Critics of North Carolina’s proposed Marriage Amendment base much of their opposition on the claim that the amendment’s prohibition on same sex marriage and civil unions constitutes unjust discrimination and is a violation of individual civil rights. The claim is as common as it is wrong.
Melanie Baker takes on the issue in “What’s at Stake in the Same Sex Marriage Debate”
Further clouding matters, this has been framed as a civil rights issue. The state, so the argument goes, cannot discriminate against people because of how they choose to have sex; this discrimination is a grave injustice, relegating homosexuals to a second-class citizenship. But if the argument rests solely on personal preference, an appeal cannot be made to a civil right. In other words, the choice of sexual partner does not provide sufficient grounds for the state to formally recognize such a union as a “marriage”; the state’s refusal to recognize a sexual relationship is not tantamount to denying a “civil right.”
A person is more than his sexuality. Sexuality is an essential part of the person, but not the sole defining element of the person. While rightly insisting that their humanity be regarded first and foremost (hence the concern about civil rights), it is actually contradictory for gays and lesbians to follow this up with the accusation that it is discriminatory to deny them the legal status of marriage based on their sexual preference. Their accusation implicitly equates their sexual inclination with their personhood, and takes the denial of legal status to their sexual lifestyle to be a personal judgment against them. It is not a denial of the personhood of gay and lesbian persons to deny their homosexual relationships the legal status of marriage. They are unequivocally persons in fact and under the law, and have all the rights of persons; but their homosexual relationship is denied the legal status of marriage because it lacks the intrinsic element necessary for a marriage: the natural ability to procreate children.
The law cannot be divorced from reality, from nature. The moment this happens, law becomes arbitrary, the whim of the ruling power: it becomes tyranny. The foundations of our very democracy are at stake with this debate, and this affects each and every one of us.
Law based on personal preference is no different than mob rule. History teaches that is not an attractive road.
For more on the importance of the marriage amendment vote read Marriage Amendment Fight Crucial for Genuine Conservatives .
adultery is one of the thou shalt not… charles thomas is more of a threat to marriage than gay people- newt gingrich sinned with glee on three wives- I just think it is time to say who is really sinning- find the commandment that says thou shalt not love one of your own sex… show me please because until you outlaw adultery in NC and start prosecuting sinners like thomas you speak from a place of deceit
I think the law we currently have should be okay- AM. one does the opposite of what it says- it hurts families -it doesn’t protect them… and really I think adultery was and always will be the real home-wrecker- we need to work to make our own marriages stronger so we aren’t threatened by others pvt. lives -doesn’t that sound reasonable?
I am delighted to see the polls lean in favor of affirming marriage between one man and one woman. Shame on the Democrats who enjoyed near hegemonic State Legislative powers for most of the last 40 years for NOT placing this issue before the people.
I appreciate the Republicans for offering me the opportunity to weigh in on this important societal concern.
I am voting FOR marriage!
No one is telling you that you have to be gay, or enter into a gay relationship. Being gay does not affect your choice to enter into a loving straight relationship. So, why do you suggest that two loving people who are born of the same sex should not be able to be legally recognized as a couple? Religious law is independent of governmental law, at least according to the constitution. No one chooses to be gay.