Marriage Protection Amendment

The state legislature will reconvene on September 12.  It is expected that the Marriage Protection Amendment will be a high priority item.  Republican leaders have begun speaking about this particular effort.

We need this state constitutional amendment.  Why?  Because the judiciary cannot be entrusted with this particular aspect of law.  Some might feel that the North Carolina courts lie beyond the reach of judicial activism, but recent events have proved otherwise.

Conservative Christians need to gear up their activity on this issue, and let their state legislators know they want this amendment placed on the ballot. Parties and interest groups that want the gay political agenda enacted in North Carolina have already been heavily mobilized on this issue. 

North Carolina is the only southern state that does not have a Marriage Protection Amendment.  It is conceivable that some conservative Democrats will support the amendment.  But it is equally conceivable that the knees of some moderate-to-liberal Republicans will go wobbly.

The North Carolina Family Policy Council has produced a heavily referenced Issue Brief that provides information on this issue in detail.

Comments

[Roch101]

Is this to outlaw divorce?

[Joe Guarino]

No; but if it was, would you support it?

[GOPwatcher]

"Parties and interest groups that want the gay political agenda enacted in North Carolina have already been heavily mobilized on this issue."

Would that include the Guilford County GOP?

Maybe someone from their leadership team could clarify?

[Roch101]

I just heard recently that the South has the highest rate of divorce in the country, I'm not sure how that can be with all this protection of marriage going on in the south. Perhaps these efforts are misnamed, "Bigots imposing their prejudices on other people act" might be more accurate, because they obviously aren't "protecting" marriage in any way.

[Abner Doon]

"the judiciary cannot be entrusted with this particular aspect of law."

"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."

First Amendment of the US Constitution
.
.
Why wouldn't passage of an amendment
not be a form of establishing religion?

Isn't the reason the amendment is desired
biblical?

"The amendment would affect people's right to marry and would eliminate people's 14th amendment rights to equal protection under the law."

dcirbar at doug's
.
.
"As an ER nurse, I once had to force a distraught partner out of the Emergency Room when a patient was dying at the insistence of the patient's parents, who never accepted that their son was gay and never accepted the partner. He had no spousal rights of visitation, and when the parents said he had to go, we had no choice. He had to go. Neither his nor our pleading with the parents made any difference.

I still feel terrible about it. What the patient wanted never got addressed.

So please, Doug, don't tell me civil rights are not an issue. They are very much the issue."

Panacea at Doug's
.
.
Thoughts?

[Jim Langer]

My guess is all the state amendments will be on the line at the Supreme Court (well, maybe one at first, but the decision will affect all). The only issue is when.

[Joe Guarino]

Jim, you are correct that the US Supreme Court might one day rule on this issue. And there are at least four judicial activists on that bench. But that does not mean that we should not act in North Carolina.

Roch, I would welcome effective changes in state law to make divorce rare. How about you?

Abner, passing the marriage amendment is not a form of establishing religion. Heterosexual marriage has been a part of nearly every religious tradition, and in fact, nearly every organized civilization. I would suggest you read the NCFPC Issue Brief to which I linked. There are compelling reasons to require that marriage be between a man and a woman that have nothing to do with religious persuasion.

I disagree with Dave's contention that this is a 14th amendment issue. The 14th amendment, passed during the mid-19th century, was not originally understood to require gay marriage; and there is nothing in its text to suggest that it does.

Panacea's point seems persuasive on the surface. But the situation described would have been moot if the gay partners had worked out some legal papers in advance-- which is also advisable for married partners. My wife and I have them. But Panacea's anecdote is also an outlier circumstance-- and you don't allow changes to the law disrupting an entire societal institution based on outlier circumstances and anecdotes.

[john hayes]

From Mr Strawman-TM himself, an 'argument' based on an assumption of a cause-and-effect between regional divorce rate differences and attitudes regarding same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, the 'bigotry' that Roch decries is not limited to NASCAR country. It seems to have crept its way all the way up to Lake Michigan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbIurm5ou84

[David Hoggard]

I followed some of the sources in the NCFPC Issue Brief provided. One of the sources that I read deeply was from the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI):http://marri.frc.org/. I found their research seriously compelling. Seriously.

It consistently illustrates that families who attend worship services at least monthly always come out slightly on top (defined by me, and, I'm sure most everyone else, as leaning towards positive outcomes)in every way imaginable. (less crime, less dependency on government, higher school achievement, fewer addictive behaviors... the list goes on for days)

I believe these to be true outcomes based on my life experiences; church going families tend to be "better people" than those of us who abstain. (Full disclosure:My family doesn't attend church anywhere near regularly)

With all of the positive outcomes flowing from church attendance, why should our legislature focus its religious/tradition based efforts solely on the promotion of marriage between a man and a woman? Seems to me - and the research cited - the GOP leadership should also get busy promoting ways to get more people through the doors of a church at least once a month.

Slippery slope I know, but research obviously supports the outcomes.

[john hayes]

Interesting perspective, David

[bubba]

"Seems to me - and the research cited - the GOP leadership should also get busy promoting ways to get more people through the doors of a church at least once a month."

Why don't you set the local example, and be vocal about it, Hoggard?

Consider it a call to action for yourself.

[bubba]

And why should your request above be limited to "the GOP leadership"?

[David Hoggard]

OK, here goes Bob... (Shouting now)

HEY EVERYONE... GO TO CHURCH AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH AND STUDIES SHOW THAT YOUR LIFE, AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, WILL BE BETTER FOR IT.

There... I've done it under your way of "action" - that is - bitching and bemoaning about things on blogs and thinking that anyone cares or anything will actually change because of it.

You do it. I'm pretty busy.

Why the GOP leadership?... It may come as a surprise revelation, but the GOP is usually the standard bearer on such issues. Why would you want to relegate that to the loyal opposition?

[bubba]

"There... I've done it under your way of "action" - that is - bitching and bemoaning about things on blogs and thinking that anyone cares or anything will actually change because of it."

That's about the level of effort and commitment I've come to expect from you--superficial, and having no lasting significance, belying the civic "credentials" you supposedly possess.

[David Hoggard]

You're right, son. You are the possessor of all lasting significance and I am but twit.

[GOPwatcher]

"but the GOP is usually the standard bearer on such issues."

Guilford County GOP leadership should be the moral compass for our community?

Do you know what you are asking for?

[Tony Wilkins]

I'm hoping for your recovery, Hogg. Twit can be so hard to get rid of.

[Tony Wilkins]

Especially but twit.

[Roch101]

I thought that was his super hero alter ego: "I am but twit!"

[Bob Regents]

Newt Gingrich has done more to desecrate the sanctity of marriage than any lesbian or gay couple.

[Joe Guarino]

Right, Bob. Nice deflection.

I asked Roch a question, which he did not answer; and I also have similar questions for you. Are you willing to reform the nation's divorce laws so that divorce becomes much more rare? Are you prepared to have the legal system systematically penalize heavily any adultery that results in the dissolution of marriages, gay or straight?

[Roch101]

I don't think there are national divorce laws, are there?

[Joe Guarino]

No, there are not, but there are individual state laws, each of which could be reformed-- including that which we have in North Carolina.

[Bob Regents]

Joe- check out ancient Roman adultery laws. Google it. Would penalization by Death be heavy enough by your standards? All adultery laws in the history of mankind are based in establishing the legitimacy of heirs. I don’t think we have to be concerned with this legitimacy by lesbians or gays.

[David Hoggard]

For lack of an 'a', I have again shown myself as "a twit".

How do you see the reformation of NC's divorce laws, Joe? I take it that the goal of such reforms would be to make divorce less common, which is certainly desirable from a societal standpoint and laudable in its intent. However, I truly don't know what such a reformation would look like and what its practical outcomes might be. Is the goal to keep married couples together despite their conflicts and differences or "incompatibilities"?

Again... sounds good on its face, I suppose, but another slippery slope in practice. Also, isn't it the (C)onservative goal to get government out of peoples lives, not interject itself deeper into them? Or, is that goal now thought of as a quaint notion still only held by a few of us?

(So many questions I pose... just call me Abner)

[Joe Guarino]

Bob and David, it has been said that gays and lesbians would have no interest in making gay marriage legal if unilateral-divorce-on-demand were not so easily obtainable.

Both gay marriage and unilateral-divorce-on-demand are illustrative of a culture of sexual liberationism and obstreporous individualism that undermines the biological heterosexual family to satisfy the desires of selfish adults. My point is that very few people who favor gay marriage truly want to fix the divorce situation-- although they happily use the frequency of divorce to suggest that gay marriage cannot further undermine the institution of marriage.

We could fix the divorce culture by making it no longer no-fault. We could penalize the adultery that produces many divorces in a manner that is much more punitive than we currently do. But those who favor gay marriage do not want to do these things, because they favor a culture of sexual liberationism and obstreperous individualism that undermines the nuclear family. Those kinds of approaches I mention are regarded as impermissible, as beyond the bounds of current society.

[Roch101]

"My point is that very few people who favor gay marriage truly want to fix the divorce situation"

You have it backwards, people who are interested in denying equal rights to gay people do not have an interest in "protecting marriage" -- as you point out.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch-- you, David and Bob have been given an opportunity here to advocate for reform of the divorce laws, and heavier penalties against adultery. But you all passed on that opportunity.

By contrast, I have blogged here in the past about divorce, and how we need to change the legal system to reduce its occurrence. I would hope that most conservative Christians and devout Catholics would agree with me. But we do not, by any means, constitute a majority in the various state legislatures around this nation. Again, we live in a post-Christian society. And that post-Christian society includes those who nominally call themselves Christian, but who do not practice their faith, or who practice a brand of the faith that abandons some of its most important principles.

[Roch101]

I haven't given much thought to divorce laws, Joe, but that is a diversion from the blatantly obvious: that an effort to keep people from getting married instead of addressing the dissolution of marriage by people who can actually get married, is not "marriage protection;" it's double speak thinly veiling bigotry.

[Joe Guarino]

There you go again, Roch. We have discussed the need for the reform of divorce laws here at this blog. The North Carolina Family Policy Council has discussed it; and the national pro-family organizations and commentators have also.

Again, you have every opportunity to advocate for the reform of our nation's divorce laws. You have every opportunity to advocate for the penalizing of adultery to a much greater extent than we do now.

[bubba]

"...it's double speak thinly veiling bigotry."

....as opposed to your wide open pigheaded-ness, obnoxious phony and santimonious moralizing, and the bias exemplified by your particular non-objective world view?

[Roch101]

I'm not directing my comments at you personally, Joe. I am saying that a legal effort to "protect marriage" would, if genuine, address the high divorce rate among the people who can currently get married. Absent that, the effort afoot is exposed for what it is.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, gay marriage is the institution that is at risk of being imposed via judicial activism. That is the present risk which is being dealt with via the Marriage Protection Amendment.

The divorce wars were fought a half-century ago, and there was little resistance. Drive-through divorce has long been a reality in our nation. Society had already become compromised ethically. A couple of states, I believe, have passed covenant marriage laws, which are an attempt to help remedy the problem. Most of the others have not taken any action to reform no-fault divorce laws. But that is not because social conservatives have not wanted to do so.

[Roch101]

"That is the present risk which is being dealt with via the Marriage Protection Amendment."

It is a risk to people's revulsions and prejudices, it is not a risk to marriage, which is ludicrous. Nobody is going to say, "Well, now that gay people can get married, I'm going to get divorced."

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, the Manhattan Declaration does a great job of explaining the problems associated with gay marriage, in addition to the NCFPC Issue Brief I linked in my original post.

Here is the text of the declaration:

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

[Roch101]

I've read it.

It fabricates a false argument, artificially roping off a the "beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love" as the exclusive domain of heterosexual marriage, just because it says so, and putting gay marriage in the corner of "immoral," just because it says so.

That is not an enumeration of actual problems, it is an opinionated list of bigoted gripes and repulsions, it is contrary to the legal traditions of equality in our country and it is ignorant of the true capabilities of adult gays and lesbians.

Do you have any committed gay friends, Joe?

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, you are beyond help on this issue.:)

The Manhattan Declaration is actually a very well written document that, among other things, provides an excellent defense for the true Christian perspective regarding marriage.

[Roch101]

"Roch, you are beyond help on this issue.:)"

I still think you are not.

[michele]

The only way that gay marriage could actually threaten straight marriage is if they pass a law saying that only gay people can get married. Unless or until that happens, the big threats to straight marriage will continue to be divorce, adultery, and pornography. And also, Facebook.

[Joe Guarino]

Michele, I think there is a wider perspective. It is true that divorce, adultery and pornography are huge problems for the marriage culture. These are all symptoms of the culture of sexual liberationism/ obstreperous individualism to which I referred above. They are also symptoms of man's fallen nature. But from the Manhattan Declaration, two key excerpts:

"The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents' marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant...

"Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as "marriages" sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

"And so it is out of love (not "animus") and prudent concern for the common good (not "prejudice"), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture."

This is a Declaration that was signed by oodles and oodles of major religious leaders from the Evangelical, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

I'm so sorry that your marriage is threatened.

[Joe Guarino]

Willful misinterpretation.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

If it's not your marriage that's threatened, please explain whose is.

[Joe Guarino]

That is not the point, Dave, and I suspect you know it. My own marriage is not even remotely threatened. But the future of the institution of marriage is certainly threatened. Look back at my comment at 7:40 PM. Read it for comprehension.

[Roch101]

From the Manifesto: "It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life."

For some people, marriage is indeed about procreation, for others it's "romance and other adult satisfactions." Heterosexuals can marry if they are unable to have children or think they may never want children. People get married thinking they want children, then change their minds. Marriage is legal for heterosexuals even if it does not conform to the procreation requirements of the Manifesto.

Heterosexuals can get married for love, sex, romance, family, security—for any reason they deem appropriate, and it's nobody's business but theirs. Why can't gays and lesbians? Some double standard?

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, we have had this debate many times before, and I really don't want to repeat it.

You claim concern about the prevalence of divorce as a threat to the institution of marriage. But this is precisely the point of the excerpt I provided. Marriage is under assault from a number of quarters, but the common denominator for all of these is a societal failure to recognize and acknowledge and accept the true and historic and objective basis and purpose for marriage. The satisfaction of adults is not the legitimate basis for the institution of marriage, contrary to what you represent.

And in fact, the worldview that the satisfaction of adults takes primacy is a big part of the problem. When adults pursue their own satisfaction without limitation, they oft neglect their obligations to their partner and to their kids.

Cohabitation is a huge threat to marriage. This is, in part, a product of the divorce culture. But my understanding is that divorce has been decreasing somewhat, whereas cohabitation is increasing. Again, partners and kids are more easily abandoned. But hey, it's great that adults can pursue their own satisfactions.

You take some norms that have been adopted by a morally corrupt culture, and provide that as evidence that marriage is legitimately for the satisfaction of adults-- when in fact marriage should be understood quintessentially to be something else entirely.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

It's hard to see how GLBTs wanting the exactly same institutions as heterosexuals undermine those institutions. Most people would see this (rightly) as bolstering those institutions.

I don't want to get all Roch-y here, but please explain whose marriage is undermined. Give a concrete example.

[Joe Guarino]

Again, I think this is an instance of deliberate blindness. It is not a matter of an individual marriage being undermined. It is a matter of the overall institution of marriage being undermined, which has grievous impacts on individuals and children.

The worldview that gave us divorce, illegitimacy, widespread cohabitation and adultery and abortion, all of which are not sanctioned very much, is the same worldview that gives us gay marriage. It is the worldview that obligations to one's own partner and kids are negotiable. It is the worldview that one's one satisfaction is supreme. It is the worldview that sexual liberationism and individualism take primacy on matters related to marriage, family and reproduction. And thus, the institution of marriage is on the ropes.

It is because the institution has been so severely undermined, and will be undermined even more with gay marriage, that we need to oppose it. But there are other reasons as well, as the authors of the Declaration explain.

The institution of marriage serves the common good in myriad ways. It is foolish to undermine it.

[David Hoggard]

"The institution of marriage serves the common good in myriad ways. It is foolish to undermine it."

I agree with that statement as written. But I'm sure you meant to insert "heterosexual" between "of" and "marriage".

To Roch's question above: I could throw a rock from my front porch and break the windows of several gay and lesbian couples who have every bit the stable, decades-long, "committed" relationships as my straight married neighbors.

That tends to inform and color my stance on the issue.

[Joe Guarino]

But that doesn't matter. The philosophy that animates the perceived need for gay marriage is that it is for the self interest of each of the two partners. But that is a mistaken view of marriage, rooted in sexual liberationism and extreme individualism.

The basis for the institution of marriage is that it is a heterosexual conjugal union capable of producing children. It is designed to provide a stable union that provides for the best interests of those children. It also provides a means for the two partners to take care of each other. But the previous, historic understanding was that this was a matter of OBLIGATION for both partners, not a matter of sexual entitlement. If you are going to be sexually active, you need to be married. And you first need to provide for the long-term stable rearing of your kids. And second, you need to provide for the long-term care of each other. With little justifiable escape hatch.

Again, the LGBT community overall would have little interest in accessing the institution of marriage were it not for the availability of drive-through divorce.