I prefer to make voting decisions based on facts, not emotions, and I'm currently deciding how to vote on the so-called 'marriage amendment,' which will be on North Carolina's primary ballot next Tuesday, May 8. The proposed amendment to the state's constitution reads as follows: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." Backers of the amendment cite a desire to make sure this definition is determined by a majority of voters, with immunity to reversal by a judge or judges. Opponents dismiss the concern, and allege that the motivation is simply anti-gay bias.
For many people there is no hesitation on how to vote. Either their faith and religious convictions motivate them to vote for, or their conviction that the amendment constitutes discrimination motivates them to vote against. Others, and I include myself here, are less passionate and are weighing intent, concerns about possible legal confusion down the road when disputes end up in court, vague wording, possible unknown consequences, etc.
For the record, I don't have any problem with gay marriage, in itself. But there has been a host of unanticipated consequences in the states where it exists--most notably public school education that clearly crosses the line from promoting tolerance to indoctrinating approval--and parents have no right to opt out of this if they wish to keep their kids in public school, no matter how much it conflicts with their most deeply held convictions. To endorse or promote gay marriage without at least considering the possible ramifications is unwise, I think.
And I guess where I differ with a lot of the amendment's opponents is that I don't dismiss those who are against it as 'haters' and 'bigots.' Polls routinely show that support for civil unions, for example, continues to rise among those who object to gay marriage, and while all some people may see in this is evidence of discrimination, it clearly doesn't indicate 'hate,' or a desire to leave people in gay relationships without any legal protections or status.
The religious objection to gay marriage is a discussion that almost always goes nowhere, because if someone else doesn't share the same foundation or worldview, it's never going to be a view that makes sense to them. In most cases they don't truly respect the conviction because they believe it's without any logical underpinnings, so they suspect it's just a smokescreen for bigotry and ignorance. The fascinating thing in terms of how this turns out next Tuesday is that, often, that implication (of bigotry and hate) is subtly or not so subtly coupled with hints that it is to be found in the 'right wing,' among 'conservative Christians' and 'Republicans,' with the subtext being that those groups are probably racial bigots as well.
But blacks--almost all of whom are Democrats--tend to be religious conservatives who are not in favor of gay marriage. Black pastors are solidly against the amendment and it is noteworthy that while the NAACP, in a difficult political position, has come out against the amendment, they caution explicitly that their opposition should not be interpreted as a position on gay marriage.
I have been leaning towards an 'against' vote for the reasons mentioned above and a number of others, but now am tempted to just abstain because of how turned off I am by the campaign of distortion being waged by the amendment's opponents. Here are two examples of 'facts' they are disseminating:
"This amendment would take away domestic violence protections for all unmarried people..." Please see the link below (you may need to cut and paste) for an unequivocal statement by a dozen or more prosecutors/judges/law enforcement personnel across the state--some of whom do not support the amendment but would like to set the record straight--to the effect that this allegation is 'utterly false.'
http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Domestic-Violence-Statement-5.1.12.pdf
Another 'fact' being put out there by opponents is this: "The amendment would automatically strip health benefits from unmarried people who receive coverage through their partners..' when the truth is that _no one_ who receives these benefits from companies that provide them will be affected. The state already doesn't provide benefits to unmarried couples, whatever their sex, so the only couples who may lose partner coverage are employees of one of the few municipalities--Chapel Hill is one--that provide these benefits. I am not saying this isn't of concern--it is--but to state that everyone with partner coverage will lose it is, quite simply, a blatant lie.
I haven't had time to investigate the other claims being made by opponents, but I really dislike being manipulated and since they are 0 for 2 so far, I'm not confident of their veracity. I am also deeply offended by some of the more absurd propaganda--such as the suggestion that abused women will be forced to consider marrying their abusers so they can have legal protection from them. Fearmongering is ugly and inexcusable no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.
So, I am sincerely interested in input from both sides, and I'm particularly interested in feedback from people who live in states where gay marriage is legal.
Thanks
If the amendment simply banned gay marriage, I'd have no problem voting for it. I'm not a big fan of re-inventing words to appease minority viewpoints. Unfortunately, the amendment goes too far in that it bans any future mechanism to insure that gay couples enjoy the same financial and probate rights as heterosexual couples. I know what the Bible says, but I also know what the Constitution says.
ReplyDeleteI have already voted no, and still resent the legislature pushing this amendment in ahead of one to permanently put Kelo v New London in check for North Carolina.
Rest assured, however, that Amendment 1 will pass.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletelook at this amendment the same way I'd look at any amendment. What GOOD is it going to do? I can't think of any good to come out of it at all. Heterosexual marriage will in no way be threatened. Also, the fears you cited are completely overblown. If two gay people want to spend their lives together how does that affect anyone else? With nothing either good or bad coming from this amendment, what is the point of it? The only conclusion I can come up with is that it's an anti-gay movement disguised as a "protection of marriage" act. I voted no because it's a "feel good" (for some) amendment and nothing more.
ReplyDelete@Ben, you ask, "If two gay people want to spend their lives together how does that affect anyone else?" with the implied answer 'not at all.' But, unfortunately, in states where gay marriage is legal now, that isn't the answer, and this goes to why some people oppose gay 'marriage' but support civil unions with full legal rights, etc. I didn't used to understand why the distinction. But when a gov't defines 'marriage' as any two persons, then some of those persons claim discrimination when they are not treated the same. Case in point is Catholic Charities adoption services. Recognized as probably the best in the business, they couldn't keep their funding unless they compromised their core principles and placed children with gay couples. We may think they are wrong or not, but the inescapable conclusion is that, to some degree at least, the freedom for gays to marry has resulted in the loss of freedom for others to operate in accordance with conscience and religious principle. This is what I meant when I said possible ramifications ought to at least be considered.
ReplyDeleteJust finally got to this. You bring up several valid and EXCELLENT points. I don't think my opinion is going to be of the utmost interest to you, as mine is in part; and probably the larger part, based on my religious beliefs. I have to agree with you on the aggravation that comes with the claims people are making in regard to these 'additional impacts' that just don't exist. I feel the same, I feel like as much as I support the amendment for its MAIN intention, these groups are out there trying to trick me into voting against it in consideration of these other issues that are concerning... however, they are not true. One of your points hits home with me, the impact in public schools in states where gay marriage is legal. I have children in/entering the school system, and that is a trend I do not find appealing. Honestly, my argument for being 'for' the amendment really doesn't hold any 'legal water' so to speak, as my reasoning is mostly religious, and now more so than ever our country is VERY big on the separation of church and state, sometimes to what I consider a devastating degree (changing the Pledge of Allegiance, really?). In my honest opinion, it seems when anything of this nature comes up (whether it be related to homosexuals, latino or black people, etc.) everyone just screams about civil rights violations and violating constitutional rights, etc, whether that's really an argument or not. And frankly, being a white, middle-class female who's married with kids, I'm kind of tired of being the one who seems to sacrifice everything almost constantly to ensure everyone else is satisfied. Needless to say, I did one-stop early voting, and you can probably tell which way I voted. There were electioneers where I went, shouting at me about domestic violence, etc. as I walked in with two of my children. I went through those doors feeling that although many wouldn't agree with my choice, I had the satisfaction of knowing I'd made an informed choice.
ReplyDeleteI found several points I don’t agree with. You seems to think that “civil unions” are OK for the “Gay Marriage Problem” what you do not know in the facts is that we are still treated differently under the laws. Our marriage is not recognized by the federal government and our state has forced us to file taxes as married, we paid more than double each to have our taxes done and we were not afforded to file electronically nor were we able to shift our deductions to benefit each other as “real married people” can. I also object to your stereo typing blacks to one opinion. Lastly you add the church in the mix with respect to adoption for gay couples, what happened to measuring a person by his or her character not the race or in this case sexual orientation (MLK standard).
DeleteAnonymous, thanks for reading and commenting.
DeleteAs for civil unions, my comment was simply that I now understand why some people support these but are against 'marriage,' a distinction I never really could make sense of before. Not saying it's the ideal solution to any gay marriage 'problem.'
It was certainly not my intent to stereotype blacks or say they all had the same opinion on this. I was just stating what is a fact--that a significant majority of black NC voters are in favor of defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. That's not my opinion--all the polling shows it, and the last I saw, blacks supported the amendment by a margin of 2 to 1.
The point about the Church and adoption was not to disparage gay parents. It was simply to point out that in states where gay marriage is legal, there has been a resulting decrease in the ability of faith-based institutions to carry out their missions without compromising core principles.
Regarding your comments on taxes, I'm a little confused. You appear to live in a state where you are legally married? I can't imagine why your relationship status has anything to do with being able to file electronically or how much you had to pay to get them done?
The easiest way to throw water on this firestorm is to get the government OUT of the marriage game. Let the governmnet issue "Domestic Partnerships" only. Male-female. male-male. female-female. Every couple gets the same rights and privileges under law.
ReplyDeleteThen, you go see your priest, rabbi, minister or imam to get "married." It should be up to him to throw you out and explain that you can't get married and you're going to hell. Of course, there are several churches right here in Wilmington where the Bible is secondary to political correctness and keeping the collection basket full, so you'll find someone to marry you.
Marriage is a fine institution. I sure hope you boys and girls enjoy being institutionalized!
The only thing wrong with your solution, Olson, is that it doesn't solve the so-called 'discrimination' problem. If government grants everyone equal status (something with which I would be fine--I agree that the religious aspect of marriage is a separate thing) you still have the Church being hounded out of the adoption business if they refuse to place children with same sex couples. You still have children who are being re-educated in public schools to view homosexuality a certain way that is in direct conflict with their parents' religious convictions, and parents have to suck it up and accept it or pay for private schools. How does that get solved?
ReplyDeleteYou DON'T solve it. Religion and the government are two separate issues. If a religious adoption agency refuses to place children with gay couple THAT IS THEIR DECISION AND THEIR RIGHT. They are a private entity and the governmnet cannot control them. Go find a gay-friendly adoption agency!
DeleteThere are MANY issues that kids are taught in public schools that parents have to suck up or use parochial schools, evolution being just one. Once again, there is the secular world, there is the religious world. They have to co-exist but need not mesh.
Anyone who sends their kid to public school should be arrested for child abuse, anyway! I fear their Socialist indoctrination far more than I fear any mention of accepting gays.
I think the issue with Catholic Charities was monetary. They received needed funding from the government, and it would be cut off if they didn't comply, so they decided to close down.
ReplyDelete