The Daily Tar Heel
URL: http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2012/02/hail_the_old_north_state_oppose_amendment_one
Current Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 11:37:47 -0400
Hail the Old North State, oppose Amendment One
| 
Tools
Possibly Related
- Everything in moderation: Have a better outlook this swimsuit season MAY 22
- The things that counted MAY 22
- A lack of transparency: Administrative silence sends a loud, negative message. MAY 21
- A man without a party: To compete in the fall, Democrats must force David Parker out MAY 16
- Repeal Amendment One: An amendment that violates equality for all cannot stand MAY 16
TO THE EDITOR:
“Here’s to the land of the long leaf pine, the summer land where the sun doth shine, Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great, Here’s to ‘Down Home,’ the Old North State!”
Whenever my dear friend Joe recites this toast (he’s a hit at parties) I think about everyone I know and love in North Carolina, the many opportunities this state has given me and the unshakable kindness of her people — and I swell with pride for my state. We may not be big, we may not be fancy, but from Manteo to Henderson we bring a lot to the table. North Carolinians are honest, hardworking, level-headed and warm. Although we may not be as eager to change as other states, we’re by no means against a healthy debate or thoughtful consideration.
All of this contributes to why the underhandedness of the proposed Amendment One makes me so angry.
On May 8, the voters of this state will be able to vote against a proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution, which reads: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”
While at first glance this sentence may sound like a common sense observation, it’s actually a deceitful attempt to stop debate about an issue that many North Carolinians care deeply about. Amendment One is actually not about marriage at all; it’s about forever enshrining one rigid view into our state’s founding document.
Marriage in North Carolina is already defined as being between one man and one woman. If you want to look it up, N.C. General Statute 51-1 establishes this. Another law, NCGS 51-1.2, formally states that, “marriages … between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.”
Now whether those laws are good or bad is a debatable issue, and many people have very different views on the topic. What’s nice about a democracy is that as we continue to shape our state, we can hammer out these issues. We can decide whether we want to:
The beauty of the system is that we can decide all these things and more, but we don’t have to decide right now. In the future, we may want to grant same-sex couples some form of legal recognition, maybe by creating a new legal relationship like a civil union or domestic partnership. Or we can choose not to. That’s up to us.
This amendment takes all that choice away. If it is passed, there is no room for debate. Because of the crucial word “only” in “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid in this State,” the amendment robs us of the chance to grant some protections to same-sex couples, to form new legally recognized relationships, or to do anything at all.
What’s even more concerning is a law that stops such an important discussion before it begins will be encoded in our Constitution, in our land’s very backbone. This is the same North Carolina constitution that reads:
“We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Those are words to be set in stone, to build the foundation of your house on.While Amendment One may seem harmless, it interrupts a debate before we have even had a chance to think. It is unnecessary, it is harmful and it’s not appropriate to include in North Carolina’s Constitution. I hope that on May 8 we can all continue the conversation. I hope that we can all look around and smile, filled with pride to live in “the blest land, the best land, the Old North State.”
Hayleigh Stewart
UNC School of Law
Online Poll:
Do you think fracking can be done safely?
29 comments
Even if we defeat this bill, we live in a state that treats gay citizens as second-class citizens. Our Constitution prohibits non-religious citizens from attaining office (although this can’t legally be enforced). Our legislature is busy slashing education budgets, gerrymandering, and disenfranchising minorities. I think we have a lot of work to do before we claim that our state sets itself apart in terms of justice and political progress.
For FOR Amendment 1; We are all created equal; all men cant married men; all women cant marry women…aha, it is so simple to castigate law students. By the way, the Constitution says nothing about marriage, and neither do you.
I will vote for Amendment 1.
@eatemnsmile: What, aside from your own bigotry and hatred for gay people and their rights, is compelling you to vote for Amendment 1? It’s a hateful piece of legislation that will be used to enforce conservative Christian ideals while marginalizing a large group of people – gays and straights alike (yea… heterosexual domestic partnerships are also now unrecognized under this amendment). I’ve yet to hear one solid argument that’s 1: not born out of hatred, fear, or bigotry of/toward homosexuals or 2: not rooted in faith.
I for the life of me am not religious one iota, and I am fed up of the slurs you lbs use when I don’t agree with your views. I have many gay friends, I am strongly in favor for gays in the military. But, I am for strengthening marriage between man and woman only, as well as penalties for divorce, and quick marriage ie: Kim Kardashian. Like in every institution, there are problems, yet marriage between man and woman should stay as is.
Again, the rules DO NOT discriminate: Men cant marry men; Woman cant marry woman.
Personally, I think male to male attractions is perverted and gross. I vote for Amendment One merely to spite people like you. Read this carefully again, before you call me a bigot.
But that IS bigoted and discriminatory. There is no reason that marriage CAN’T be between two people of the same gender. It has absolutely no effect on you. The only “rules” are the ones that we created. We also created rules that only married women were allowed access to birth control and that black people were only 60% of a person, and we changed those rules. Why can’t this one be changed as well? What two people do in their bedroom has no effect on anyone but those two people, so long as the act is consensual and between two adults.
And personally, I think discrimination is perverted and gross. I’m voting against Amendment One to protect the basic human rights of ALL people, not just the ones who live a lifestyle of which I approve.
I gave you the reason why it is not discrim. No more repeating myself…..You are right..I dont care what they do in their own house. That is why anal sex should also no longer be considered a crime.
As a society,which I am a part of, I believe there are traditions and values we must uphold, and that especially goes for marriage -Man and Woman. simple. I have no problem with gays in military; no problem voting for a gay president, however, I wish the gays would finally shut up about their gay pride, it gets annoying. I dont go around shouting heterosexual pride and such. This in your face attitude in America pisses me off.
…and frankly speaking as a non christian, Christianity is getting a pounding by the Left, while Islam remains unscathed. You should see the slaughter of Christians just for being Christian, that is going on in places like Iran and the Sudan. Its shocking!!
ON this Amendment, I am with the Right for sure. Here come the slurs again………
@eat em: you’re missing the larger point of this argument. Under this amendment, the man/woman couple that has been together 40 years, but unmarried, could be legally denied partner benefits. You claim to not be religious but you seem intent to compel everyone to observe the religious aspects of ‘marriage’.
@HammerTime: I’m with you on this Amendment issue, but your liberal hypocrisy shines through here. You cant ask people to be tolerant of gays while you are so intolerant of Christian ideas. Show me a major religion that advocates same sex marriage..its not just your hate-filled conservative Christians.
@JRR: You’re right. It’s not just Christians who advocate against same-sex marriage; however, it is Christians in the General Assembly who are pushing forth their agenda. There are a growing number of non-denominational Christian churches who are taking a closer look at the Bible and discovering that, just maybe, it doesn’t advocate against same-sex relationships at all. The Old Testament does have numerous references to same-sex relationships and their abomination. However, most Christians (myself included) believe that the law laid down in the Old Testament was eradicated by Jesus’ coming to earth and sacrifice for all our sins. In the New Testament, there are also references to the sins of homosexuality. Those books in which those references appear were written by Paul, a man who was imprisoned by Romans for decades. It has been recorded that, in these prisons, a large majority of prisoners were subjected to forced sexual acts. All of the prisoners that Paul would have encountered would also have been male. It’s no surprise that, after decades of rape and unwelcome sodomy, a man would begin to believe that these acts are in direct conflict with God’s law and desire for His people.
Like I said earlier, I AM a Christian. I believe that Jesus, God in man, came to earth to wash away our sins. I also believe that we should live as Christ lived. I believe that we should love all people, regardless of their life choices or how they were born. I don’t believe that Christ would advocate for the passing of Amendment One. I believe that Christ and God believe that love is love, regardless of who it’s between.
@eatemnsmile: Actually, you gave us no reason why the law isn’t discriminatory. Stating that the rules are not discriminatory is not enough. You need to explain how these rules are not discriminatory because many people disagree with that position.
You understand that customs and practices, values and traditions, naturally evolve in societies? Additionally, you realize that even if the Constitution does not directly speak to marriage that laws such as these effectively do? It’s not a hard concept to grasp.
Further, you need to reconcile why you’re okay with gays having rights and freedoms (e.g., serving in the military) except for the right to marriage. If you’re not religious, what is it about marriage in your mind that requires only male/female coupling? Further, why is it okay for you to tell other people how to live their lives regarding an issue that does not affect you at all?
Finally, if you’re tired of people slamming religious institutions, don’t employ the same idiotic sweeping generalizations yourself. People who support gay marriages are not just ‘liberals’ – I know many conservatives who support gay rights, as well.
Perhaps I’m expecting too much of you but it would be great if you actually answered the questions and supported your beliefs with a substantive reply. Otherwise you’ll come off as nothing but a bigot.
It’s a sad day when people such as yourself think it’s alright to vote to limit basic rights simply to spite other people. Perhaps one day we can vote to limit your rights since many of us don’t agree with your lack of tolerance and seemingly petty motivations.
Let people live their own lives how they choose – it’s not that hard.
@JRR: You’re right – it’s not all and/or just Christians who reject gay marriage. But you have to consider who are the most vocal dissenters of gay rights and how the faith is being represented on a national scale in the context of these topics.
A prime example is the GOP and its nominee candidates. When you have an individual such as Rick Santorum who speaks of presiding an immensely diverse nation based on the ‘Rules of God’ and turns to ‘scripture’ to support his shockingly bigoted views, people begin to associate Christianity in general with ant-gay views, whether right or wrong.
Further, as HammerTime pointed out, who are the people introducing and supporting this legislation all over the country? Almost exclusively Christian politicians who cite the Bible for their reasoning. (Of couse I realize they don’t represent all Christians but I think we all understand the point.) Absolutely you have men and women of different faiths (or no faith at all) also rejecting gay rights but they do not make up a large portion of the ‘face’ of that movement.
Finally, there is something to be said for tolerance versus discrimination. It’s not hypocritical to expect tolerance of your views while not tolerating another party’s views if you’re lacking tolerance in the face of active discrimination. Speaking generally here, no one in support of gay rights is actively seeking to LIMIT Christians’ lives – they are trying to prevent Christians from telling others how to live based on their beliefs. There is hugely important distinction in that. I don’t have to tolerate something if it infringes on my life. Respectful tolerance and imposing beliefs are two completely different things here – gays and their supporters simply want their rights protected and untouched, the anti-gay movement wants to tell other people how to live, to actively change what people can and cannot do. The legalization of gay marriage will not change how those who do not support it live their lives.
Once again, for the denying or the daft, I repeat: It does not discriminate: All men, and all women are not allowed to marry each other. OK?Good.
Marriage is an ancient tradition:man marries woman, have children, expand family -normal. A tradition I believe in, and one that should not be tampered with.
I have gay friends; I have always advocated gays in military; I would vote for an openly gay president.
I am, a non-religious, Independent voter, that is why you two party weasels are dying for my vote.
Although, I am not religious, my beliefs come across as religious based. There is nothing wrong with that. I simply believe marriage is to be preserved for man and woman only. If not, then what’s next; marriage between humans and animals?
If God had meant for men to marry men, men would have the means to get pregnant. Thankfully, they dont. I takes a man and woman.I, am out of this discussion for good.Lets move on.
@eatemnsmile: No. Not OK. Not good. You still lack the ability to EXPLAIN why this is “the rule.” Your only argument is “it’s not discriminatory because I say so.”
What about women who cannot get pregnant? Or men who cannot impregnate a woman? Do they not deserve to be married? If your argument is based in the value of procreation, then all people who choose not to or are physically unable to have children should also be denied marriage.
And you’re seriously going to use a slippery slope argument here? Really? Two adult men who are capable of making their own decisions and capable of understanding the weight of those decisions are NOT the same as an animal which cannot consent to marriage. Do you really not understand that? Can you legitimately not see how a homosexual man is different from a goldfish?
I understand what eatemnsmile is saying insofar that Amendment One isn’t discriminatory by virtue of it equally denying rights to all people because he draws his line along gender, i.e. all men are equally not allowed to marry other men and all women are equally not allowed to marry other women. Amendment One doesn’t say only women can marry other women, but men can’t marry men, or only white men and women can marry white men and women. I explain this all only to clarify eatemnsmile’s stance, but by no means agree with it as his explanation does not consider “homosexual” and “heterosexual” as separate classes, which stands as the basis for what opposition to Amendment One consider to be the case for discrimination (I agree with that basis).
Regardless of any of that though, I am more interested to hear the reasoning behind wanting to ban homosexual couples from receiving the same legal benefits as other couples. Marriage, under the law, is just a contract between two consenting adults. Nothing more. Outside of the law, yes, it’s an ancient and sacred tradition that carries immense sentimental value, and anyone’s more than welcome to not want that aspect of marriage to be tampered with. I couldn’t agree more. Hence, I appreciate eatemnsmile’s consistency of logic in that he sees not only homosexual marriages as a threat to the sentimental notion of marriage, but also 72-day marriages (see Kim Kardashian) and the like. And, if that’s his personal moral code, whether it comes from religion or just his particular life view, then so be it. I don’t really care.
However, I don’t see what that sense of austerity for marriage has anything to do with saying that a gay man can’t have his partner of ten years on his insurance plan, while a straight man can have his partner of ten minutes on his insurance plan tomorrow. I want that answer. I want to hear the legal justification, the real harm that makes it necessary to say that not only can homosexuals never be allowed to enter into a legal contract that bestows upon the same legal benefits for being together as heterosexual couples, but also that we can never even talk about extending some rights and privileges to gay partners that we give to heterosexual couples. What harm comes to society comes from giving gay partners a tax break like married couples? What harm comes to society from giving gay partners hospital rights like married couples? Along these lines, I think compromise exists in this issue as we don’t have to necessarily make gay marriage “legal” (thus reserving the title of “married” for straight couples) in order to still extend all of the legal benefits and privileges associated with being married (which is all the gay people want in the first place). This Amendment removes all possibility for compromise.
Finally, I would also like to know why one would want an ancient and austere tradition such as marriage to even be under the purview of our democratic government. By its very nature, our government must scrutinize and question the rationale of any and all aspects of any given thing that it manages. I ask eatemnsmile whether he thinks the government should be involved in the regulation of marriage at all if the government has within its power, a power that could be exercised, to redefine or reshape the idea and regulation of marriage. In other words, why not remove marriage from government altogether if you don’t want this tradition to be held up to the scrutiny of others?
I’d like to bring this discussion back to the law, as this editorial did, rather than focusing on other things.
@eatemnsmile: In response to your argument that there is no discrimination in this law because men cannot marry other men and women cannot marry other women, Justice Scalia made a similar argument in Lawrence v. Texas, which is also why I find your reference to sodomy in a later post so interesting. Justice Scalia wrote an opinion for only himself and two other justices. His argument didn’t win. In Lawrence, his argument was that men can’t perform sodomy on other men just as women can’t perform sodomy on other women. Lawrence was the case that essentially made states decriminalize sodomy because it was found to violate due process, so it’s interesting that you put forth an argument that failed in Lawrence but agree that sodomy should no longer be criminalized.
Further, in the same vein as your argument that this is not discrimination since it applies equally to men and women, others have added to that argument that a man still has the right to marry a woman. But the Supreme Court of Iowa, though in no way controlling over NC, rejected that argument, finding that even if a homosexual man still has a right to marry a woman, that’s really no right at all when the person to whom you really want to make a public commitment that society recognizes as something valuable, i.e, marry, is a man.
Eatemensmile’s argument has got to be the weakest argument against gay marriage ever. You can’t be secular and protect marriage, because marriage in itself is a religious institution. The reason it shouldn’t be so narrowly defined is because it pits the majority against the rights of a minority based upon a few branches of the tree of religion. Some religions don’t allow women to be pastors. Should we make that a constitutional amendment?
The reason you are a bigot “eatemensmile” is because you are limiting the definition of someone’s identity based upon your narrow definition (“friends”) that does nothing to legally protect the interests of those friends, namely the things listed in the letter above. You are a controlling person who is using the power of the vote as an extension of your immaturity. It’s a shame that people would act ouf of such hatred for others.
To the letter writer above, I will say that a constitutional amendment won’t be the end all of gay marriage. It will just be an embarrassment to the state when we all have to slog back to the polls to vote it out after the courts strike down these discriminatory laws.
@law&order Excellent summation of why this amendment is discrimination.
The definition of marriage has changed over time. For centuries, marriage was more about property rights than love. Only more recently do we view marriage as the act of publicly committing to the one you love. Herein lies the discrimination with Amendment One. If we are to treat each other equally, then we must accept that some men love women, some women love men, some men love men and some women love women. To deny them the right to publicly say, “I love this person and will stand by them ‘til death do us part!” can only be described as discrimination.
In America, we have two sides: Man and Woman. This process helps establish a proper way of raising children(though it is not a perfect system) The child has the genes of a male, and a female (the child acquires both masculine and feminine traits).
From this process, grows the family and grows a nation to hopefully, prosper.
Homosexuality does nothing at all to further the instution of marriage, thus, should not be allowed.
Some traditions are worth fighting for. As I said so many times before, I have nothing against gays, I just find their tastes in sex to be, shall we say, unnatural.
IF being against gay marriage is discriminatory, then I am discriminating, and frankly, I do not care. We have laws based on discretion and discrimination, and the law of marriage should be upheld in a discriminatory way.
@eatemnsmile: So again, if the institution of marriage is intended only for the sake of procreation, should we bar infertile individuals from marrying? They are also doing nothing to “further the institution of marriage.”
And again, there are hundreds of traditions that were once a part of our legislature. Inter-racial marriage, for example, used to be considered “unnatural” and was illegal in the state of NC. Do you believe that we should reinstate that law as well? What’s wrong with change? It doesn’t affect you at all. If you find gay marriage that repulsive, then don’t have one.
Inter racial marriage is not an issue at all, and never should have been. I was raised and brought up to color blind, and I can say without a doubt that I am.
Yes, the marriage is one of love, although it main purpose is to foster a family for generations to come.
Think: This world could not survive if only men exisited and loved each other. Alternatively, the same goes for women.
When change is productive, I am all for it; when it is counter “reproductive” I am not.
I also believe that your house is your island; you can do what you want, and Sodomy should not be crime, it never should have been a crime, but we do have these archaic laws. Marriage between man and woman is sacred.
@HammerTime, are you serious, or just kidding? Are you truly reaching so far to support your resoundingly wrong “interpretation” of the Bible that you’re saying that Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality as sinful was born out of his frustration over supposedly being raped in prison? Please, enlighten me on the dynamics of prison in ancient Roman territory. You truly feel that that’s a reasonable jump to make?
The level to which theological liberals will tear the Scripture to pieces in order to pigeonhole their mangled concept of religion into their political modus operandi is not just incredible, but also fundamentally anti-Christian. Why even profess a belief in the Bible as the word of God, and, by extension, in Christianity itself, if you’re just going to arbitrarily invent reasons that attempt to reject the legitimacy of clear Scriptural teachings?
@Mystic, agreed. There’s no reason to bar gay couples from receiving benefits such as discounted healthcare. That’s legal discrimination. Barring gay marriages is not, because there’s no such thing as a gay marriage. It’s an institution that has, since its inception, been fundamentally exclusive to the union of a man and a woman. It’s not some outcropping of the modern Western thought that led to the exclusivity of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman; it’s been that way since its inception; rather, it’s the very definition of the word. Have civil unions; that’s fine. Marriage, however, is simply a different institution entirely. It doesn’t apply.
@breal: I’m saying that it’s a discussion that’s being had amongst religious scholars as we speak. The New Testament is a 2-thousand-year-old book that was written by man. Inspired by God, but interpreted by man. And then it went through innumerable translations before it finally reached us in English. I think it’s incredibly short-sighted to take it literally, and I disagree that searching for alternative interpretations and translations of its Word is not anti-Christian. The God that I believe in doesn’t want me to blindly follow Him. I don’t believe that my God is disheartened and disappointed by my questioning and search for answers. I don’t believe that a Christian God hates anyone, including homosexuals, and I don’t believe that He would be encouraging of hate-inspired legislation like Amendment One. Also, how dare you try and trivialize my relationship with God? I’d say that’s pretty anti-Christian.
I also don’t believe that the “compromise” of just not calling it marriage for gay couples is an acceptable one. I would, however, be 100% fine with the state calling all marriages “civil unions” and then couples are deemed married in the eyes of their church. That would be fair and equal. Allowing some people to have a civil union and other a marriage in the eyes of the government is still discrimination. Call them all civil unions and give everyone the same rights.
No way! We will not degrade the tradition of marriage by stooping to equate it with civil unions just to appease the gays. Forget it.
If gay couples do not want to respect this tradition, then I say, tough luck. Don’t like it – leave – find a country that is willing to say marriage is equally recognized for all relationships.
What a great debate on semantics. That’s all it is, and that’s why the gays are making such a big damned deal over this instead of respecting some our of most cherished traditions.
PS: The abnormal family of 2 mothers and/or 2 fathers would lead to absolute chaos for future generations. Our society has enough problems with values, respect and tradition without adding another feature to freak show we call society.
….but, eatemnsmile, you’re the one making this debate about semantics and not the meat and potatoes here. Gays don’t care about the title of marriage; they want the legal privileges and benefits that come with legally recognized marriages. That’s why it can be called a civil union or super best friendship for all they or anyone else cares. And, Amendment One would make the ability of gay partners to ever receive these legal privileges and benefits in spite of having relationships of similar, but not equal, status to married heterosexual couples. In other words, if you want to stop making this argument about semantics, then explain the harm to society, not the harm to the tradition of marriage, in giving long-term gay partners the same tax benefits and hospital rights as married couples. This amendment bans even compromises such as these that would still not call for the institution of “gay marriage” but would still give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to the people they love.
Join the discussion
You Should Know
The Daily Tar Heel reserves the right to remove any comment deemed racially derogatory, inflammatory, or spammatory. Repeat offenders may have their IP address banned from posting future comments. Please be nice.
If this is the first time you've commented, your comment won't appear until you've verified your email address.
Formatting Options:
- Links: "my link":http://my.url.com
- Bold: *something!*
- Italic: _OMG!_
Serving UNC students and the community since 1893
© 2012 DTH Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
Flag this comment