Marriage Act: Needless Distraction
- Print print this page
- Discuss 21 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Like swallows returning to Capistrano, state Republicans can be counted on to return to Raleigh each year with a proposal to amend the state’s constitution to “defend marriage.”
On Sept. 12, the General Assembly will consider House Bill 777 and Senate Bill 106 (co-sponsored by Jamie Boles and Harris Blake, respectively), which propose “to amend the constitution to provide that marriage is the union of one man and one woman at one time, and that no other relationship shall be recognized as valid marriage by the state.”
No one seems interested in articulating the nature of the threat that allowing gay people to marry poses to the institution of marriage. What is the state’s interest in denying any rights to citizens — citizens who work, employ people, contribute to their communities, obey the law and pay taxes just like the rest of us — solely on the basis of the most personal aspect of their lives?
There is an inescapable irony in that the very people who can’t stop talking about too much regulation and too much government in our lives are more than happy to insert government into the most personal decision that two adults will ever make together.
There are currently six states that allow same-sex couples to marry, and so far heterosexual couples that were married before the passage of those laws remain just as married. In fact, the most notable effect of allowing gay people to marry in New York has been about a billion-dollar boost to the state’s economy.
Moreover, why is this necessary when the laws already on the books limiting marriage to heterosexual couples seem to be working just fine?
One explanation is that the bills aren’t really about marriage at all; they’re about shunning. They say to gay people who have all the same obligations of citizenship as the rest of us, “You are not welcome here. You are ‘less than.’”
Gay people are part of the fabric of our society. When a paramedic who happens to be gay resuscitates someone whose heart has stopped beating, he has not less than saved a life. When a police officer who happens to be gay answers a call, she is not less than the law. When service men and women who happen to be gay put themselves in harm’s way, they are not less than patriots.
I attend church at a welcoming congregation. A few weeks ago, we were privileged to witness the baptism of the infant child of a lesbian couple. It was the welcoming of a beautiful child by two strong, dependable, adoring parents into a beaming family of faith. No one involved was less than.
The other explanation for the proposed amendment is that it is pure pandering. It is a bone thrown to conservative evangelicals for their years of faithful support. The problem is that this year the Republicans have the numbers to put the amendment on the ballot.
This comes at a time when attitudes toward gay marriage are shifting. An ABC/Washington Post poll conducted in July found that 51 percent of Americans support the right of gay people to marry; 45 percent oppose and 4 percent are undecided. By comparison, in 2005, only 39 percent of Americans supported the right of gay people to marry; 58 percent opposed and 3 percent were undecided.
The shift in attitudes is confirmed in North Carolina by a recent poll conducted by Elon University, showing that 56 percent of North Carolinians oppose an amendment to the state’s constitution banning same-sex marriage and 52 percent” support some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples.”
The problem is that the GOP panders to conservative evangelicals for a reason. It’s because that group can be counted on to vote. It is the wag-the-dog effect of a focused minority controlling a less dependable majority. There are a thousand reasons to be disenchanted with government, a thousand reasons to want to to disengage from the process. And it seems to be the duty of each generation to be an embarrassment to its progeny.
But let’s pass on this opportunity to swim against the tide of history. This proposal is a distraction from the urgent challenges facing our state. Let’s dismiss this effort and ask Rep. Boles and Sen. Harris to focus their energy on the most important thing they promised to do: create jobs.
Kevin Smith lives in Aberdeen. Contact him at kevinasmith@gmx.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Scooty 1 year, 9 months ago
-
blake 1 year, 9 months ago
As a republican and a christian, I thoroughly enjoyed your article. There is so much that the new republican majority needs to accomplish but actions like this embarrass me. Good piece.
native 1 year, 9 months ago
With the State in the shape it is, it is a crime for the people we send to Raleigh to run the business of the State, to waste their time and our money on such nonsense...
cornbread 1 year, 9 months ago
No true limited government conservative would vote for such legislation.
If someone says they're a conservative and supports this legislation, they're no conservative.
TreadLightly 1 year, 9 months ago
States do not regulate morality except to protect society.
Thus, most states follow Biblical example to outlaw murder, assault, fraud, theft, perjury and even libel. Adultery was against the law until recent years, because it damages society.
The Bible considers a homosexuality NO WORSE than adultery, pedophilia or bestiality. And, NO BETTER. If the Bible is true, you should accept or reject all of these behaviors as a group. If the Bible is NOT true, do your own thing.
The door for public homosexuality was opened by the nearly universal tolerance of adultery. “Everyone does it.” (From Presidents on down.)
If you say that bestiality and pedophilia will not come next, just remember a few years back when we would never have believed that open homosexuality would follow adultery.
QUESTION: Are the Bible standards of morality for marriage, adultery and homosexuality simply guidelines, or real safeguards, like murder and theft. What would you desire for your own children?
In the interest of diversity, tolerance and social justice the state could authorize various types or marriage and “families.” Again, for clearest judgment, insert your own kids on one or both sides of these type “marriages.”
Not all will accept the Bible as their judge, but its morality underpinned most of our civil law, until this recent sexual revolution. Time may prove that our moral decline was orchestrated by TV, Hollywood and godless socialist promoters.
freedomisdaonlyway 1 year, 9 months ago
TreadLightly, you are a genius. Consensual relations between two adults and a person making love with a pig, chicken, goat, or peacock have sooooo much in common. Pretty much if you're anything but hetero, then you probably enjoy doing all kinds of crazy, nasty, immoral stuff, maybe even with feet.
irkim13 1 year, 9 months ago
Well said. Treadlightly
teufelhunden 1 year, 9 months ago
Wow...that was great insight.
Bflat 1 year, 9 months ago
If these folks want to get married, they can go ahead. It won't change my belief that it is wrong, no matter how many reasons or excuses are used. I am not the one they will have to answer to anyway.
emb6683 1 year, 9 months ago
I like the other article about life back in the 50's, when 'gay' meant happy or glad, before the meaning was perverted to try to give an aura of legitimacy to a perverted lifestyle.
RmeMP 1 year, 9 months ago
Let's be honest for a sec... a "marriage" is a religious ceremony where a man and a woman are devoting themselves to each other; here in America, the majority or religious people, are Christians - we don't write laws that make EVERYONE happy, we write laws that make the MAJORITY happy.
I don't have any problem with gay and lesbian couples being united in some form of ceremony, but don't call it a "marriage"; give them the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple (since that's what it's all about anyway) - and then everyone wins :)
cornbread 1 year, 9 months ago
This would be a reasonable suggestion if not for the fact the Senate Bill 106 (the so-called marriage amendment) would prohibit lawmakers from doing exactly what you outline.
If you are for civil unions, or whatever name you want to call equal benefits, then logically you must oppose Senate Bill 106.
Senate Bill 106 would prohibit government from offering equal benefits.
That is not conservative, moral or fair.
RmeMP 1 year, 9 months ago
I'm not siding with the "Right" or "Left" on this issue, I'm simply trying to come up with a common sense compromise for both sides (too bad the government doesn't try this); Once I personally read the bill, I will comment further as to if I support it or not (there's another idea Washington, take time to read bills).
RmeMP 1 year, 9 months ago
@cornbread,
After reading the bill, I agree with you and I personally would not support it as currently written. I stand by my current proposition, listed above, which compromises fairly and I would love to see something similar go on the books in NC.
cornbread 1 year, 9 months ago
Great. Then let's get our legislators to pass a civil unions bill for North Carolina instead of wasting time on Senate Bill 106.
To my knowledge no civil unions or marriage bill has ever even be introduced in NC.
Passing civil unions would probably be a money maker for the state directly (fees) and indirectly (hospitality, tourism, events). I would like to see more research on this though.
jimt 1 year, 9 months ago
Actually "marriage" in simply a "contract" between two individuals that creates rights and obligations between them pertaining to property, debts, and future child rearing, among other things. That is why you need a license from the State to get married and a signed document from both parties and a civil or religious authority attesting that you have lawfully been married within said State to be considered married. Religious institutions have added a layer of sacredness to marriage. Which is fine. and which is also the reason that no advocates of gay marriage have demanded that religious institutions perform such services if they object to them.
But we can always count on intolerant religious "patriots" like TreadLightly (sic) to demand that the Bible, that document which has been written by men, rewritten, edited, reedited, truncated, revised, translated, mistranslated, god knows how many times so we can read the "true unerring word of god" be the source of our civil codes. I'm sure he's one of those who would argue that the Founders were all Christians and intended the United States to be a Christian nation. One wonders why they bothered writing a constitution at all; instead when any dispute arose they should just have advised "see the Bible...." But, for the record, let me cite Jefferson (it's amazing how both Conservatives and Liberals claim him as their authority)
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
Hence, the current North Carolina legislature and S. 106.
Courseaire 1 year, 9 months ago
Therefore we should rely solely on the folly of man who has a perfect tract record.
jimt 1 year, 9 months ago
We are anyway
Courseaire 1 year, 9 months ago
Exactly - and look where it's gotten us.
jimt 1 year, 9 months ago
Well, then find yourself some theocracy and move there; bon voyage!
irkim13 1 year, 9 months ago
So the creator of the universe couldn't possibly make sure his word was written correctly? Also, I don't recall anyone claiming all the founders were Christian, but the majority were.
jimt 1 year, 9 months ago
Well, if HE could make sure his word was written correctly, then why are there so many different versions just in English! Then count all the different versions historically in English, in Greek, in Hebrew, and so on. Count all the hundreds, maybe thousands of different translations. They're all written correctly? Even when they say different things in the exact same passages?
And if you don't recall anyone claiming all the founders were Christian you have a very, very convenient and selective memory. It's a constant theme of the Christian right and the TreadLightly's of the U.S. that the Founders were all Christians, that they wanted a "Christian" country, and all our laws MUST conform to the Bible, but only as the Christian right interprets the Bible, of course.