A Baptist Response - Part 2

***
WHEREAS, Protecting marriage as the union between one man and one woman is critically important to preserving the family, our children, the repopulation and economic viability of North Carolina, and North Carolina’s reputation as one of the best states in the nation in which to work and live; and

RESPONSE:
It is unclear to me how any definition of marriage can “preserve the family” and “our children.” At this level the amendment is simply dishonest, and I believe those who support it know that. In a recent dialogue concerning the amendment, a Southern Baptist minister quoted statistics regarding divorce, admitting that the statistics show little difference to marriages in and out of religious homes. I asked him how he expected that statistic to improve if the amendment passed. With no hesitation he replied, “Oh… I don’t expect the amendment will change the rate of divorce much, if any.” When I pointed out that this admission effectively gutted his argument (since the protection of the family is essentially the reason to defend the amendment) he could not respond. Purely from the standpoint of logic the amendment makes no sense. Regardless your feelings about homosexuality or “marriage substitutes” there is NOTHING that can happen within anyone else’s home, or within their bedroom, that could have ANY effect on my marriage. A comedian noted this failure of logic, quipping, “The Church hardly needs to worry about homosexuals destroying their marriages – heterosexuals are doing that all by themselves!”

If its proponents were truly interested to defending, protecting, or strengthening marriage, the amendment might seek to outlaw divorce, or make it legally punishable to have an extramarital affair. Those actions would have much more affect on the state of marriage in the state of NC than the proposed amendment.

The indication that the purpose of marriage is “repopulation” is an insult to couples who choose not to bear children, not to mention an added burden of guilt and shame to those who cannot. (I believe children benefit most when raised by loving parents – though marriage is hardly a requirement for “repopulating” the state!)

The argument for or against economic viability is being hotly contested, though it should be acknowledged than a number of business organizations and some of North Carolina’s largest corporations have expressed concern that approving the amendment will harm the business climate of the state. Perhaps it says enough to simply quote Bill James, County Commissioner in Mecklenburg County. Referring to homosexuals James said, “We don’t want them here!” Or, when seeking to answer the question of economic viability, perhaps we should just use common sense and imagine the perspective of a homosexual individual or couple (perhaps a couple legally married in one of the states that now allows gay marriage) considering moving to a state which legally denies their partnership. Would you move to NC?

***
WHEREAS, While current North Carolina statutory law does not recognize so-called same sex marriage, our marriage statue could be overtuned or redefined by a liberal, activist judge or future legislatures; and

WHEREAS, Courts and legislatures have actually forced other states to legalize same sex marriage contrary to the will of the people; and

WHEREAS, Same-sex couples have already begun to apply for marriage licenses in North Carolina in order to contest our marriage statures; and

RESPONSE:
This “Chicken Little” logic has no place in any thoughtful discussion. Some judge in some future might, in fact, make some decision, and it might affect homosexuals… or heterosexuals… men or women… etc… And if the amendment passes, some judge might make a decision to release prisoners of domestic violence because their crime against an ex-partner can no longer be defined as domestic – since that relationship, by law, no longer meets the requirement of a legally recognized union. (This is not a Chicken Little scenario. This actually happened in the state of Ohio, after passing a similar amendment.) Legislating people’s fears is a dangerous precedent.

National polls consistently show that attitudes toward homosexuality are continuing to change – decidedly in the direction of accepting and affirming homosexuals. Recent polls in North Carolina Polls have shown a majority of citizens expressing open views of homosexuals, and favoring some form of legal recognition for homosexual partnerships. So, isn’t the action of the amendment essentially what the backers are arguing against? (i.e. a legal action that goes against the will of the majority?)

Same-sex marriage is now legal in eight states and the District of Columbia. It is inevitable that states will be required to recognize these already legal relationships, when married partners cross state lines. The arc of progress has never reversed course, and it will not do so in regards to the majority view on homosexuality. The treatment of African Americans and women are only the most recent examples of such progress. In one era the subjugation or oppression of these groups was considered God-ordained and, therefore, was ensconced into law. But what American Christian today would deny a woman’s right to vote, or deny that African-Americans are fully human, not just fully American?

***
WHEREAS, The Marriage Amendment will recognize the pre-existing institution of marriage by making it part of the North Carolina Constitution, placing it beyond the power of a court or future legislatures to redefine or overturn; and

RESPONSE:
Again, why is the State needed to intervene in a Church matter? Our forebears, who established Baptist principles unwavering in religious freedom and church/state separation, would find this movement fundamentally counter to their convictions.