention of God presiding as a minister and conducting a wedding ceremony, complete with the traditional wedding vows.