The Marriage Amendment: The very vocal opposition - Take 2

We got a boatload of letters over the weekend against the Defense of Marriage Act. Find others on tomorrow's editorial page. Here are more than 20. The one letter in support is at the top.

Homosexuals have the same right to marriage that all of us have, to marry any eligible and willing member of the opposite sex. The perception that homosexuals promote, that they have a right to act as they do and to marry each other, is just that – a self-serving perception.

The writer who says that logic dictates we should not fight against those who want to show their love through marriage shows a woeful misunderstanding. The One who created you said this about homosexual behavior: It's not a good thing. See Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

One writer believes God gave us a mind so that we could make our own minds up. Interpretation:  Yes, God created me and gave me human intelligence but I (trumpet fanfare) decide what is right. Which is to say man's logic and wisdom are superior to that of the God who created the universe and all it contains. I don't think so.

The legislature should take the next step to solidify marriage for one man, one woman.

William Barnhill
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

If Tami Fitzgerald and her “NC Values Coalition” truly believe that marriage “attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, providing the best known and documented environment for the rearing of our next generation,” then they should be working for a constitutional amendment against divorce (Point of View, Sept. 9).

Divorce does not maintain the “natural process of producing and raising children within the safe, nurturing and successful incubator of marriage,” and yet the NC Values Coalition is not mounting a campaign to change the state constitution outlawing divorce. Why not? More tolerance, less hypocrisy, please.

Charlene Reiss
Durham

------------------

The General Assembly is preparing to debate the pros and cons of same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, many American churches are debating the pros and cons of same-sex marriage. How can this be? The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids government from imposing religious ideas. Our state constitution, in its religious liberty clause, declares, “human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.”
The document also says we, as citizens, owe  “paramount allegiance to the (federal) Constitution.”

So, with strict separation of church and state, how is it that the legislature and the churches are working on the same issue? Because the legislature  – egged on by certain misguided church leaders  – is meddling where it has no business.
Actually, to some extent it’s been there for a long time, thanks to vestiges of pre-constitutional days when church and state were not separate. The state licenses clergy members to perform weddings, for example. These days, it also licenses phony “ministers” for that purpose, making an inadvertent mockery of clerical legitimacy.

The correct response of the General Assembly to gay marriage would be to get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Rename the civil marriages now performed by magistrates  “civil unions” and make that a prerequisite for legal recognition of any domestic partnership. Leave the sacrament of marriage entirely to individual conscience and to the religious institutions where it began and has always belonged.

David DuBuisson
Beaufort

---------------------------------------------------------

The addition of an amendment to our state constitution limiting marriage to between one man and one woman would be a defining step backward for business in North Carolina. Our ability to attract and retain a quality workforce would suffer, which would in turn stunt our commitment to growth and opportunity for new and existing business.

Our current infrastructure already limits the benefits available to all domestic partners, regardless of their sexual identity. The passage of this amendment would further solidify such a fact, specifically as it pertains to commonly known benefits like health, life and workers compensation insurance.

As a proud independent insurance agent, I provide insurance programs to businesses throughout North Carolina with a particular concentration on new and emerging companies. This amendment would severely limit the types of products sold by insurance companies in our state and would make it even more difficult for couples to claim many of legal benefits enjoyed by my wife and me. Ours is a company that relies not only on our own growth but also on the growth of others. All this amendment will do is give just one more reason for emerging companies to choose a different state to grow in.

Discrimination, in any form, has no place is common public discourse. Our government has no business defining who it is its citizens are allowed to love. Furthermore, with no existential proof of any detriment to children or society as a whole, this archaic fight does nothing but shed a foul light on an otherwise great state.

Brian Fitzsimmons
Raleigh

-------------------------

After electing Barack Obama, North Carolina is regressing to its comfort zone: bigotry and hate. Not all citizens, of course. And possibly not nearly a majority. But, abysmally, dozens of state legislators are re-animating the ghost of Jesse Helms with the favored elixir of conservatives: hysteria about gay marriage.

Press conferences have been mounted, nauseating rhetoric has been shouted, facts have been ignored. Ignorance has been promoted as virtue. It’s tempting to trust the people to honor the Bill of Rights’ protections of the minority from the majority. This means rejecting any attempts at discrimination through the popular vote. But we know the true purpose of these current hate bills: to drive turnout in 2012 for a conservative national landslide. We’ve seen this happen.

I’ve called my representatives, and I want to trust the citizens to loudly reject these promoters of regression and theocracy.

Jimmy Holcomb
Efland

------------------------------
Tami Fitzgerald is simply wrong when she writes in her Sept. 9 Point of View that the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage will not prevent businesses from offering benefits to same-sex couples. The proposed amendment reads “Marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

In plain English it states that anyone – the state, a court, a business, or an individual – may not legally recognize a same-sex union in North Carolina. If an employment contract that included benefits for a domestic partner were challenged in court, a judge could deny those benefits since the domestic partnership would not be legally recognized under contract law.

This amendment is a step backward for families across North Carolina. Any fair-minded legislator should vote against it.

Doug Merrill
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

I found Tami Fitzgerald’s Sept. 9 Point of View arguing that anti-gay marriage laws are economically beneficial to be potentially misleading. First, she argues that the high business friendliness rankings and robust economies in anti-gay marriage states are because marriage produces future workers who are balanced, stable and healthy. I would argue a more likely conclusion: policies of low tax rates and light regulation are business friendly, and these policies are more likely to be supported in conservative states. These conservative states are more likely to have anti-gay marriage laws.

The column also cited a Human Rights Campaign (HRC) report rating workplace equality of Fortune 500 companies, noting that none of the companies in newly gay-marriage friendly Iowa were given a 100 percent ranking while some anti-gay marriage states had a large proportion of companies with 100 percent rankings.

First, as with all of her analyses from this source, state enters the dataset as the location of company headquarters. Most Fortune 500 companies exist in many states, thus it is not valid to consider state as a cause of business (in)equality. Also, most Fortune 500 companies are likely to have been established and set corporate policy toward equality in advance of anti-gay marriage laws, which tend to be relatively recent. Second, Iowa had a DOMA until 2009; this would imply a rapid decline in equality in businesses, not terribly likely. Third, using a criteria of 100 percent is subjective; why not use a criteria of greater than 90 percent or 95 percent? Maybe because of my final point; a quick investigation of the dataset shows that only three Fortune 500 companies in the report are headquartered in Iowa, two of which had 95 percent equality ratings.

‘Im sure a good argument could be formulated defending an anti-gay marriage amendment. I find that the given empirical evidence supporting the economic benefits of an anti-gay marriage amendment is misleading.

Matthew Krachey, Ph.D.
Raleigh

--------------------------

Those legislators bent on a marriage amendment to the NC constitution cannot seem to rise above the swamp teeming with hordes of righteous ideologues, religious fundamentalists and now tea party hard-liners who would clutter and obstruct the democratic process to advance a narrow agenda that has nothing to do with government.

One of the first things I learned while coming of age many decades ago is that “you can't legislate morality.” Another is the need for separation of church and state. These people are wrangling over semantics. As one who has been married to the same woman for 56 years, I obviously believe in marriage and rejoice in it. In my faith, marriage has always been considered a sacrament, but whether or not you hold that view, let marriage be a matter for the church; everyone else can go to the justice of the peace or the captain of the ship and embark on a civil
union.

And for those arguing about the superiority of the traditional family, maybe so, but with half of the marriages between man and woman ending in divorce, it doesn't carry much weight.

Please, you legislators, remember that you were elected to be public servants. Please, stop wasting valuable time and taxpayer money on a fools errand, and do something constructive

Evan K. Miller
Sanford

---------------------------------
The current attempt to add an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage violates the true values on which this county was created. Such an amendment (and current North Carolina law defining marriage a between one man and one woman) abrogates commitment to  “equal protection” and certainly to the notion of “liberty and justice for all” by defining these fundamental concepts not as rights but as privileges for the majority at the expense of a minority.

I commend the women and men of faith who, in their open letter to the legislature, have spoken out against this proposed violation of human rights and wish to add my name to theirs in challenging our legislators to turn away from bigotry and truly embrace justice.
 

Susan Osborne
Raleigh

---------------------------
Forty years ago, I was working to put the man I love through graduate school. Now my son’s life partner is working to put the man he loves through graduate school. They have been together since their early 20s and have owned a house together for 10 years.

Why should the law treat their commitment differently from the commitment of my husband and me?

Marriage equality will neither prevent one straight couple from marrying nor cause one straight couple to divorce.

All our state legislators have pledged allegiance to a nation “with liberty and justice for all.” How many are willing to break that pledge with a vote against equality?

Janet Palmquist
Raleigh

------------------------
Sir, In all the discussions by those who favor same-sex marriage, I find one thing noticeably missing. i.e., their definition of marriage.

The opponents of same-sex marriage have clearly define it as a union between a man and woman. I ask, “How do the supporters of same-sex marriage define the term?” Probably many would define it as a union between two committed persons regardless of sex; however, such a definition leads to a plethora of problems.

I cite an example in my own family. My widowed mother and her single sister lived together in a totally committed relationship for many years. Should a marriage relationship be available to them? After all, they fit the above definition. And should similar couples be accorded the legal and economic benefits of marriage? Or how about a father and son living together and committed to each other?

Before supporting same-sex marriage, we need a  clear definition of marriage and what it includes and does not include. Such definition is definitely missing.

Ralph M. Perhac, Ph.D.
Raleigh

---------------------------

We are the grandchildren of the N.C legislators who voted for the anti-gay amendment to the N.C. Constitution back in 2011. We knew this day would come, the day when we had to publically apologize for the prejudices of our grandparents. Their prejudice is now viewed as unseemly as those who opposed mixed race marriages a generation earlier, but before you judge, you need to understand the environment our grandparents lived in.

Times were tough, the middle class was struggling and desperately needed someone to blame. As they would later share with us, this wasn’t about right and wrong; they knew it was wrong, it was about getting out the conservative base in an election year – the gays were just collateral damage.

It was a matter of courage, too, for as was said about one of the presidential contenders that year, it takes balls to execute an innocent man. Likewise, it took courage to enact the only amendment to the N.C. Constitution that restricted someone’s rights who was not a criminal.
Please don’t judge them too harshly – they tried their very best to represent all their constituents, both the first class and the second class citizens equally.

Leo Sadovy
Wake Forest

--------------------------------------------------------

How nice that Law Professor Lynn Buzzard advocates limiting the rights of gay and lesbian American adults from enjoying the same marital benefits as the rest of us (“Backing oligarchy,” Sept. 7 letter). I was under the impression that "they" were tax-paying American citizens, are they not?

Funny, my law professors argued in favor of civil rights, not against them! I would ask the good professor why these Americans are unworthy of the equality our Constitution seeks to bestow on our citizens? How does their marriage threaten any of us? Really!

And, even more ironic, are the three black pastors who, having gained equality under the law themselves, now seek to deny equality to others (Sept. 7 news story). Based on what? The Old Testament? It was that same Old Testament that supported the institution of slavery, as well as hooded Klansmen, good “Christians” all, in their lengthy campaign against these good pastors’ ancestors. I suspect these pastors slept through their classes where “love thy neighbor” was taught. Didn’t Jesus espouse something about “Do unto others...” as well?

Then there are the House Republicans who, with these black pastors, now want to amend the state's constitution to prevent adult citizens of this state from marrying the people of their choice. Funny, I though the constitution bestowed rights rather than took them away! A pity!!

Phil Seymour
River Bend

---------------------------

I was happy to read that the Republicans are concentrating on the most important things. With our unemployment rate over 10 percent, with our schools in disarray and lacking in money and teachers, with a college system that is broken, the Republicans in the state Senate and House are concentrating on what really matters to most people: an amendment to the constitution barring gay and lesbian marriage.

I can't see where that is going to help someone who is out of work, teachers who have to buy their own supplies or the many other problems lurking in the background. I guess it shows progress in the Republican party as N.C. Republicans are voting for something, anything, as opposed to their counterparts in the federal congress who just vote no on everything and anything while blaming Obama for not getting anything accomplished.

Michael Sherman
Nashville, N.C.

---------------------------

What an incredible bunch of hypocrites we are! We openly encourage diversity of all kinds in our schools and workplaces while simultaneously arguing for a constitutional amendment that blatantly reaffirms our disdain for a significant segment of our population. We carp that same-sex marriage will do irreparable harm to future offspring, yet no one has shown a shred of evidence that gay relationships, apparently running "rampant" in the state as you read this, are doing the least bit of damage to the current crop of kids.

In fact, they seem all that much better off in today's inclusive environment – a constitutional amendment won't do a thing to alter that. We go on to cluck that businesses in North Carolina already have an equality rating that compares favorably with other states, so what's the problem?

Finally, there's no evidence that failure to pass this amendment will "radically alter" the marital landscape - current law precludes that. And since when does the status of things in Texas and Iowa have anything to do with what we want or think or do in North Carolina? Texans don't give a damn about what we think, if their governor is to be believed!

Mike Strohmeyer
Raleigh

------------------------------

In the interest of truly protecting the sanctity of marriage, I encourage a constitutional amendment to ban divorce.
Craig Johnson
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

As a native of North Carolina, I strongly oppose HB 777/SB 106.

My father was a member of the N.C. General Assembly for 24 years. As a teenager, I served as a page, and I have always followed N.C politics closely, even when living out of state. To date, this is the most alarming legislation I have ever seen arise here in NC.

HB 777 and SB 106 send the worst possible message to the marketplace. They reinforce our state's sadly bigoted, narrow-minded, racist and homophobic past – a past many have worked hard all their lives to make better for everyone. As I have traveled the world, I have had many opportunities to "boast" honestly about North Carolina’s great progress over the past century. Now that progressive legacy could be destroyed practically overnight.

If you think the rest of the world – and by that I mean the business world – isn't watching, think again. There's a sea change of desire for individual freedom and recognition of personal rights emerging with rising economies and generations reared on digital technology. At a time when we should be focused on doing everything in our power to attract and grow diversity, with this legislation we are doing just the opposite.

Diversity is the exponential multiplier of innovation. Ask the innovation experts. They all agree.

We here in NC have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to show the world that we are meaningfully unique in support of the rights of all responsible people to seek happiness as individuals free of state-based discrimination. The least we can do is not to interrupt or abridge that process and to retreat, like our neighboring states, to the imaginary safety of archaic, discriminatory and repressive laws.

These bills are a terrible idea.  Changing our state constitution to promote legalized discrimination will cost us heavily and erase the one great competitive advantage we have left: the freedom our citizens to be who they are and to contribute openly to the well-being of each of us.

Dan Lilley
Raleigh

---------------------------------

I am writing to express my outrage at the cowardice of North Carolina’s Republican state legislators. My 8-year-old son and I attended the Sept. 12 House committee meeting regarding The Defense of Marriage Act. The Republican leadership said the following:

1. There will be no public comment at this meeting. Public comment will be at the ballot box.

2. The amendment will be voted upon during the 2012 North Carolina primary, not during the general election.

What a cop-out – ram through a constitutional amendment with no public input and schedule it for citizen vote during the 2012 primary when lower voter turnout will allow the hateful, bigoted zealots to energetically turn out and easily pass this amendment.

I am a heterosexual female married to the love of my life and mother to an amazing 8-year-old boy. My son and I both wanted to speak at the committee meeting and urge the representatives to vote against the amendment in order to ensure that all North Carolinians have the same rights and that the Constitution remains sacred. Instead of being allowed to democratically express ourselves, we were silenced, and my son watched a show of perverted, condescending, hateful Republican bigotry.

How is that for a lesson in government?

Laura Combs
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

I have never voted Democrat before, but with the economic and social problems we face in North Carolina today, I am simply amazed at Republican efforts to amend our state constitution on gay marriage.  

Many of our state's residents are suffering economic hardship and thousands are without jobs.  This is not the time for ideological battles on gay marriage or campaigns for "Choose Life" license plates.  Regardless of whether we agree or disagree in these matters, these actions just divide us as residents of this great state.

The Republicans were recently voted in with a majority.  As we build up to the 2012 election, I'm looking to see what they do with it.  Right now, in this economic crisis, I'm afraid gay marriage amendments and new license plates just don't cut it.

Jake Maule, Ph.D.
Raleigh

----------------------

Defending marriage sounds good.  I suggest that a simple approach would be first to make divorce impossible, with no exceptions.

he second thing is to banish adultery and refuse to employ those who are divorced, or who have committed adultery. This would create a lot of jobs for the unemployed, since the exodus of many  present jobholders would provide new opportunities. Simple?

Yours for a great marriage!

Charles Owens
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

Hey, I had no idea Karl Rove was still so influential in North Carolina. As you remember, he and the Republican National Committee orchestrated a strategy of gay marriage ban initiatives in 11 states in the 2004 general election, which, of course, happened to be a presidential election year. The strategy was deliberately designed to lure social conservatives to the polls who had not voted in 2000, and of course it worked out brilliantly for President Bush. Until then, with the economic fallout from 9/11 and the war in Iraq going badly, Bushs re-election bid had been no certainty. All of this seems like a replay strategy for 2012.

Yet, before too long this particular strategy will have unintended consequences for Republicans. Basic demographics are not with them. The social conservative cohort is aging. Ask most anyone under 30 if they care about gay marriage. They really don’t.  

To borrow a phrase from communication scholar Shanto Iyengar, When candidates turn to wedge appeals, it is generally a tacit acknowledgment that they are losing the debate on generic issues. Please see this strategy for what it really is.

Cindy Elmore
Winterville

---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for printing the opinion by Gene Nichols ("Marriage laws and N.C."s justices," Sept.12). I had arrived at exactly the same conclusion.

With catastrophic conditions in the natural and economic environments in our state, our misguided legislators can think of nothing more constructive to do than  ensure that another group of citizens is deprived of their civil rights? As pointed out, unfortunately, there are already laws against gay marriage in this state and they do not need a multiplier. Who will these closeted bigots legislate against when they run out of people who are different from themselves?
 
As to their fear of "activist" judges, it appears to me that the current crop, rather than protecting the rights of individuals, is deeply committed to extending rights guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution to corporations. They are not alone, of course. Mitt Romney and the slate of would-be Republican presidential nominees also think corporations are people, too.

Sherry Emanuel
Raleigh

---------------------

Financial arguments for restricting civil liberties of a subset of society were a primary argument for slavery and should be recognized by now as not appropriate.  This inappropriate argument was the main premise of Tami Fitzgerald’s Sept. 9 column (“A plus for N.C. business”) arguing for an amendment to the NC constitution banning gay marriage.

Separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of this country’s legal system and method of governance.  Thus, religious arguments concerning restricting civil liberties of a subset of society are not legitimate.

Bigoted arguments concerning restricting civil liberties of a subset of society are also not legitimate.  For example, simply not liking (or worse) a subset of society is not a legitimate basis for an argument.

When I mix the Golden Rule with the above restrictions to the debate on an amendment to the NC constitution banning gay marriage, I conclude that there is no compelling combination of arguments for such a ban.  

If civil gay marriage is legalized, churches will still be free to establish their own policy on it.

Bob Cato
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------
Being that Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam supports a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage ought to be enough reason to oppose it.

Charlie Browne
Apex