Judge rules against cohabitation law

[JDC]

Judge rules against cohabitation law

This is a big relief for me, living in the Tar Heel State with my GIRLFRIEND . While gay marriage is decades away for North Carolina, this is a (small) step in the direction of equal rights.

Some aren't so pleased with the judge's ruling:

"I think it's terrible," said the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina.

"It was simply judicial activism at its best. That knocked down the law that is a cornerstone of state marriage policy. The law emphasizes that marriage is the family structure that ought to be encouraged because that is the best institution for family, children and society."

"What the judge actually did was undermine marriage," said Creech, who cited studies that concluded that those who live together first before marriage are less likely to stay married.

[DCMetroRaleigh]

Reverend Creech might want to read a little US Supreme Court decision called Lawrence v. Texas.

[Jerseyman4]

The decesion made was good. Some people are just not opt or willing to step up a lifetime committment so why should marriage be forced? It should be decided upon both parties whether it fits for them or not.

[cranberries]

Judge rules against cohabitation law

This is a big relief for me, living in the Tar Heel State with my GIRLFRIEND . While gay marriage is decades away for North Carolina, this is a (small) step in the direction of equal rights.

Some aren't so pleased with the judge's ruling:

"I think it's terrible," said the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina.

"It was simply judicial activism at its best. That knocked down the law that is a cornerstone of state marriage policy. The law emphasizes that marriage is the family structure that ought to be encouraged because that is the best institution for family, children and society."

"What the judge actually did was undermine marriage," said Creech, who cited studies that concluded that those who live together first before marriage are less likely to stay married.

The ruling was overdue.

The Law and State should keep their eyes and paws out of the individual homes.

They should mind their own business... and who cares what another person's religion says about my life.

I have been in a relationship for years - when and if I decide to get married is my business.

Besides Marriage should be a 'civil union' only. That would be for legal reasons only. A marriage would be a simple church function for their own ritual and not legally binding.

Then everyone can get 'civil unioned' if they elect or elect not.

Then the church people wouldn't be so upset about their 'marriage'.

When the Reverend has no sin in his life and he becomes perfect, then he start to judge others - in the meantime he can mind his own business.

Per him " Judge not shall yet be judged" . How about a little practice what he preaches.

[krazeeboi]

Besides Marriage should be a 'civil union' only. That would be for legal reasons only. A marriage would be a simple church function for their own ritual and not legally binding.

Then everyone can get 'civil unioned' if they elect or elect not.

Then the church people wouldn't be so upset about their 'marriage'.

I think that's simply a case of semantics--quibbling over who gets to use the "m" word. The concept would still essentially be the same.

[JunktionFET]

I like the wild conclusion that Creech draws. People like him often make such absurd connections, and then cite them as fact.

99.9% of the drama/complication that results from decisions like this is not related to the outcome of the decision at all, but rather the responses from people like this Creech person.

Yet, the sun still rises and sets, the seasons come and go, and life goes on. There are bigger issues at stake. In fact, it would be better to simply say that there are issues at stake... meaning this topic is most certainly not an issue in the way that I define the word.

People like this, many of whom claim to be "christians", need to take their [allegedly] supreme values and apply to them to something like this horrible war, the millions of starving and diseased people in poor countries, or the way in which humans are raping this planet--which is supposed to be "a gift" from their god, right? All of that seems like a pretty big deal to me.

If a man and woman (for instance) are in love and wish to live together, who freakin cares?? I have more important things to worry about--my life, my job, the welfare of my family, my friends, and greater worries like energy, resources, safety, etc.

Truth be known, those two people living together are doing the world and the rest of humanity a favor by consuming less space and sharing resources. In fact, such activities ought to be encouraged.

The removal of this law thankfully shows that not everyone has completely lost perspective on reality.

[RaleighRob]

To me this just goes to one simple issue: The government has no business telling you what you do in your own bedroom as long as it involved consenting adults. Period.

[Pillsbury]

I was going to write that these old laws were so archaic that no one could possibly be prosecuted for it. And then I read the article. I can't believe no one ever raised a legal challenge to this law before this. I would really like the details on some of those cases that were prosecuted.

[JDC]

Creech also said "...marriage is the family structure that ought to be encouraged because that is the best institution for family, children and society."

Best institution for ALL families, children, and society?

My parents got divorced before I started high school, and I look at those years after their divorce more fondly. We (my mom, sister, and I) were a much tighter family than when we were when my dad was still around. I guess fanatical Christians still don't understand that the whole world isn't comprised of people who share their beliefs.

Now when siblings and cousins start shackin' up and makin' babies...that's something justifiably eligible for this kind of scrutiny.

[MR-2]

"Best" as in, it is the least prudish social organization that is still prudish enough for him to be okay with, because of his inherent prudishness. Anything better just isn't prudish enough, so it doesn't count, apparently.

[krazeeboi]

To me this just goes to one simple issue: The government has no business telling you what you do in your own bedroom as long as it involved consenting adults. Period.

Agreed.

[suburban george3]

To me this just goes to one simple issue: The government has no business telling you what you do in your own bedroom as long as it involved consenting adults. Period.

I second this opinion.

[JDC]

I third it. Well fourth technically, since Krazeeboi was the first to second it. Now I'm just making this complicated.