Judge Cogburn: Not exactly an “activist” judge

by | Oct 12, 2014 | Gay Marriage, NC Politics | 26 comments

In the wake of Friday’s court action to strike down as unconstitutional, North Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriage, those who don’t like it have focused on the U.S. district court judge who issued the order — Max Cogburn of Asheville. “It nationalizes the election and focuses it on federal issues that deal with the U.S. Senate: One key role is confirming or not confirming the president’s judges,” Dallas Woodhouse told reporters on Saturday.  Woodhouse runs Carolina Rising, a conservative nonprofit organization based in Raleigh. “If you don’t like this ruling, it is appropriate to take it out on Kay Hagan.” It may also be appropriate to take it out on North Carolina’s other U.S. senator, Republican Richard Burr – and 94 other U.S. senators.

But a closer look at Cogburn will make it hard to fill in a paint-by-numbers portrait of a “judicial activist.” And try as some may, Hagan will likely have ammo to answer critics. Cogburn’s nomination by President Barack Obama in 2010 was enthusiastically supported by both Hagan and North Carolina’s other senator, Republican Richard Burr.

Here’s what Burr said about Cogburn during his Nov. 17, 2010 confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee: “He is an excellent choice and I believe will be a great addition to the court. … He was admitted to the bar in 1976 and has made a name for himself, with a strong record in his legal career and in public service; an assistant U.S. attorney; a chief assistant U.S. attorney; magistrate judge; and, currently, a partner at Cogburn & Brazil. During his 12 years as a federal prosecutor, he was also the lead attorney on the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force. As an assistant U.S. attorney, he was responsible for prosecuting murder cases, drug trafficking, voter fraud, among other federal crimes. … Out of all the qualifications that Max Cogburn brings to this nomination, let me say this. He is a good man and we need good individuals to serve on our bench. I highly recommend to the Committee that we move as expeditiously this nominee as we can.”

Hagan, who spoke to the committee after Burr, said: “I, too, join my colleague, Sen. Burr, in welcoming Judge Cogburn, and thank him for being here today. As you can see, this is a bipartisan recommendation. It is extremely important to me that North Carolina have highly capable representation on the Federal courts. …  Judge Cogburn also served as an assistant United States attorney from 1980 to 1992, where he prosecuted murder cases on the Cherokee Indian Reservation. He also prosecuted drug trafficking, voter fraud, and a wide variety of Federal crimes. During his time with the U.S. attorney’s office, Judge Cogburn served as the lead attorney on the Organized Crime and Drug Task Force, as well as the chief assistant U.S. attorney. And from 1995 to 2004, Judge Cogburn served as a magistrate judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.”

In the highly partisan environment in pre-2012 election Washington, his nomination was approved 96-0 on March 10, 2011.  Support came from Republicans Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jim DeMint, then a Republican from South Carolina.

Before Friday’s action, Judge Cogburn was last in the news in April when he overruled a recommendation that a lawsuit against Duke Energy over coal ash contamination on Charlotte’s water source be dismissed. The Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation sued Duke last June over contamination from the now-retired Riverbend power plant on Mountain Island Lake. Such “citizen suits” are allowed under the federal Clean Water Act unless state authorities are taking enforcement actions on the same grounds. For more resources about Judge Cogburn, start with Judgepedia.


  1. Alison

    2 Chronicles states – If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. Please take God’s word serious!

    • Troy

      Ah, 2nd Chronicles. A book of the Old Testament. So tell me, who are “…my people…called by my name…” in the Old Testament?

      Would that be the…Jewish people?

  2. Alison

    I believe it is very sad that this country is legalizing sodomy. They can call it love all they want, but God ultimately will strike them down because it is wrong for two men or women to marry. God did not create man for man or woman for woman. He created woman for man only and you judges are going to pay the price one day. The Bible states in Leviticus Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination. God also said in Isaiah : Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. Romans states in chapter 1:25-27 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped the creature more than the creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was due.

    • Troy

      I’m sorry Allison, but your argument lacks merit. First of all, the crime of sodomy, which is a felony, isn’t being legalized. Judges are not the ones “sinning” as you appear to believe and thus are not the ones “sinning” in God’s eyes. “…judge not, lest ye be judged.”

      You appear to believe that you can stop relationships in some manner. You’re free to try it. People have to atone for their actions. Since they are free to choose; that concept, by the way is what this is about.

      You want the civil authorities to enforce Mosaic law. That is not going to happen, nor should it. It is God’s law and God will enforce his own law, or not, depending on your beliefs. “Render unto Cesear what is Cesear’s and render unto God what is God’s.”

      • daveburton

        Actually, Troy, an activist Supreme Court notoriously legalized sodomy throughout the United States by judicial fiat in 2003, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.

        Allison correctly quoted Romans Chapter 1 of the Bible, in its description of the cause of homosexuality. Like many other temptations and sins, the Bible tells us that homosexuality is derivative of the sin of idolatry, which consists of putting anything or anyone ahead of God and His Law.

        Deliberately violating Biblical instruction means you are placing something other than God ahead of God, in the ordering of your life. In other words, by deliberately choosing to ignore God’s instructions, you commit the sin of idolatry.

        You are correct that everyone is free to choose. Everyone has weaknesses, and vulnerabilities to temptations, but nobody is a slave to their temptations.

        For example, you may be tempted by alcohol, and you may even have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, but you are not compelled to be an alcoholic. If you don’t violate the Biblical warning against drunkenness the first time, you will never be overwhelmed by the temptation to drink, regardless of any genetic predisposition to alcoholism.

        likewise, nobody is compelled to be homosexual. The Bible warns us to flee sexual temptation. Violating that instruction is placing our own desires or curiosity above God’s instruction, which He gave us for our own good. That mistake is what changes “bi-curious” people into homosexuals. As the lyrics of Casting Crowns Slow Fade says, “It’s the second glance that ties your hands as darkness pulls the strings.

        The consequences are sometimes catastrophic. For instance, somewhere around 350,000 American homosexual and bisexual men have died of AIDS, contracted through sodomy, and many American women have died of AIDS contracted from men who contracted it through sodomy.

        • Troy

          Maybe the Supreme Court thinks they did Dave, but as we can see, the North Carolina General Statutes say otherwise.

          § 14-27.1. Definitions.

          (4) “Sexual act” means cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus, or anal intercourse, but does not include vaginal intercourse. Sexual act also means the penetration, however slight, by any object into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body: provided, that it shall be an affirmative defense that the penetration was for accepted medical purposes.
          (5) “Sexual contact” means (i) touching the sexual organ, anus, breast, groin, or buttocks of any person, (ii) a person touching another person with their own sexual organ, anus, breast, groin, or buttocks, or (iii) a person ejaculating, emitting, or placing semen, urine, or feces upon any part of another person.

          § 14-27.4. First-degree sexual offense.
          (a) A person is guilty of a sexual offense in the first degree if the person engages in a sexual act:
          (1) With a victim who is a child under the age of 13 years and the defendant is at least 12 years old and is at least four years older than the victim; or
          (2) With another person by force and against the will of the other person, and:
          a. Employs or displays a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article which the other person reasonably believes to be a dangerous or deadly weapon; or
          b. Inflicts serious personal injury upon the victim or another person; or
          c. The person commits the offense aided and abetted by one or more other persons.
          (b) Any person who commits an offense defined in this section is guilty of a Class B1 felony. (1979, c. 682, s. 1; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 6; 1981, c. 106, ss. 3, 4; 1983, c. 175, ss. 5, 10; c. 720, s. 4; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 22, s. 3.)

          § 14-27.5. Second-degree sexual offense.
          (a) A person is guilty of a sexual offense in the second degree if the person engages in a sexual act with another person:
          (1) By force and against the will of the other person; or
          (2) Who is mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless, and the person performing the act knows or should reasonably know that the other person is mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.
          (b) Any person who commits the offense defined in this section is guilty of a Class C felony. (1979, c. 682, s. 1; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 7; 1981, c. 63; c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1131; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2002-159, s. 2(c).)

          I will point out to you here that those laws are gender neutral. That means that the crime of sodomy can be committed between persons of the same or different gender.

          Alright, Allison correctly stated the “cause” of homosexuality by biblical recollection. Where does that enter into Constitutional law or analysis? No doubt that Allison knows her bible verses or can accurately research it. However, this is not a biblical debate. To turn this nation into a theocracy as many allege it has it’s origins or was it’s original founded purpose is fallacy. For the climatic end of this great experiment, one need only look at the Middle East. That is what the crossing of civil law and theocratic law will spawn. You might not think that’s a bad thing, but in that analysis, you are telling people what they can believe. You are demanding it and dictating it. And the penalties for doing otherwise are lethal.

          No. I would prefer to live in a country where we might not be perfect, we might not be ideologically sound, be can still choose for ourselves what it is we want in our lives, what it is we can consent and do with our bodies, and what we can believe in or not, as the case may be.

          A place where each individual can go as far as they please, do as much as they please, and if we stumble and fall along the way, help is available to us…just in case.

  3. Robert

    What two people do that harms no one is none of my business, and it should be none of y

    • daveburton

      Robert wrote, “What two people do that harms no one is none of my business, and it should be none of yours.”

      That’s a reasonable-sounding principle, Robert. But it breaks down when you start looking at specific examples.

      For instance, do you think a man should have the right to marry his adult daughter? Or four women (as is legal in Saudi Arabia)? Or a 9 year-old (like Mohammed did)? Or a Shetland Pony?

      Surely you would answer “no” to at least some of those examples.

      And what about the children of such marriages? Of course, some “couples” could not produce children naturally, but they could presumably adopt. So, should two (or more) “married” men, like Durham’s Frank Lombard & Kenneth Shipp, or California’s Mark Newton & Peter Truong, or Connecticut’s George Harasz & Douglas Wirth, have the same right to adopt baby boys that other married couples have?

  4. Troy

    Well…if you read Article 1 Section 10, “Powers Prohibited of States” it says that “No State shall…pass any…Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts….”

    With or without the religious pageantry of marriage, it is a contract. Why else does it take courts, lawyers, and a judge to dissolve it?

    So by enacting a law defining marriage and who may enter into this contract, it goes clearly against this prohibition in the constitution. The basis of a law that is passed when it is based on religious belief, clearly goes against the First Amendment.

    I’m not arguing whether it’s a sin or not; I’m not a theologian and that has no part in this debate. I am saying that denying any two people from entering into a marital contract on the basis of religious tradition is discriminatory and consequently, illegal.

    • daveburton

      Nonsense. There are all kinds of contracts that are illegal. The U.S. Constitution does not give you the right to “take out a contract on” someone (i.e., hire a hit-man). The U.S. Constitution does not give you the right to contract with a prostitute for her services. The U.S. Constitution does not give you the right to enter into a contract of marriage with your daughter.

      In fact, when the U.S. Constitution was written, and when the 14th Amendment was written, abortion was universally illegal, sodomy was universally illegal, and same-sex marriage was unthinkable. Those who claim the Constitution contains implied protections for conduct which was universally illegal when that Constitution was written and ratified are simply lying.

      In scriptural terms, they are speaking their Father’s language. [John 8:44]

      “The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law.”
      – Thomas Jefferson, 1808

      “One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.”
      – Thomas Jefferson

      • Troy

        Yes, Dave, those things are regulated by the criminal law as things you shouldn’t do; contract or no. I think in anybody’s mind those things will remain illegal; we should probably exclude prostitution in certain locales in Nevada though. Of course, it was generally illegal for a brother to marry his sister…unless he had Church approval. I guess for every rule, there was/were exception(s).

        Odd though that you’re grouping sodomy, abortion, and same-sex marriage into the same lump on the table. Those are not associated one with the other. You are trying to argue crimes and what is being debated is a relationship agreement between two people. You can dodge and weave on the issue, but that is what it is.

        But what are talking about here Dave? As I recall, slavery was likewise legal when the Constitution was drafted, signed, and then ratified, and in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment came along to eventually extend some of the Bill of Rights to apply between citizens and the States.

        Are you saying or advocating that we should return to the way it was in centuries past?

        I happen to think that implication doesn’t exist either. It says what it says. It is up to the judiciary to decide what/how the Constitution applies to the laws drafted by the states. And whether or not those laws are unconstitutional, serving to supress the rights of the people rather than protect those people exercising their rights under that document. The framers would expect nothing less.

        Ah yes, a Jeffersonian. You can preach that chapter and verse as you choose. However it was Franklin editing and reigning in Jefferson that rendered the document we know as the Constitution and made it palatable.

        • daveburton

          What sodomy, abortion, same-sex marriage, polygamy and incest have in common is that the U.S. Constitution does not contain legal protections for any of them. All five were crimes in every State when the Constitution was written and ratified, and all five were still crimes in every State when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified. Any judge who claims that the 14th Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, confers rights to commit those crimes is blatantly lying, and ought to be impeached.

          They are pretending that the U.S. Constitution says things which it plainly does not say, and very obviously was never intended to be interpreted to mean.

          The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution by the legitimate process of an amendment ratified by 3/4 of the States. It does not include a provision creating a legal right for sodomy, abortion, same-sex marriage, polygamy or incest.

          If it had actually included such a provision, it would not have passed Congress, and it would not have been ratified. In fact, it is nearly certain that in the 18th or 19th century, or even in most of the 20th century, not a single State would have voted for ratification of any Constitutional Amendment which created a right to commit any of those crimes.

          If you want to change the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, the only honest, legitimate way to do so is the amend it. The simple fact is that there is insufficient public support to amend the U.S. Constitution to legitimately legalize those crimes.

          Nevertheless, liberal activist Courts have now legalized two of those five crimes, nationwide, and a third in most of the country.

          They’ve tossed democracy on the ash-heap. We’re now ruled by juntas of dishonest old men and women in black robes.

          • Troy

            Well sir, the reality is that the Constitution doesn’t provide protection nor does it authorize or forgive any criminal act. It doesn’t not limit itself to just those.

            As far as the 14th Amendment. Due Process and Equal Protection. You want to stand behind the civil law and make a case why same sex marriage shouldn’t happen, fine. Make your case. Do it without citing bible verses and what the law was…160+ years ago. Are going to go back and start hanging witches too?

            People change, nations change, laws change, society changes. You can accept or reject at your leisure, but you can’t change that single fact.

            So regardless of what your emotional feelings are on the issue of same sex marriage, the reality is that they are people and they are entitled to due process of law, per the 14th Amendment, just like every other person in this country. You might not agree with their livestyle, and I’m certainly not gay, but it is their life to live, without interference of government.

          • daveburton

            Troy, you are correct that “laws change,” but they do not legitimately change by magic. The governing principle is stated in our Declaration of Independence: The legitimacy of government — that is, of laws, lawmakers, and law-enforcers — can be acquired in one and only one way: through The Consent Of The Governed.

            The Governed — that is, the People of these United States — never consented to let unelected, unaccountable, renegade judges “reconstruct” our laws and Constitutions to mean things that would have astonished and horrified the people who wrote them.

            “Due process of law,” simply means legal process. In other words, if you are charged with a crime, the penalties for which would deprive you of your life, your liberty, or your property, then you are entitled to your day in court, with a fair legal process that allows you to mount a defense. The right to “due process of law” was never intended by the Framers of the 5th and 14th Amendments to confer any new rights to do illegal things.

            As for the merits and costs of legalizing sodomy, abortion, same-sex marriage, polygamy and incest, those are rightly topics for pubic debate in a democratic society. If you think any or all of those acts, which were all illegal throughout the USA when the Constitution was written and ratified, should be made legal, the legitimate way to make that happen is to convince voters and legislators in sufficient numbers to get the laws changed. It is neither legitimate nor honest to simply get some judge to pretend that the U.S. Constitution says something that it plainly does not say, and was never intended to say.

          • daveburton

            It is also worth noting that the very first sentence in Article I of the U.S. Constitution declares that “All” legislative (i.e., lawmaking) powers of the federal government are vested in Congress. Not “some” or “most,” but “all.” That means that the courts do not have Constitutional authority to make laws.

            And that brings us back to Jefferson:
            “One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.”
            – Thomas Jefferson

            That sentiment was not peculiar to Jefferson. It was the consensus of the Framers. In fact, Hamilton, Madison & Jay, writing in The Federalist (i.e., making the case for ratification of the Constitution) declared that impeachment was the appropriate remedy for judges who exercised their own Will, rather than honest Judgment about the true intended meaning of the laws. In fact, in Federalist #81, they declare that it is the threat of impeachment which will keep judges honest.

            To learn more, google search for this quoted phrase:
            “punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations”

          • Troy

            Well Dave, for whatever reason, the reply button is no longer a part of the thread. However, to continue…

            “It was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other unjust, the former is to be given them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:326

            and then we have…

            “Having found from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scarecrow, [the Judiciary] consider themselves secure for life.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297

            “Impeachment is a farce which will not be tried again.” –Thomas Jefferson to William B. Giles, 1807. ME 11:191

            I’ll agree that law making ability is that of the Congress and Congress alone. However who is to say that each and every law so drafted, debated, amended, and finally perhaps enacted is valid or legal on it’s face? That is what the judiciary is for. To examine the law and determine it’s Constitutional validity. If it isn’t, then it is up to the legislative to try again. Just because a law is struck down doesn’t completely invalidate the premise upon which it was drafted. Is it always what we think it should be? Hardly. After Citizens United I would have agreed to disbanding the Court. How moronic can 5 people be that are so learned and educated? But because I disagree doesn’t make them wrong per se; doesn’t make them right either.

          • daveburton

            Actually, Citizens United was decided based on the plain, simple, obvious meaning of the Constitution. Forbidding someone from spending money on political speech is clearly an infringement upon their right to speak.

            As a “sanity check” to the reasonableness of a court decision upholding a statute or striking it down as unconstitutional, you should always consider what the laws were when the constitutional provisions being interpreted were enacted. Laws of the sort which were widely in place at the time those provisions were enacted can be assumed to be consistent with those provisions (i.e., not unconstitutional). Laws which were unheard of at that time may be deserving of further scrutiny.


            1. If something was generally illegal when a Constitutional provision was written and ratified, then in the absence of plain language to the contrary, it is safe to say that the Constitutional provision was not intended to legalize it. And,

            2. If something was generally legal when the Constitutional provision was written and ratified, then, in the absence of plain language to the contrary, it is safe to say that the Constitutional provision was not intended to outlaw it.

            3. Laws legalizing something which was generally illegal when the Constitution was enacted, or outlawing something which was generally legal when the Constitution was enacted, might plausibly run afoul of some Constitutional provision.

            Sodomy, abortion, same-sex marriage, polygamy & incest were all universally illegal when the Constitution and relevant amendments were written and ratified, and there’s not a syllable in either the Constitution & amendments themselves, or the records of the debates surrounding their enactment, of an intent to change such laws, by anyone. So Constitutional “interpretations” which legalize such things are obviously wrong, and frankly dishonest.

            OTOH, political advertising was not restricted at all when the Constitution and relevant amendments were written, so modern laws creating such restrictions are deserving of further scrutiny.

            It doesn’t take much scrutiny, though, to see that those laws are unconstitutional. There are very explicit protections in the Constitution protecting such speech. There’s no question that the “speech” protections enjoyed by Americans and protected by the First Amendment include political advertising and other political speech. So laws prohibiting such speech are plainly unconstitutional infringements of our First Amendment rights. That decision should have been 9-0, not 5-4.

          • Troy

            Really? Citizens United was decided on the plain, simple, obvious mean of the Constitution. Except, we aren’t really talking about John Q. Public, are we? We aren’t talking about that single mom with two kids flipping burgers are we Dave, when you use the word “Someone.” No, you’re talking about Fortune 500 companies and people with high 6 and 7 digit incomes. You’re condoning the sale of this country and this democracy to the highest bidder. And a “sanity check” scrutiny of the 1st Amendment reveals nowhere that the expenditure of money translates into speech or the free exercise thereof, because you are certainly free to spend your money on what you choose, the limit however comes to what that political office seeker can accept; difference. Because as Hamilton wrote in one of his Federalist documents concerning the judiciary, “When you control the means to a man’s subsistence, you control his will.” That was concerning how Justices were to be selected by the way and the argument was against election. In that same regard, when you are a benefactor and financial supporter to a politician and all that they have become, they are beholden to you.

            Now you can stand on that 18th Century dogma that this was the original intent of this and that as you please and quote Jefferson chapter and verse and ignore every point that negates that perspective. We lack the context of that time since we do not live in it, and the history is at best, skewed. That is why my good fellow, that the Constitution, as it is written, has stood as it has for the time it has. The framers knew that it would need to change with society and with the people across time. That is the entire intent of the allowing judicial interpretation of the law, and allowing for it’s amendment. It’s not supposed to change on a whim, but they knew that to stand, it would have bend with society and the people. Otherwise, you’d be stomping around every day in a powdered wig with big buckles on your shoes. And yes, I’m trivializing.

            But I’ll give you this. You could almost be believable to those who don’t know better.

          • daveburton

            BTW, the reason “the reply button is no longer a part of the thread” is that the blog software limits how deeply comments can be indented.

          • daveburton

            Your problem, Troy, is that you only want the correct kind of corporations to be able to buy elections, like NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, AP, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. — and what a coincidence that the corporations of that type just happen to be almost all in the Democrat’s pockets.

            Well, that’s plainly unconstitutional. What part of “no law” is unclear to you?

            Let me refresh your memory:

            Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            There’s no “except for corporations” clause or or “except for media corporations” or “except for corporations that I don’t like” clause in that Amendment. “No law” means no law.

            The fundamental problem is that liberals like you don’t believe in free speech. Most modern liberals want to muzzle the people they disagree with: don’t let them advertise, don’t let them publish, don’t let them teach, etc.

          • Troy

            My problem Dave is that I want no corporations buying elections. I find it odd but not surprising that you only list media outlets as examples and left off Fox News from the list, of what you extol as being non-virtuous. One track mind I see.

            It’s only unconstitutional in your little locus of thinking since it runs counter to what you think the meaning is. Having taught Constitutional Law, I’m quite familiar with the content…and the meaning. And just so that you know, there are exceptions. One cannot walk into a crowded theatre and shout “fire”. That is outside the bounds of protected speech and common sense. So you might want to re-think your emphasis and bolding of the words, ‘no law’. Not that you will and concede error, but you may want to; for your own personal knowledge.

            Keeping money out of politics is fundamental and imperative to us all. You however can’t see the forest for the trees. And the overreaching paradox is, you and those of your ilk only want speech that agrees with your own ideas and concepts. If an idea runs counter to what you believe, well, we can’t have that.

            My other problem, if one can call it that, is that while I disagree with you fundamentally on just about everything you to try to posit here, I defend your right to do it. It’s that exchange of ideas and concepts and the freedom to voice them, no matter what I might think of them, or what you think of mine, is core to our existence.

            I for one, believe that all sides of an issue should be presented, then allow the people to decide for themselves what it is they choose to believe. Factions on both sides want to control that information however in order to skew thought. It’s not the providence of just one side.

            However this debate with you has turned into an exercise in futility. Like trying to teach a pig to sing; wastes my time and annoys the pig. You are unwilling to see or acknowledge anything except your own narrow perspective. Sad, really.

  5. Jimmy Rouse

    The point is that the homosexuals have more power than the voters.

    • Thomas Mills

      No, the point is that the constitution is designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority (see Federalist Number 51).

      • William

        No the point is the Constitution was never intended to apply to the separate and sovereign states (see Federalist 45). Federalist 51 was written with that context in mind

      • Rick Casey

        You are sick

    • Rick

      I agree with you Jimmy —What is the use in voting? Is this democracy? It was voted down.

Related Posts


Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!