Amendment One Deserves Defeat
- Print print this page
- Discuss 32 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Amendment One appears at the very bottom of the May 8 primary ballot. That’s somehow appropriate, since it is beneath the dignity of a great and enlightened state like North Carolina.
This proposed amendment to the state’s constitution, which voters will have a chance to approve or reject, doesn’t just outlaw same-sex marriages. It goes a step further than similar laws in other states by banning civil unions as well. It deserves defeat.
The amendment has a lot of support from groups that call themselves conservative. But, as we have noted before in this space, that seems more than a little ironic. After all, aren’t conservatives the ones who are always complaining, often justifiably, about anything that smacks of Big Brother government thrusting its clumsy hands into our private lives? That is certainly what is going on here.
Seeking to Make Bias Permanent
From a strictly practical standpoint, there is no earthly need to go to all this trouble and expense to enshrine this officially sanctioned bias in our state constitution, since same-sex marriages are already illegal here. But for advocates of the amendment, a simple law is not enough. They want to be able to write this prohibition into the state’s fundamental governmental document, where it will presumably be set in concrete for all time.
Two things about that should trouble all thinking North Carolinians:
— Our constitutions, both state and federal, primarily set forth the rights of citizens and limit the power of various governmental entities to infringe on those rights. It would be wrong to modify that document by inserting something that itself narrows personal rights rather than broadening them.
— Many proponents of the amendment make no bones of the fact that they know majority attitudes on this subject will change over the years as a more tolerant younger generation grows to adulthood. N.C. House Speaker Thom Tillis said as much the other day.
So what we have here is an unabashed effort by one generation to impose its own intolerance and doctrinal zealotry on future ages that are unlikely to share those attitudes. That effort to clamp the dead hand of the past on the future seems pretty arrogant and controlling.
Dictatorial and Discriminatory
A commonly raised argument is that marriage is intended for procreation and that gay couples can’t procreate, at least not in traditional biological fashion, and that they therefore should not be permitted to wed.
The obvious answer to that, as already offered in letters and columns on these pages, comes in the form of a question: Shouldn’t any such prohibition, to be consistent, also apply to infertile male-female couples?
Logic aside, many people are simply uncomfortable with the concept of same-sex marriage, and that’s understandable. Therefore, they should not engage in it themselves. And if they’re religious, they should make a point of joining religious organizations that share their views and refuse to perform gay marriages. What they shouldn’t do is attempt to impose their own prejudices on others, restricting their right to live their lives as they see fit — and largely for blatantly political reasons.
Besides being unnecessary, Amendment One is dictatorial, demeaning and discriminatory. Here’s hoping it will soon be dead.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago
I notice noone at the Pilot taking credit for this opinion piece, don't blame them what a steaming pile of left wing propoganda. The majority of North Carolinians will vote for Amendment 1 and a lot of them will be democrats because frankly only a fool wouldn't consider marriage as worth protecting.
Hembloche 1 year, 1 month ago
Bentpan, you really need a hobby or something. Explain to me what about marriage is so "worth protecting". The ridiculously high divorce rates? The husbands and wives beating on each other? Infidelity? You wanna protect marriage how bout worrying about all of the above rather than trying to keep people who love each other apart. Oh, and editorials are never signed. It's considered the official stance of the paper as a whole.
JD 1 year, 1 month ago
"worth protecting" Know any divorcee's?
mcg2010 1 year, 1 month ago
If the Amendment actually protected marriage then Bentpan's argument might hold some water. Unfotunately for them, it's full of holes, just like this amendment.
It's too broad and does nothing to "protect marriage." If it did something to make it harder to obtain a divorce, or punish men and women who walkout on their families, or who practice infidelity, then sure it might start protecting marriage then. But it doesn't do any of that. Instead it so strictly defines marriage that many in this very county would suffer from its repercussions.
It would restrict the rights of elderly couples who live together, love and support each other, who decided not to get married due to pension and other benefits that would be lost, by remarrying. It could limit the abilities for single parents (most of whom are not single parents by choice) to receive benefits to care for their children.
The problem with this amendment is that it doesn't define "marriage," it defines families. And we don't have Leave it to Beaver style families any more. It just isn't the world we live it. I was raised by a single mom, because my father passed away from heart disease. Does that mean my family doesn't deserve protecting? Does that make my family any less than anyone else? This amendment does the exact opposite in protecting families and it has to be defeated.
Now, if you are worried about the sanctity of marriage as it regards to gay marriage in the state of North Carolina then I have excellent news for you: IT'S ALL READY ILLEGAL! Gay Marriages are not recognized in this state and still will be illegal if this amendment is voted down, as it should be.
This Amendment does more harm than good. It's too vague, broad as well as inherently discriminatory. There can be long term, unseen consequences to passing this amendment. So, if you are truly concerned about protecting families and values, then I don't see how you CAN vote for this amendment.
Vote AGAINST Amendment One on May 8th. (or now! early voting is now open!)
TOYTIME 1 year, 1 month ago
This has been well argued for some time, I appeal to all "true" conservatives to vote "NO" to this amendment.
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
Bravo to the author if this editorial. Well written and to the point.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
Aside from the "Two things about that should trouble all thinking North Carolinians:" because it yet again presumes those for amendment one are not thoughtful, this was a well thought out and thought provoking editorial. A lot better than most of the material on these pages, print and cyber, so far.
DoubleHeroides 1 year, 1 month ago
This really gets into a variety of issues that beg consideration that range from the State’s ability to legislate morality to the State’s ability to take authority and power away from churches and religious institutions.
To a certain degree laws exist to preserve some kind of pre-established order to society. Do not commit murder is a general rule that has been in existence for thousands and thousands of years from pre-Christian societies to today and the purpose ostensibly is to shore up society from bedlam. The Wild West was called “wild” for a reason.
It seems that issues arise when government takes a determined and specific moral side and begins to legislate based upon a less generally understood common morality. The Temperance movement resulted in prohibition, a moral amendment to the Constitution based upon Christian principles and argued from the stand point that dissipation was bad for society as a whole. The amendment limited the rights of individuals rather than expressly protected them and where did we end up?. I do not see this Amendment One as being any different in nature.
PBinNC 1 year, 1 month ago
I wonder how many people who favor this amendment will find some surprises on what they voted for...sort of like the famous Nancy Pelosi reason to vote - "We have to pass it so we can find out what's in it." A knee-jerk law that will have repercussions way beyond what people think. Vote NO!
truthmatterstome2 1 year, 1 month ago
Would someone please tell me how this amendment restricts marriage to one man and one woman. The amendment, itself, states that it does not affect contracts between individuals. What does that mean....anyone living together, whether gay or straight, can simply go to a Notary Public, write a sentence stating that they grant each other their Power of Attorney, and continue as if the State of North Carolina has no new amendment?
The language of this amendment leads one to believe that the writer is trying to make sure that it has no real effect on anyone. Why vote for it, when we have a real law that covers the issue?
The_AnonymusProfit 1 year, 1 month ago
I am a conservative, I will be voting against this law.
GJohn 1 year ago
Great editorial! I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "My concern is not whether God is on our side. My greatest concern is to be on God's side." His Son taught us to be tolerant, inclusive, and non-judgmental. Vote NO on Amendment One!
katimae 1 year ago
BRAVO! Thank you Pilot for taking a stand against those who want to rewrite our legal documents to reflect their morals. Whatever your personal beliefs, writing a law to restrict the freedom of other productive citizens is just WRONG.
lakeview 1 year ago
"Bravo to the author if this editorial. Well written and to the point."...says JimHeim.
Unfortunately, the author did not sign his/her name to this literary work so according to liberals JimHeim, DR and etc..., the author is a coward yet Jim Heim did chastise the author because he agreed with the writing. Is that hypocritical or do liberals have another word for it?
lakeview 1 year ago
GJohn, Katiemae, I understand your point. I just (respectfully) don't have to agree with it. Yes Jesus taught us as Christians to be tolerant, non-judgmental, love one another and to even pray for our enemies but nowhere does it tell us that we have to be supportive of issues contrary to His teaching. I simply believe God created woman for man and that marriage is holy when . I will be voting based on my beliefs and opinions as I trust you will vote the way you believe.
moonchild7 1 year ago
Thank You so much Pilot for having so much sense amongst the non-sensible who so often write here. You have explained quite excellently why voters should vote "NO" and hopefully they can now "see the light". I will be voting "NO".
Hembloche 1 year ago
@ Lakeview - As i noted above, editorials (as opposed to opinion pieces) are generally unsigned and reflect the stance of the paper as a whole.
JimHeim 1 year ago
The Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission said this about the amendment:
A current North Carolina law enacted in 1996 says that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid in North Carolina. This amendment would make that concept part of the North Carolina Constitution. If this amendment is passed by the voters, then under state law it can only be changed by another vote of the people. The term “domestic legal union” used in the amendment is not defined in North Carolina law. There is debate among legal experts about how this proposed constitutional amendment may impact North Carolina law as it relates to unmarried couples of same or opposite sex and same sex couples legally married in another state, particularly in regard to employment-related benefits for domestic partners; domestic violence laws; child custody and visitation rights; and end-of-life arrangements. The courts will ultimately make those decisions. The amendment also says that private parties may still enter into contracts creating rights enforceable against each other. This means that unmarried persons, businesses and other private parties may be able to enter into agreements establishing personal rights, responsibilities, or benefits as to each other. The courts will decide the extent to which such contracts can be enforced.
I like the part about how all of this will be decided by the courts. I'm sure everyone commenting is comfortable with judicial oversight of these kinds of personal issues. What could possibly go wrong?
JER 1 year ago
lakeview: "I simply believe God created woman for man..." So tell us, how does your woman feel about that? If she's not permitted to answer for herself, I'll understand.
visigrad 1 year ago
"His Son taught us to be tolerant, inclusive, and non-judgmental." And God also said for a man to liw with a man is an abomination. We need to keep the entire Word of God in context.
onaroll 1 year ago
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens, and that no citizen could be denied "equal protection of the laws."
The irony is that the poorly written NC Amendment One, if passed, is so clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that a Federal judge would be forced to overturn it at the first challenge, effectively opening the door for marriage equality in NC.
I will vote against, but if it does pass it could be the domino that brings down all the state amendments banning gay marriage by virtue of the fact that it just goes too far, with language that's too broad. Which would be richly entertaining, to see an attempt to codify bigotry become the means to defeat bigotry. http://VoteAgainstOne.com - stickers
JustThinking 1 year ago
VOTE YES !!! If all YES voters just protested open-gayness, and petitioned to make it illegal to be gay just like committing insest then NC would be a greater state to live in. Both acts, "ACTS" are perverted and intolerable. And WE, the majority, have the RIGHT to protest against that and promote marriage between man and woman only! Why is it that the non-gay people are made out to be the big bad guys? We do not have to accept it or tolerate it in this state!!!! That's right, you've had your rant and I'm intitlled to have mine. The majority of voters don't like it and don't ever have to like it. VOTE YEEEEEEES PEOPLE.
MikeNC 1 year ago
JimHeim 16 hours, 14 minutes ago ...The Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission said this about the amendment:
There are lots of 'viewpoints' from each side. Political spin and "advice" is always added to anything on an election ballot. I recommend that those who intend on actually voting for or against Ammendment1 read the actual text of what it actually states. Do not allow yourself to be directed in which way to vote. Read it prior to going to the polling place and then vote your conscience on where you want the State of NC and Moore County to land on these homosexual issues....Mike
theonewithsense 1 year ago
I am a conservative and will be voting no also. This is not needed. We need less government intrusion into our lives not more. Restricting the rights of others is the same thing as restricting my rights.
I am getting married soon. We will not be having children. We have enough children and grandchildren already. We are getting married to show our love and commitment to each other. There is no reason why two other people that want to show their love and commitment can't.
But wait, they already can't. There are laws against it. So why do we need an amendment to the State constitution?
GJohn 1 year ago
To Visigrad: Jesus was born into a culture that called homosexuality an "abomination". I believe men made those rules, not God. Find one place in the Bible where Jesus (God) spoke against it. I don't believe He did. I believe God makes us, including our sexual orientation, and it is not a sin to be what God made us to be. How loving would that be...for God to create something that is already in opposition to His Will? Remember when you made a conscious decision to be straight? You didn't, did you, you just always were. I believe it's the same with gays and straights.
lakeview 1 year ago
JER, she is a Christian woman and totally agrees with that. It's what the bible teaches. she did tell me ask you 2 things.
how your husband felt about it and she also wanted to know what business was it of yours how or what she believed.?
geoffcutler 1 year ago
Of all the arguments against amendment one, or the issue of gay marriage overall, perhaps the silliest is the 14th amendment one. The 14th has become the special rights garbage dump for all leftist and special interest wish lists. Does anyone really think that those who crafted the 14th had same sex marriage on their minds?
If same-sex marriage is to become the law of the land, then let's at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that the current 14th doesn't cover this issue, and propose a new amendment to the Constitution that does, with specificity.
JimHeim 1 year ago
geoff, is English not your first language? Are not the words in the 14th clear to you? If the authors did not intend for all Americans to enjoy equal protections, do you think they would have worded it differently?
Again, how do you justify singling out one class of citizen for reduced rights? And how is that germane?
This amendment does not make gay marriage illegal. That was done over a hundred years ago. This amendment reduces the rights of unmarried couples of all preferences and endangers children. To what end?
GoldenDreams 1 year ago
Jim Heim, very well said and what I've been trying to get across. If the amendment passes, all civil unions of any persuasion will not be recognized. Here's something else: why are the "Vote No" signs all taken down on Rt. 211 in Pinehurst and West End? They were up but now they are gone.
madstork 1 year ago
Heim Writes:"geoff, is English not your first language?" Such a warm, fuzzy way to communicate. You should hear Heim in person. Pathetic.
geoffcutler 1 year ago
No, actually, Jim, I just write in English. Like Conrad, English is my fifth...or sixth language. Why don't you tell us in English how the 14th deals with marriage. I'm sure from their graves, Adams and Jackson would like to hear it as well.
geoffcutler 1 year ago
And Jim, one other thing...Why wouldn't you want an amendment to the Constitution to deal with marriage... if it is so important to you? Clearly, the 14th was the right thing to do to deal with a newly freed segment of our population. Why isn't it the right way to go for same-sex marriage? If it's the right thing to do, and I have no quarrel with it, then why not go for it within the confines of our constitutional process, instead of judge shopping, or seeking out sympathetic state legislatures? If it's the right thing to do, then fight for it legitimately. We know why you don't.