Locals fight marriage act

Chapel Hill and Carrboro are planning challenges to a proposed constitutional recognition of the state’s Defense of Marriage Act statute, which, if passed, would revoke the towns’ landmark domestic partner benefits.

The act gives states the right to ignore same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and limits marriage rights to only heterosexual couples.

The Chapel Hill Town Council has put pressure on Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange, to voice opposition to the act and the amendment proposal that would constitutionally fix its ideas.

“(Chapel Hill wants) to make a statement. We, as a democracy, are working our way through a very big discussion,” Kinnaird said.

The town is submitting a legislative request that would recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.

Both towns submitted similar requests to last year’s General Assembly, which were denied early in the process.

This year might be no different.

“(It doesn’t) have a chance to pass,” Sen. James Forrester, R-Gaston, who introduced the amendment proposal, said of Chapel Hill’s request.

But Town Council member Mark Kleinschmidt said putting the town’s position on record is important.

Chapel Hill is an alluring area because of its inviting and tolerant atmosphere, and because of that, the act poses a threat to future progress and the town’s system of offering benefits to domestic partners of town employees, he said.

“The amendment is not just a small step back. It is actually going back in time,” Kleinschmidt said.

Carrboro is not submitting a legislative request to alter the act this year, but Mayor Mike Nelson said the town instead is focusing on the amendment proposal.

“I believe it is unconstitutional,” he said. He added that he thinks that proponents of the amendment have little chance of getting it passed by the General Assembly.

The amendment proposal might be less likely to pass this year because Democrats control both the state House and Senate.

Although actions to reverse portions of the act are expected to fail again this year, some advocates think persistent opposition is necessary to keep the issue alive.

Ed Farthing, executive director of development at the advocacy group Equality NC, said it is important to voice the opinions of constituents, even if their demands are not politically feasible.

“People’s attitudes can be changed. The longer the discussion endures, the more progress we can expect,” Farthing said, calling the amendment an act of desperation.

But proponents of the amendment, also known as the Defense of Marriage bill, argue that polls show support of the proposal.

Forrester said the act will not be changed because it has strong support in the General Assembly.

“I think it should go to the citizens to vote on it. Seventy percent of the constituency would approve,” Forrester said.

He said that 17 states constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman and that North Carolina should follow the trend.

“It is clearly a topic on hearts and minds of citizens, and it should be debated on the floor of the General Assembly,” said Sen. Fred Smith, R-Johnston, who is sponsoring the amendment proposal.

He said the amendment is not as extreme as opponents think. “It is exactly the law that is in place.”

 

Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu.