SGA votes in favor of Opposition to Amendment One Resolution

| March 22, 2012 | 39 Comments

Bonnie Green, the president of PRIDE, speaking in favor of the Opposition to Amendment One Resolution.

After a vote of 13-to-8 the UNC Charlotte Student Government Association (SGA) passed the Opposition to Amendment One Resolution, which stands against the amendment coming to vote in North Carolina in May.

Over 100 UNC Charlotte students, senators and administrators gathered at the General Assembly Meeting for the Student Senate to stand up against the upcoming amendment to the North Carolina State Constitution stating that the only legal domestic relationships are those between a married man and woman and support Senator Nauman Panjwani’s resolution to oppose the amendment.

“I had a group of students who came up to me and asked me to write it.  Simple as that,” said Panjwani.  “I feel like tonight went really well.  There was a lot of debate and there was a lot of people who showed up, which really strengthened our cause.  The people who were opposed to it stated their opinions, and we refuted it.  They got their voice out, and we got our voice.  It passed so it went pretty well.”

Supporters for the resolution came together and cheered as the senate voted in favor of the resolution.  Although the Opposition to Amendment One Resolution is not yet formally enacted, the groups in support for the resolution will work to ensure it is approved.

“We will get it passed through in the end,” said Panjwani.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Category:News, SGA

Twitter: @andcierasaid Personal email: cierachoate@gmail.com

Author's Website

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. AnnaMorganHelms says:

    I would like to point out a mistake that occurs in the very first line of this article, as someone who was present and voted at the meeting the final vote was 13-to-8.  

  2. Giovanni1999 says:

    I’ve heard that the student body president, Dave Craven, has announced his intention to veto this. How is that possible?! I assume that he doesn’t really have dictatorial powers; it would be an outrage if he is allowed to veto this, after the senate has made a decision (by 63%) that has strong support from the students.
     

  3. wood11 says:

    This has no bearing on the general consensus of the school, just the consensus of this group of people.  Besides, the voters will decide in May.  I hope it passes. Religion aside, one man and one woman is the natural order of things.

    • Giovanni1999 says:

       @wood11
       “one man and one woman is the natural order of things” … what do you base this opinion upon, Dr. Wood? A serious study of the history of human societies and cultures, the history of sexuality and marriage, etc.??!! If you looked more deeply into this, you’d find that the history of marriage is much more complicated than you think; but anyway, your opinion is already in a minority, and the progression toward marriage equality is unstoppable. (And you don’t even have the correct date for the vote.)

      • agioteur says:

        @Giovanni1999 @wood11 Don’t know from what rock you crawled, but delusions are irrelevant, reread the consequences of homosexual behavior on civilizations, course facts are difficult for the deluded.

        • Giovanni1999 says:

           @agioteur  @Giovanni1999  @wood11
           A brilliant, articulate, well-argued riposte, Mr. “agioteur.” No, if you could re-write your ideas into a coherent sentence or two, maybe I could respond.

  4. Giovanni1999 says:

    from ‘Creative Loafing’: Which ‘Biblical marriage’ are Amendment One supporters talking about?:
    With regard to “Biblical marriage” — a favorite term of opponents of same-sex unions — I wonder which Biblical version of marriage they mean. I imagine it’s the standard one-man-and-one-woman combo, but the Bible also says a woman who marries but isn’t a virgin should be stoned to death. Maybe that’s not the one the anti-gay folks mean after all.
    Perhaps they think everyone should follow the Biblical “tradition” of a man having a wife and a few concubines; hey, it was good enough for Abraham and Jacob. No, that’s not it either? OK, then it must be the Bible’s approval of a man having several wives, a la Gideon, Esau or the man-of-700-wives, Solomon. You’re shaking your head, no.
    Let’s see, could Amendment One supporters be talking about the Biblical prescription that a woman who hasn’t had any children when her husband dies must marry her brother-in-law and give motherhood a few more shots? No, that can’t be it.
    Well, then, how about the Bible requirement that slave owners assign female slaves to their male slaves? No, that obviously won’t work.
    Maybe the anti-gay, “Biblical” crowd is getting behind the rule in Deuteronomy that says a woman must marry a man who rapes her. No? I thought not….
    full text:
    http://clclt.com/charlotte/which-biblical-marriage-are-amendment-one-supporters-talking-about/Content?oid=2655141

    • jfgrne says:

      @Giovanni1999 Your effort to distort context is recognizable to the learned. I notice you didn’t quote the one whom was raised from the dead in your analysis, would you like to debate Christ’s resurrection from the dead, all truth ultimately lands here

      • sumbobkat says:

         @jfgrne  @Giovanni1999 not what giovanni was doing at all. you skew the message to mean what you read into it; not what it actually says, as do most of your ilk.

        • jfgrne says:

          @sumbobkat @Giovanni1999 Of course it was what he was doing and got called on it. Sophistry my friend is being purged!

      • Giovanni1999 says:

         @jfgrne  @Giovanni1999
         Would I like to debate Christ’s resurrection? “All truth ultimately lands here” (whatever that means)?! Sure, let’s debate. Try to write in complete sentences and to run a spell-check, though. Or, maybe I’ll see you out by the Bell Tower holding a huge sign with a list of everyone who you think is condemnded to hell (or “hades”).

  5. agioteur says:

    Homosexuality is a behavior, NOT an identity people!

    • sumbobkat says:

       @agioteur and you’re an idiot, not a real person, idiot…….

      • jfgrne says:

        @sumbobkat @agioteur 300-500% increase in STDs, mental disorders and suicide in homosexual community and society is expected to sanction the behavior?

  6. agioteur says:

    Panjwani, you wouldn’t be denigrating the US Constitution with a foreigners bias would you? When in America, you act as an American.

    • NaumanPanjwani says:

       @agioteur I would like you to know that I was born in the U.S. I am AMERICAN; considering that this nation was found on freedom, I believe I am “acting as an American”.

  7. jfgrne says:

    Bonnie Green, look at yourself, what are you .005 of the population?

  8. Chris1400 says:

    There is not a lot to say here. Marriage is defined by God as being between one man and one woman. This amendment will pass by a majority. It is not natural for a man to lay up with another man and it is not natural for a woman to lay up with another woman.

  9. Giovanni1999 says:

    To “Chris1400,” “agioteur” (the xenophobic nut), “jfgrne,” and the other anti-gay bigots who have posted: I wasn’t aware that America had become a theocracy, and that we are now living under Christian Sharia, as you folks apparently believe.
     
    To “Chris1400″: why don’t you give us the full quote from the Book of Leviticus, which you wish to base our laws upon: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)
     
    Is that what you believe… that homosexuals should be “put to death”?! You should be consistent, Chris1400; and while we’re at it, this also means that the Constitution should ban the eating of shellfish and of pork, which are also “abominations” according to Leviticus. Oh, and you should not mix lenin and wool (Leviticus 19:19). Man, it’s not going to be easy to live in your Christian-Sharia Theocracy, Chris!

    • jfgrne says:

      @Giovanni1999 Such a tired old retreaded defense, out of context. In establishing a holy environment, which is only what God tolerates in his presence, he commands covenants without tolerance to behavior which could infect the whole! Again, homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity. Eternity is a long time if you’re wrong…..

  10. SEAirLand says:

    What I always enjoy seeing are those that are in favor of gay marriage start off the negative rhetoric or negative word usage. No one here has said a derogatory word until they get put into a corner.. Then we start to see name calling (“anti-gay bigots”) or extreme examples of old law in an attempt to sway people. Sorry, not happening. 
     
    -The bible states one man, one woman. People are raised to follow the bible as a moral compass, now we’re saying its wrong? 
     
    There are other factors involved with this as well. Not just feel good, moral compass factors. But financial gains, or, rights which are given to heterosexual marriages. Are all those rights suitable for same sex marriages?
     
    I also get a kick out of how people say, “oh yeah, cause you never see divorce, neglect, in heterosexual marriages…” Obviously laced with sarcasm. All things being equal, there will be divorce and children placed in the middle in the event gay marriage is legalized. Gays are not angelic ideal examples of relationships. They have just as much to deal with as hetero marriages. 
     
    “When in America, you act as an American”. Such irony. Someone should tell that to our President. Instead of catering to his minority voter base.. 
     
    The reality is that this will, nationally, eventually, get voted in. After that, what will be next? Socialized health care? Entitlement programs that will bankrupt the country? Oh yeah… 
     

  11. Eliza_Hernandez says:

    I would like to point out an even bigger error in this article. The upcoming amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage as that is already prohibited in the state of North Carolina. The proposed amendment to our constitution would eliminate domestic partnerships in the state of North Carolina, so this is not a same-sex marriage issue. There are numerous ramifications that would result from the amendment including dismantling legal protections for unmarried couples, as well as for their children.

  12. Eliza_Hernandez says:

    I would like to point out an even bigger error in this article. The upcoming amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage, as that is already prohibited in the state of North Carolina. The proposed amendment to our constitution would eliminate domestic partnerships in our state, so this is not a same-sex marriage issue. There are numerous ramifications that would result from the amendment including dismantling legal protections for unmarried couples, as well as for their children. 
     
    The language of the resolution passed is below:
     
    “BE IT RESOLVED, that the Student Government Association of The University of North Carolina at Charlotte does not support the proposed constitutional amendment; and
     
    BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED THAT: we reaffirm our support for equality and tolerance of all, and the right of students to be treated as equal citizens without consideration of age, sex, color, disability, gender identity, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.”

  13. xoxoxoxoxoxox says:

    “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an ABOMINATION.” Leviticus 20:13
     
    “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
     
    “For this reason God gave them up to VILE passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is AGAINST NATURE. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, BURNED in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is SHAMEFUL, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” Romans 1:26-27
     
    I don’t know about you, but this is pretty clear.
     
    Also, I don’t appreciate the fact that the vote of 21 people decided the entire school’s viewpoint on this issue. Even if there was 100 people present to make comments, people are stubborn and the SGA members would not have changed their opinions for anything. It is WRONG to make a facebook page about this, making it seem as if the entire school is against the Amendment. I, for one, will be voting in favor of it.

    • Giovanni1999 says:

       @knh1992 “Pretty clear,” indeed; as I wrote before, we’ll also have to ban the eating of shellfish and of pork, which are also “abominations” according to Leviticus. Oh, and you should not mix lenin and wool (Leviticus 19:19); let’s have a Constitutional Amendment against that as well!
      There’s something else that’s unclear to me: when, exactly, did this country become a Christian theocracy, whose laws are based on the Old Testament??!!

  14. SEAirLand says:

    Completely agree. How many 1000′s of people go to UNCC? And 21 votes declares the entire student bodies opinion? Nope. 
     
    “Also, I don’t appreciate the fact that the vote of 21 people decided the entire school’s viewpoint on this issue. Even if there was 100 people present to make comments, people are stubborn and the SGA members would not have changed their opinions for anything. It is WRONG to make a facebook page about this, making it seem as if the entire school is against the Amendment. I, for one, will be voting in favor of it.”

    • Giovanni1999 says:

       @SEAirLand
       In addition to thinking you live in a Christian theocracy, you folks have no conception of what representative democracy means. You elect a senate; they hold a very well-attended meeting (maybe the most well-attended meeting in years, with a large turn-out of students who are opposed to Amendment One, and only a handful in support; this seems to be indicative of the opinion on campus). Then they vote, by a large majority, in favor of a resolution. If you don’t like it, that’s unfortunate for you; our state and federal gov’ts make all sorts of decisions I don’t agree with, but I understand that they have been made through certain processes that we all (to varying degress) agree upon, and that sometimes they’ll make decisions I don’t like. But I don’t respond by breaking out a 3,000-year-old text that bans the consumption of pork and shellfish, and acting like that’s the law of the land.

      • SEAirLand says:

        @Giovanni1999
        Hmmm, elect a “senate”? I wonder if a poll was taken whom among the student body actually voted for the “representative” senate?
        I also did not quote the Bible as “law of the land”, that is the typical negative rhetoric which liberals enjoy utilizing. I merely posed the comment that people, most people in the country by the way, are brought up as the Bible being a moral compass. To which I posed the question of, “now we are saying its wrong?”

        We all have opinions, we all have beliefs… Don’t try and change mine, as it IS my right to have them. I don’t believe in gay marriage, I believe there are social and economic implications that are too easily overlooked.

        • Giovanni1999 says:

           @SEAirLand  @Giovanni1999 I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m simply pointing out that we have something in this country called “separation of church and state,” which perhaps you heard about in a high school civics class, and you and your friends (Rick Santorum, etc.) don’t have the right to impose on society your Old Testament-based worldview.

        • SEAirLand says:

           @Giovanni1999 LOL, if you knew me, you would retract your naive, professor quoting, comments. Please do try and think more outside the box than simply regurgitating what you learn in your philosophy classes. 
          Do we live in a country that separates chuch and state? hysterical. 
           
          We also live in a country where the government was built to provide opportunity (not redistribute wealth), provide certain inalienable rights (not entitlements), and we live in a country where the “elected” officials are to listen to their constituents vs ignore them and do as they see fit. 
           
          But the last part hasn’t been happening lately.. Has it? 
           
          And now we have the latest news with regard to Obama’s comment to Putin, “please give me some space, after the elections I’ll have more ‘flexibility’”… 
           
          The absolute worst. 
           

  15. xoxoxoxoxoxox says:

     @Giovanni1999 
    i’d like to see you find a new argument other than the shellfish one. because ive read it from your comments quite a few times now. if you actually knew anything about the Bible, you’d know that the banning of shellfish was directed specifically to the Jewish, and I am in fact, a Catholic. as a matter of fact, I’d like to see any other argument from any of you homo loving people, because the whole shellfish thing is quite popular. that being said, its probably your only argument because its the only part of your bible that you read, and you probably searched for it in google. 
    Also, seeing that I go to UNCC and had no awareness of this little meeting, i would say that it is certainly not fair. it was a meeting organized by the PRIDE group on campus, so its pretty obvious what the majority vote was going to be. i would have no problem with the voting if it was advertised to the entire campus, and not just the homos. 
    “One nation under God….”—wow….that was hard to get back at. 
    also, i dont know if you call yourself a believer, but you know that you cant pick and choose what you like, right?

  16. xoxoxoxoxoxox says:

     @Giovanni1999 
    http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
     
    learn about what you’re arguing…

  17. Proud 49er against 1 says:

    This was not organised by Pride. Actually, a student not affiliated with any LGBT community on campus was responsible for bringing this issue to the attention of the Senators from their college! Its how the system works! If you have a problem you contact you’re representative in your respective goverment, in this case it was student government. Would like to mention those in attendance who disagree with this amendment were all from College Democrats, Model UN, Amnesty International, and yes, once PRIDE saw what was happening they jumped on board! I, because I am a republican also know there were several people in the room who were REPUBLICAN and CONSERVATIVE against this amendment! GAY marriage in NC is already ILLEGAL so clearly this amendment affects much more than just gays. It takes away domestic violence protection and domestic partner benefits such as insurance for UNMARRIED straight people!!!! Get your facts right all you ignorant gay bashers! 

    • SEAirLand says:

       @Proud 49er against 1 I appreciated your comment… All the way up to the unnecessary provocative negative comment at the end. 
       
      Quick way to discredit all that you said. 

      • Proud 49er against 1 says:

         @SEAirLand You may have a problem with the last statement but no one can deny the fact that it is true. The only reason people are supporting amendment one is because they think it only affects gays. They use their religious principles to justify this reasoning. BUT, as is already law in NC gay marriage is illegal and I for one, can not see any reason why anyone would support this amendment as is with all of its additional harmful additions. 

  18. jfgrne says:

    Over 200 yrs of the country’s existence, governed by a Constitution, which has created the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, yet marriage needs to be redefined including a behavior, not identity?

    • SEAirLand says:

       @jfgrne Care to elaborate?

    • Giovanni1999 says:

       @jfgrne
      This is a university, where peole are supposed to make public statements that are reasonably lucid and intelligent. Every single clause in your statement is historically incorrect.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Twitter: @andcierasaid Personal email: cierachoate@gmail.com

Author's Website