Two Ballots Will Be Used In May Primary

There will be two sets of ballots for the May 2012 primary that includes a constitutional amendment about banning same-sex marriage.

The state will print one for 17-year-old voters and one for everyone else.

The law says you have to be 18 years old to vote; however, 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the time the November 2012 election arrives are able to vote in the primary.

Since the amendment is not a primary, and simply a one-time ballot question, 17-year-olds will not have the option to vote on it, according to the News and Observer.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in North Carolina. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman would make it more difficult to undo the law.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by James Tiberius Kirk Location: Star Base 2 on Oct 4, 2011 at 06:53 PM
    Hate to ruin the thought process of alot of people here but I am not religious and I will vote that you must be an opposite sex to marry. What is wrong is wrong.
    • reply
      by Truth on Oct 4, 2011 at 07:53 PM in reply to James Tiberius Kirk
      Why is it wrong for two people of the same sex to have a legal, federally-recognized union? Do you just like stomping on the rights of your fellow citizens?
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Oct 10, 2011 at 02:33 AM in reply to Truth
        They are not asking for a cival union... they want it titled "legal marriage". I'm completely fine with a cival union so they can get the same benefits as a married couple, just don't undo a normal marriage by calling it a marriage.
        • reply
          by Truth on Oct 10, 2011 at 07:24 PM in reply to
          Wow, are we back to the semantics argument again? People, it just so happens that the state calls two people joined for life who share property, tax responsibility, kinship, and perhaps children the same word that religious folks use for a similar (but different) purpose. So I ask again, rephrasing for clarity's sake: What's wrong with calling gay marriage a legal, federally-recognized marriage? Remember, in no way is the state definition of marriage anything close to the ceremonial religious definition of the term. The government makes no laws specific to any one religion and does not recognize ceremonial marriage without a marriage license. Federal marriage is to legally establish kinship and gain special rights and privileges inherent in our country only to married couples. Religious marriage is so you and your wife become one before god or whatever. Also, how does this in any way "undo" your already existing federal marriage?
  • by Anonymous on Sep 29, 2011 at 04:12 PM
    Forgive me for my assumptions, but I'm driven to believe that the majority of those against gay marriage would identify as Republicans. Well, I will have to challenge your party affiliations... isn't the Republican party suppose to stand for less government? If that's the case then why are they the primary backers of state and federal regulation of marriage? Also, why are they for federally banning abortion? Seems like that would be more government rather than less. See, I believe in the separation of church and state, because everyone will always believe what they want to about religion. But, when it comes to ruling and governing over a body of people you have to take into consideration all those in which you govern. Not everyone will believe the same, not everyone will look the same, not everyone will talk the same, but we all deserve the same rights. Giving to one and not giving to another is wrong. If two people want to share their lives together then it is their right to do so and now all that's needed is legal recognition.
    • reply
      by REM on Sep 30, 2011 at 09:10 AM in reply to
      "but we all deserve the same rights" -- You mean the same rights to murder a child in the womb? That's the whole problem here, those who want a government that is void of all religion also want to be able to commit heinous acts like killing a child. Although I agree that the government has no business in the affairs of social interaction, we don't need a free for all. And for the record, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state"; That comment does not exist in any legal documents in this country.
  • by Fran Location: ECU on Sep 27, 2011 at 08:15 PM
    Words to describe this : stinky, brown, bean, corn, bell pepper, onion, peanut, gas, : need I say more. This is a sickness, perversion, and you are not born this way. I do not care how many of you say you are. It is a lie and a ploy on your part to defend your sickness perversion. It is like a foot fettish.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Sep 28, 2011 at 07:34 AM in reply to Fran
      Typical, a Republican who doesn't believe in science, or common sense for that matter. Please do tell, who would willingly choose a lifestyle that gets them discriminated against? That gets them harassed, and beaten and even killed? That's like saying that during slavery if given the choice, would you want to be black or white? Who is honostly going to choose to be black knowing a life of slavery awaited them during that time?
      • reply
        by REM on Sep 28, 2011 at 08:40 AM in reply to
        Oh, look. It's a racist. Black is a color, not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality is a behavior and NOT something you were born into. I don't care how many times it is shoved in our face; it's not true and it never will be.
        • reply
          by uh on Oct 1, 2011 at 09:18 AM in reply to REM
          Religion is a choice, and we're free as Americans to make that choice, why wouldn't homosexuals be free to make religious choices too? The only question here is whether a couple of guys or girls can have a (religiously derived) civic status that a guy and a girl can have already.
        • reply
          by REM on Oct 3, 2011 at 08:20 AM in reply to REM
          @uh: The "freedom" stops where it forces me to acknowledge homosexual behavior as acceptable and normal. If you want to take part in that kind of behavior, so be it. Keep it in your home. But DO NOT force me to put up with it. That's the whole argument here....
  • by Alexis Location: ECU on Sep 27, 2011 at 04:44 PM
    I will be voting in May to preserve traditional family values, marriage is now and should always be between one woman and one man. People are free to practice homosexuality if they wish but I don't think the government should be in the business of promoting homosexuality via gay marriage.
    • reply
      by Truth on Sep 27, 2011 at 05:19 PM in reply to Alexis
      The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting "marriage" period. If they want to give special rights and options to married straight couples, though, they should also give the same rights and options to gay couples. If we are unwilling to grant these same rights to gays then the government should see us all solely as individual citizens and do away with marriage-related tax breaks and special rights completely.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Sep 28, 2011 at 06:46 PM in reply to Alexis
      Alexis-that is the most profound comment I have heard on this subject. We must preserve traditional family values and marriage for our future generations. It is no secret that America is on a moral decline-downward spiral.
  • by STOP on Sep 27, 2011 at 03:08 PM
    Ican't belive there are poople like making comments like this. Stop leave GOD out of this and race we all have red blood. and same GOD PLEASE MATURE.I will pray for you.
  • by Bertie on Sep 27, 2011 at 01:26 PM
    Let's ban divorce... the greatest threat to marriage.
  • by Truth on Sep 27, 2011 at 12:02 PM
    Once again, we're left with a simple situation blown out of proportion by people with the incapability to reason and uncanny knack at indoctrinating youngsters with the threat of hellfire. There are only two reasons why someone would deny homosexuals the right to a legal union; religious belief or bigotry. Christians scream about how being gay is an abomination, but ignore the same chapter of the bible that tells them that mundane things like wearing mixed fibers or eating shellfish or shaving your beard are wrong. Give it up already. If you don't want gays getting married in your church don't allow it. Meanwhile, they will go to other churches or the courthouse to find and pursue their happiness.
    • reply
      by REM on Sep 27, 2011 at 01:12 PM in reply to Truth
      "Christians scream about how being gay is an abomination, but ignore the same chapter of the bible that tells them that mundane things like wearing mixed fibers or eating shellfish or shaving your beard are wrong" -- I really can't stand it when people like you distort the word of God. Try reading the bible for comprehension instead of going to an atheist website and copy/pasting talking points. Check out this perfect explanation: http://bit.ly/pKMXIB It's ironic that you berate others for their opinions and call them bigots, but fail to realize that you are only talking about yourself.
      • reply
        by Truth on Sep 27, 2011 at 02:05 PM in reply to REM
        I am intolerant of people pushing to regulate the peaceful interactions of others and invade science classrooms with hogwash based on a belief in what I consider a "fairy tale". If that makes me a bigot, then so be it. In your example you have proven just how people all get out of the bible whatever they want to get out of it. This is why you have hundreds of different denominations of Christianity. Everyone thinks they have it right and have their own interpretation of the word. Is the passage a metaphor? Or a literal commandment? It's all in how you weave it. You prefer to weave homosexuality as sinful but jiggle yourself out of stoning adulterers, unruly children, non-believers and wearing mixed fibers, shaving an uncomfortable beard, and scarfing down delicious seafood by interpreting the bible how you see fit.
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil co on Sep 27, 2011 at 04:02 PM in reply to Truth
          We know already, OK? You are like those people dressed in clown outfits on top of the building awaiting the aliens to save you and to wellcome them. Of course, that didn't go so well...all you could say in the final seconds is Oh God!
        • reply
          by Truth on Sep 27, 2011 at 05:11 PM in reply to Truth
          OSOC, your comparison is more apt to describe the religious, as they also believe in something without evidence. You "dress in clown outfits" every Sunday and "wait for god" to answer your prayers. I admit, however, comparing the beliefs of the religious to those who believe aliens exist is a non sequitur. That is, if aliens exist we can prove they exist, unlike god.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Sep 28, 2011 at 07:39 AM in reply to Truth
          Lol, I have to agree with Truth. OSOC just basically laid out the fundemental goal of Christians.
  • by who cares? on Sep 27, 2011 at 10:06 AM
    Ridiculous! this country has serious problems this state has 10% unemployment! and all I hear about is amendments on marriage? really! if 2 people are dumb enough to get married thats their problem who cares?
  • by SNM Location: pamlico on Sep 27, 2011 at 09:35 AM
    WITN, what's the point of this article? To inform the voting masses that 17 year olds aren't going to be able to vote on something that they already weren't able to vote on? really? Stop trying to write sensationalized articles about things that don't matter. This only gives homophobes and bigots a place to spew their hatred. Also, I was at pride this past weekend to show support for my friend... it was amazing to see how many people turned out. Now if we could get all that were there to get out and vote in May and then get those to convince 2 or 3 other people to vote, this amendment would never pass. Vote NO on Amendment One.
    • reply
      by Flip Side on Sep 27, 2011 at 10:29 AM in reply to SNM
      I will do my very best to get everyone I know to the polls in May and they will be voting YES to amendment one. Marriage is between a man and a women, that is the way it has always been and that is the way it should remain. It has nothing to do with hatred, bigotry or homophobia, I have very dear friends who are gay and they accept and respect my position on traditional family values. To bad so many who want to change those values are the real haters and bigots who always scream prejudice when they aren't allowed to have things their way at every turn!!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Sep 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM in reply to Flip Side
        It actually is hatred, bigotry, and homophobia. There is no such thing as 'traditional' family values, unless those values often include adultry, and high divorce rates, are those parts of the 'values' that are involved with modern marriage? News flash bigots, gays don't give a **** about your 'traditional' values, they want to be treated as equals by the federal government and given the same right that straight couples have, not doing so is discrimination based on bigotry.
        • reply
          by REM on Sep 27, 2011 at 01:05 PM in reply to
          That was such an awesome straw man argument that you constructed. Having a different opinion is not bigotry, hatred, or homophobia. I am none of those things. It seems like folks have run out of constructive arguments, so they start the ad-hominem attacks.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Sep 28, 2011 at 07:41 AM in reply to
          Denying gays the same rights as straight people is flat out discrimination, and it becomes bigotry when you do so out of pathetic religious dogmatic nonsense. Yes, you are all of those things if you think gays shouldn't be allowed the same rights as you, your are a bigot, and you hate gays, you can sugar coat it anyway you want, doesn't change the facts.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Sep 28, 2011 at 08:44 AM in reply to
          "your are a bigot, and you hate gays" -- So my opinion is that homosexual behavior is wrong and unnatural means that I am hateful? I don't think so. I believe that ALL people (except for criminals) should be treated equally in the eyes of the government. They shouldn't have any regulation is place that supports or prevents the free exercise of peaceful practices. How is that "Hateful" of me? Just because I refuse to accept it as normal and appropriate does NOT make me a bigot. " pathetic religious dogmatic nonsense" -- Look who the true bigot is. It's you.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Sep 28, 2011 at 10:30 AM in reply to
          Homosexual behavior isn't unnatural at all, many species of animals engage in homosexual behavior and humans have been practicing homosexual behavior for thousands of years. And good for you, if you don't hate gays, I assume you fully support them wanting the same rights as straight couples? I'm sorry, when a person brings up the Bible to justify why they don't think gay couples should be allowed to marry, it's discrimination, ignorance, homophobia, and bigotry all in one.
        • reply
          by REM on Sep 28, 2011 at 06:46 PM in reply to
          @Anonymous: "Homosexual behavior isn't unnatural at all, many species of animals .." -- I noticed two things with this sentence: 1) you believe that homosexuals behave like animals and 2) you believe that humans are animals. Remember, YOU said this, not me. "And good for you, if you don't hate gays, I assume you fully support them wanting the same rights as straight couples?" -- um, I believe that it's none of the governments business, and that everyone should be treated equally. HOWEVER, I do NOT endorse the sin. You can love this sinner and hate the sin you know. "when a person brings up the Bible to justify why they don't think gay couples should be allowed to marry, it's discrimination, ignorance, homophobia, and bigotry all in one." -- Uh, not it's actually called my opinion and my right to free speech. If what you say is true, then you too are all of those things for not respecting MY opinions. It goes both ways you know? Look like you haven't figured that one out yet.
      • reply
        by Dan on Sep 27, 2011 at 12:52 PM in reply to Flip Side
        Firs of all - name-calling tells us just the type of people you really are. Secondly, I plan to get as many people to the poles to vote NO to the amendment as possible. There were plenty at Pride in Durham this weekend, and there are thousands more where they came from. I bet those who wanted this issue brought to a vote are going to be sorry when things don't turn out as they want.
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil co on Sep 27, 2011 at 01:49 PM in reply to Dan
          Thousands won't cut it cupcake.....
  • by Dawg on Sep 27, 2011 at 08:48 AM
    What a waste of money. The voting age is 18, no 17 year old should be allowed to register much less vote.
  • Page:
WITN

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 130619163 - witn.com/a?a=130619163
Gray Television, Inc.