Amendment One

We have not written specifically about Amendment One on here. But with the impending vote on May 8th, and the fact that many members of our family have differing views than us and possibly even some friends, we feel we need to make this one appeal. You know us. You know what we are going through health wise. You know that we were married in Connecticut last year which makes this Amendment in our home state even more appalling to us. We feel that many people simply do not understand the far reaching implications if/when this passes. Many use their "faith" or the Bible as their justification. Below is just a sampling of recent articles and editorials from Ministers from a wide range of faiths and constitutional law attorneys & professors who give both legal and faith based opinions on why they are AGAINST Amendment One. If you find yourself in favor of the amendment or have not decided which way you will vote, please take some time to read the articles and truly inform yourselves.

Amendment One and an old American struggle
By Dr. H. Stephen Shoemaker
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/29/3205743/amendment-one-and-an-old-american.html

I might begin my opposition to Amendment One by saying that it is badly written law which will harm many individuals and families in unintended ways, be tied up in the courts for years and cause needless suffering and expense. I could say that it builds discrimination into the foundational legal document of our state. These things would be true.

But I write as a Baptist minister to defend something dear: the separation of church and state and religious liberty. Sometimes moral conflict is not between good and evil but between competing moral goods. You could frame this debate as between one moral good, the support of traditional marriage and family, and another moral good, the extending of dignity, rights and equal protection under the law to all people.

The question is which moral good should be encoded as the law of the land? And this is where the struggle in the “American Soul” comes in. It is a struggle over 300 years old. The Puritan ideal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was that America was “the New Israel,” that we were a “city set on a hill,” to use John Winthrop’s words. Therefore, the church and state should work hand-in-hand to set into law the religious and moral code of its people. It was a form of theocracy led by the religious and political leaders of the dominant religion of the land.
Read the full article by clicking on the link below the heading above.
Dr. H. Stephen Shoemaker is senior minister at Myers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte

WINSTON-SALEM CLERGY AGAINST AMENDMENT ONE
http://www.protectallncfamilies.org/news/winston-salem-clergy-against-amendment-one

As the May 8 primary date nears, North Carolina clergy continue to speak out against Amendment One and the harms it will cause to North Carolina families.
Below is a statement by Winston-Salem clergy:

As Christian clergy from a broad spectrum of denominations, and with differing understandings of marriage, we stand united in opposition to North Carolina’s Amendment One. We oppose the Amendment due to our understanding of a loving God and our conviction that it contradicts our religious principles.   The Amendment is poorly written.  As preachers of the Word, we know the power of language to create reality.  Without changing the reality that same-sex marriage is unrecognized by North Carolina state law, this amendment creates other unintended and unacceptable realities. 
Read the full article by clicking the link below the heading above

Editorial: Flawed - Amendment should be voted down. Fayetteville Observer
http://m.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/04/29/1174162

For many North Carolina voters, the constitutional amendment on the primary ballot makes good sense. For some conservatives, traditionalists and many people of faith, the ballot speaks their belief: "... marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." But it's not that simple. As with many seemingly straightforward propositions, this one comes loaded with unintended (and some intended) consequences. Voters will help the state avoid some extensive damage if they reject the amendment. How bad would it be? Family law professors from every law school in North Carolina released a statement on the amendment last week, pointing out its problems. The amendment, they said, "is vague and untested, and threatens harm to a broad range of North Carolina families. The amendment is phrased more broadly than most similar amendments in other states, and would therefore likely be construed by courts more broadly than in other states." Among other things, the legal scholars say, the amendment would ban same-sex marriages (which is why many voters will approve it). But it also would do these things, which might not be what the voters have in mind:
Read the full article by clicking the link below the heading above

Who the Marriage Amendment is Aimed At
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/01/2034592/who-the-amendment-is-aimed-at.html
Bt Jeffrey Pugh - NewsObserver.com

For many of the amendment's proponents, this is a matter faith, of enforcing the biblical prohibition of homosexuality. We appreciate and respect those religious beliefs, but we cannot agree with their incorporation into our state's constitution. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the passage of any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This amendment would clearly impose "an establishment of religion" on people with differing beliefs. For all of those reasons, we urge North Carolina voters to reject the constitutional amendment on our primary ballot. It is a badly flawed exercise that will cause legal havoc. If a majority of our lawmakers is determined to do what the amendment says, and only what it says, they should go back to their legal drawing boards and do the job right.

Dad,” she said, looking at me with fear and hope, “I’m gay.” I’m sure the fear was because she wasn’t sure how I was going to respond to the news of her discovery. Perhaps she wondered if her ordained United Methodist father, like her church, was going to reject her. She may have had reason to fear her church, but not me. That was where the hope came in. I think about my daughter frequently these days. I must confess, it is hard not to think that Amendment One is just a cynical ploy by politicians who want to keep us divided from one another so they can maintain their hold on power. That, at least, would be understandable. As long as there have been people who desire social power, “divide and rule” has been a time-tested strategy. However, most people who plan to vote for this amendment will do so out of religious convictions. Because of the way that they interpret the Bible they have arrived at a particular abhorrence about homosexuality that they don’t have about divorce, something Jesus addressed directly.
Read the full article by clicking the link below the heading above.

Potential Legal Implications of Passage of Amendment One
http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/dlureportnov8.pdf

This is a long, but information filled article from the UNC Law School. Click the link above to read it in full.

It Goes Way Beyond Marriage
By Shannon Gilreath
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/03/2039424/it-goes-way-beyond-marriage.html

I do not favor gay marriage. I do not personally believe that gay people should marry in this state or any other. This conviction is based on reasons likely very different from those of Amendment One’s supporters. Nevertheless, I oppose Amendment One.

The pertinent observation is that Amendment One is not about marriage. If the legislators giving us Amendment One want to write a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, they can do so in simple language. I’ll even suggest some language here: “Marriages between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.”

Incidentally, North Carolina already has a law that says just that, enacted in 1995. Clearly, if our legislators believe that a majority of us want a law banning gay marriage, they know how to write one. Instead, Amendment One, before voters on Tuesday, says: “Marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” The phrase “domestic legal union” does not appear anywhere else in the North Carolina general statutes. Thus, we don’t really know what kinds of “domestic unions” will be affected. So Amendment One’s vagueness makes its potential applications far greater than its propagandized limitations.

Although its language quite clearly reaches beyond marriage to also prohibit the possibility of civil unions for gays, the reality is that more heterosexuals will be affected by this amendment than homosexuals. Here are some possibilities.
Read the full article by clicking the link below the heading above.

Don’t blame the Bible
By Leonard Pitts, Jr.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778054_dont-blame-the-bible.html#storylink=addthis

Sometimes, people hide inside the Bible.

That is, they use the Christian holy book as authority and excuse for biases that have nothing to do with God. They did this when women sought to vote and when African Americans sought freedom. They are doing it now, as gay men and lesbians seek the right to be married. The latest battleground in that fight is North Carolina, where voters go to the polls Tuesday to render a verdict on Amendment One, which would add to the state constitution the following stipulation: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

Mind you, the Tarheel State already has a law on the books banning same-sex marriage. The would-be constitutional amendment is meant to double down on exclusion. And if you read the language carefully, you saw what many observers have seen — that it can also be interpreted as denying legal recognition to unmarried heterosexuals. Not that this holds any sway with those who hide inside the Bible. “God has defined marriage,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in a Sunday sermon quoted in the Charlotte Observer. “It is not up to us to redefine it.” In a letter to the editor, an Observer reader put it thusly: “You either believe [the Bible] or not.”
Read the full article by clicking the link below the heading above.

The Marriage Amendment, 1875
By Gene Nichol
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/05/2044515/the-marriage-amendment-1875.html

If Amendment One passes on Tuesday, it won’t be our first state constitutional provision regulating marriage. In 1875, we altered our charter to declare that “all marriages between a white person and a Negro or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive are, hereby, forever prohibited.”

The 1875 amendment, too, was adopted shortly (two years) after an invigorated anti-miscegenation statute had been enacted by the legislature. Even more clearly than is the case today, the proponents could not have worried that an amendment was actually needed. No one fretted that a 19th century North Carolina court would invalidate the earlier separationist statutory rule.
Read the full article by clicking the link below the heading above

Thank you for your thoughtfulness in taking the time to read this and consider the importance it has to us specifically, but to hundreds of thousands if not millions of residents of the State of North Carolina