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

[bubba]

".....who have every bit the stable, decades-long, 'committed' relationships as my straight married neighbors"

And the reason you know that to be true is.......?

Your statement brings to mind the typical subsequent comments in the media from the serial killer's neighbors who said "Gee whiz, he/she seemed like such a nice, uptading person......"

[bubba]

I can't wait to read the hysterical comments over my last post.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

How can it be that no individual is harmed yet all are harmed? For harm to occur, it must eventually befall some individual. The "institution of marriage" is made up of the sum of all individual marriages--yours, mine, others. If none of these marriages is harmed, your logic about the institution being harmed has a gaping hole.

It's easy to see how some things, like the local availability of strip clubs, undermines marriages. If it's easy and convenient to go to a strip club, some married men will be tempted into that activity and will harm their marriages as a result.

That type of temptation and harm doesn't seem terribly likely from allowing loving and committed GLBTs to marry and form socially-sanctioned, exclusive unions.

What you and others are advocating is restricting the happiness and fulfillment of one class of people without producing any tangible benefit to anyone (other than your own satisfaction of knowing that a group that you dislike is treated worse than you are). It's a senseless position because it's all harm to one side and no benefit to the other, certainly no benefit with any admirable or desirable qualities to it.

GLBT marriage will erode the institution of bigotry, but the institution of marriage (hetero or otherwise) will remain sound.

[Roch101]

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?

[Roch101]

What is "locked into place" is a system where one group of people can marry for any reason they want and others cannot. The reasons given here for not allowing the second group to marry are the actions of the first group: Straight people are getting divorced too often, marrying for all the wrong reasons, cohabiting so, because of that, gays cannot get married.

When an argument doesn't make sense, look for other motives.

[Roch101]

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

That's why I asked Joe if he is friends with any committed gay couples. I expect not as the vilification undertaken here is probably born of ignorance, but I don't want to put words in Joe's mouth (neither does he, apparently).

[Roch101]

"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." -- Joe

The point you don't want to take head on is that heterosexual couples are allowed to marry for their own reasons, be they "self-interest" of which you disapprove or some other reason that passes your test. It's about equality. Whether marriage laws conform to your criteria for what is proper or not, they should be, because this is American, applied equally.

And this is another reason why I think Joe must have no gay friends: to think that gay people's desires to get married are motivated by the "self-interest" of those involved any more or less than the "self-interest" of heterosexual couples is to suggest great ignorance.

[David Hoggard]

And the reason you know that to be true is.......?

The way any person truly knows another: They are great friends and confidants.

Hysterical enough for you, son?

[David Hoggard]

But it DOES matter, Joe.

Just not to you and others who might hold the ridiculous, self-serving belief that the main reason gay folks are pushing to get laws changed so they can legally marry is because it is so easy to get out of.

[Joe Guarino]

Dave, I know you are an intelligent guy, given the fact that you are a college professor and all. But here is what you said:

"How can it be that no individual is harmed yet all are harmed? For harm to occur, it must eventually befall some individual."

It is very clear that gay marriage opponents are talking about the future. They are talking about the entire population of people to be eligible for true marriage, and the kids they will conceive.

Liberals are very familiar with the concept of talking about populations or groups, and advocating for them. And gay marriage opponents are concerned about what the future will be for the entire future population-- not existing marriages.

Roch and Dave, true marriage is, by definition, heterosexual, because that is the only kind of union that can produce children. Homosexuals are thus ineligible for the true historic concept of marriage, and the legal institution of marriage we have in NC. It is not a matter of equality and bigotry and all the nonsense we typically hear in this kind of thread. It is a matter of understanding what marriage truly is, and what its purpose truly is. The mere fact that some heterosexual couples do not have children does not change the true, historic purpose and concept of marriage.

Roch, it is YOUR side that has advocated for all the social pathologies that have weakened and undermined marriage. Divorce, cohabitation, adultery, premarital intercourse, abortion, contraception, illegitimacy and the like have all been legitimized and normalized culturally and legally over a period of more than 50 years. Powerful forces in our governing bodies, the courts and the media pointed us toward this awful outcome. YOUR side wanted these changes. And now you try to use the prevalence of these pathologies to suggest that heterosexuals have weakened marriage. Yes, they have, but as a product of a failed worldview that was perpetuated and institutionalized-- a worldview with which you, for the most part, agree. They collectively share responsibility, and ought to repent. But those on your side see no need to repent or to apologize for the wreckage that has been caused.

The true essence of marriage should not be self-interest. It should be obligation to one's spouse and to one's kids.

[Roch101]

"Roch and Dave, true marriage is, by definition, heterosexual, because that is the only kind of union that can produce children."

You keep making that argument while saying you don't want to talk about why heterosexuals who can't-have/wont'-have/don't-want-to-have children can get married. I understand your desire not to confront your double standard, but it's getting painful to watch now.

[Joe Guarino]

Not painful, Roch. The fact that some married heterosexuals don't have kids does not change the true, historic nature and purpose of marriage. It is your side that is in denial regarding this point.

[Roch101]

And here surfaces is another reoccurring theme: While I am well aware, Joe, of your propensity to bifurcate every issue into us/them, your-side/my-side (the greatest impediment to you effectively influencing policy outcomes—but that's another story)—I have no "side" on this issue other than the all-American tradition of equal rights under the law. Leaping to the proposition that we can't grant equal rights to gay people because "my side" has responsibility for all of society's other ills is a joke. A laugh-out-loud joke. Might as well waive the white flag when you get to arguments like this, Joe.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, there is a long record over a period of at least seven years regarding how you have discussed and regarded issues such as these in comment threads like this one.

You have been on the side of the sexual liberationists and the obsteperous individualists; the secularists and the relativists. That is your choice; but that is where you have been. And that is where you remain.

[Roch101]

"The true essence of marriage should not be self-interest. It should be obligation to one's spouse and to one's kids." -- Joe

While heterosexuals are not held to that standard, you will deny marriage to gay couples even if they meet that standard. It's not logical, it's not equal, it's not fair -- it's coldhearted bigotry.

[Joe Guarino]

Heterosexuals are not held to that standard because of the societal standards which have eroded. And you have endorsed virtually all of that erosion.

[Roch101]

LOL! It's my fault!

[Joe Guarino]

No, it is the fault of people who think the way that you think, who have occupied positions of power and influence. These include both Republicans and Democrats.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

What this comes down to is that you and others have strong, sincere beliefs that GLBT behavior is wrong. You want social reinforcement for that disapproval through the ostracization of GLBTs. In this case, you want GLBTs excluded from a privilege that you enjoy--the institution of marriage. The exclusion does not benefit you, any other heterosexual married person, or any of your descendents in any meaningful way. ALL the exclusion accomplishes is to impose a cost on (punish) the group that you disapprove of.

You are entitled to your beliefs, even misguided, bigoted ones. You are also entitled to personally communicating your beliefs. The line gets drawn, however, at the point where you want to rope everyone else in to being accomplices in reinforcing that bigotry and punishing people who have neither harmed nor threatened anyone.

You and others can dress this ostracism up in the Orwellian description of "Protecting Marriage." But it is nothing of the sort. It's about punishing others to no good end and making sure that those others know they're hated.

This sort of behavior--only causing harm and doing no good--would put a reasonable person to shame.

[bubba]

"You are entitled to your beliefs, even misguided, bigoted ones."

Ribar officially joins the Jerk Brigade.

[bubba]

"The first duty of any nation that is worth considering at all is to perpetuate its own life, its own blood.

That duty will not be performed unless we have not merely a high but a sober ideal of duty and devotion in family life, unless our men and women realize what true happiness is, realize and act on the belief that no other form of pleasure, no other form of enjoyment, in any way takes the place of that highest of all pleasures which comes only in the home, which comes from the love of the one man and the one woman for each other, and for their children."

-- Theodore Roosevelt, from "Realizable Ideals"
http://books.google.com/books?id=KoMAAAAAMAAJ&dq=theodore+roosevelt+realizable+ideals&source=gbs_navlinks_s

[Abner Doon]

I believe, that if one young person of one gender
masturbates over and over again,
fantisizing about the opposite gender,
they would most probably be heterosexual.

I believe, that if one young person of one gender
masturbates over and over again about the same gender,
they would most probably be not.

Why should a biological condition be a basis for discrimination?

Where else in North Carolina's constitution
does discrimination exist?

There are hundreds of other species of animals
that exibit similar behavior.

If you had asked Jesus 2000 years ago
if the universe revolved around Earth,
or if you were on a planet,
or what stars were
or if there were dinasours or the Americas
or Asia,
what do you think he would have said?

[Joe Guarino]

Not entirely a biological condition. You made an overstatement of the scientific evidence.

It is a misnomer to call it discrimination. If marriage has historically been, by definition, between a man and a woman-- for compelling societal and bioligical reasons-- then that is an institution for which homosexual couples simply are not eligible. They simply don't meet the historic definition. And if various parties facilitate their getting "married", then marriage is transmogrified into something it is not supposed to be.

[David Hoggard]

Joe's statement, with some slight backward-looking revision:

"It is a misnomer to call it discrimination. If slavery has historically been, by definition, only confined to Negroes-- for compelling societal and biological reasons-- then freedom is an institution for which the black population is simply not eligible."

[Joe Guarino]

Another silly blog thread talking point. Race is not equivalent to sexual orientation. Freedom from slavery is not equivalent to the ability of homosexuals to participate in an civic institution whose primary purpose is to provide a stable vehicle for supporting and raising children.

[David Hoggard]

I should have continued...

..."They simply don't meet the historic definition. And if various parties facilitate their getting "freedom", then freedom is transmogrified into something it is not supposed to be."

[David Hoggard]

Agreed that it is not equivalent, but undeniably analogous.

[bubba]

"Another silly blog thread talking point."

They're becoming more frequent, aren't they?

[Jack Hart]

Joe, you said, "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."
In the original post you say this, "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."
Let me give you the perfect example on both points; My ex wife testified on the stand that her boyfriend was spending every night that I was traveling away from home working, at our house! So did her psychologist, again, on the stand!
The so called judge then told me to give her $750.00 a month for life, keep her in insurance and a host of other stuff!
When I went back to court two years later with proof they were still living together, which is called co-habitation by the way, and should eliminate alimony, the same so called judge said that if he moved out tomorrow that it would not be co-habitation, keep on paying her!
By the way, she and the boyfriend now spend nights either in crappy motels, or in her car. (Takes a classy guy to let you live in your own car!)
So you are right, you cannot entrust the judiciary on this one!
Jack

[Joe Guarino]

David, I don't think it is a good analogy... not at all.

Jack, I am very sorry about the experience you have had. There is much that is unjust about the way our legal system has handled divorce. But in a larger sense, there is much that is unjust about the way our legal and political systems have handled the matters of marriage, reproduction and family.

[michele]

If NC bans gay marriage but the federal government made a law allowing it, which would the state have to follow?

[bubba]

"If NC bans gay marriage but the federal government made a law allowing it, which would the state have to follow?"

Current law prevents the Federal government from doing so, but it could come as a result of an out-of-control activist court decision somewhere. I think a rather large uproar, and a fast track route to SCOTUS would result.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is currently the law of the land, and it provides that no state or lower political subdivision may be forced to accept a same sex marriage credentialed in another location. Section 3 of DOMA forbids the Federal government from recognizing same sex marriages.,

Eric Holder announced last February that he and Obama had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional (thereby usurping judicial authority)instructed him not to defend challenges to the law. However, House Speaker Boehner has arranged for Congress to exercise their right to defend the law. So far, opposition to DOMA has not had much success in court.

Currently, the majority of states have legally defined marriage as between one man and one woman. North Carolina is conspicuous by its exclusion.

[michele]

Thanks for the info, Bubba. :)