• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • North Carolina Adds to Marriage Momentum

    Last week, both the North Carolina House and the Senate approved a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as one man and one woman. North Carolina voters will have the opportunity to approve the amendment in 2012.

    The pro-marriage votes in the North Carolina legislature continue a nationwide trend to protect marriage as one man and one woman—especially through the use of democratic measures such as constitutional amendments and ballot initiatives.

    According to Jordan Lorence, a senior attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund,

    North Carolina voters will join Minnesota voters in 2012 in deciding whether to add marriage definition amendments to their respective state constitutions. The Minnesota Legislature earlier this year approved a similar proposed amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage only as one man and one woman. Voters in the North Star State will decide whether to add it to the state constitution in November 2012…. The Indiana Legislature also approved a marriage amendment, but it must pass the Legislature again after the 2012 election before it goes to the people for a popular vote.

    Indeed, “the trend in politics is to shore up protections for marriage.” As I explained earlier this year in an interview with Kathryn Lopez of NRO:

    • Public officials repeatedly tried to redefine marriage in California, but voters used a ballot measure to define marriage as one man and one woman in the state constitution;
    • Maine voters used a people’s veto to reverse same-sex-marriage legislation passed by their state representatives;
    • Iowa voters awarded early retirement to three of the state-supreme-court justices who imposed same-sex marriage on that state;
    • Nearly 30 states have protected marriage in their state constitutions;
    • Nearly 40 states have protected marriage in their statutes; and
    • A recent nationwide poll by Public Opinion Strategies finds that 62 percent of “middle America” (people without extreme views on either side of the issue) believes marriage should be defined only as the union of one man and one woman.

    Even in states with less favorable outcomes, the politics can show that, contrary to the familiar tune, same-sex marriage is far from inevitable. For example, New York is one of the most liberal states in the country, but the same-sex marriage law there came down to a few swing votes in an extraordinary legislative situation, despite an incredible investment of financial and political resources to redefine marriage.

    Some people might argue that states like North Carolina do not need a constitutional amendment if they already protect marriage through defense of marriage statutes. But voters know that activist judges elsewhere have overturned statutory protections for marriage.

    State constitutional amendments protect marriage from judicial activism in state courts; reinforce the understanding that marriage as one man and one woman is deeply rooted in American values, history, and traditions; and demonstrate a strong public awareness that marriage as one man and one woman should be affirmatively protected in law.

    In the words of North Carolina Senator Dan Soucek, a sponsor of the marriage amendment in that state, marriage is a “time-tested building block of society.” With last week’s vote in the state senate, the people of North Carolina will have the opportunity to continue the trend of deep-rooted democratic support for one of society’s most important institutions.


    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    10 Responses to North Carolina Adds to Marriage Momentum

    1. Paul S says:

      I'd consider wanting to deprive gay and lesbian Americans a basic constitutional right as an "extreme view." Poll after poll after poll has shown that a vast majority of Americans support the right of gay and lesbian Americans to marry. If you discard a portion that "believe strongly" in equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, I guess you can say that 62% the remainder favor banning gays and lesbians from marriage, but it's not really honest as you are simply pretending a portion of Americans don't exist, when, in fact, they do.

      • patriotact says:

        Hey, buddy, if you're actually crazy enough to expect us to believe that poll after poll after poll shows a vast majority of Americans support gay and lesbian "marriages" (funny, I haven't seen any such "polls"), then answer me this… Why have the voters overwhelming voted against gay "marriage" in EVERY SINGLE STATE ELECTION where the issue has EVER come up for a vote???

    2. West Texan says:

      Thomas said " … marriage as one man and one woman is deeply rooted in American values, history, and traditions … [and] should be affirmatively protected in law." Your encouraging blog is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

    3. West Texan says:

      "The DOMA bill would amend the North Carolina constitution to say that marriage is between one man and one woman and 'is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.' It also says that private parties are not prohibited from entering into contracts with each other, signaling to employers that they can offer benefits to gay couples." By Cheryl Wetzstein, Washington Times.

      This is the most reasonable and sensible approach. Frankly, I'm tired of having homosexuality shoved on society as being normal. There's no comparison between a person's race and one's personal preference. The proponents of same sex marriage don't have a civil rights argument.

    4. Bobbie says:

      not only that, it's deeply rooted in it's true definition!

    5. Ron says:

      Homosexuals have always had the same rights as heterosexuals; marry someone of the opposite sex.

      Once upon a time in America there were moral absolutes. Now anything goes and like all civilizations in history, this cancer will be the destruction of western civilization.

    6. H Snyder says:

      You can go from the Arctic Circle to South Africa, Patagonia or New Zealand, and you will see that the basic unit of society is marriage of one man to one woman (with the exception of polygamy in some societies) and their children. Relatives of the parents are ancillary to the basic (not "nuclear") family. This has been the basic institution of tribes, clans and nations all through recorded history. It has worked quite well; one has to question the motives of those who demand to force society to make homosexuality co-equal with heterosexual traditions.

    7. Will says:

      I really don't understand all this fuss. The idea of marriage has been evolving for long as human beings have been evolving. Even the people who wrote the Bible have different ideas on what constitutes an appropriate marriage and family values.

      • Paul says:

        I have no idea how you think marriage has "evolved" because since the beginning of human history in every nation, tribe, and culture, marriage has been defined as one man and one woman. And that's how it needs to remain. Where do these radical militant homosexual activists get off thinking they have a right to alter a fundamental cornerstone like marriage, which has existed since the days of Adam and Eve? The world always managed to function perfectly fine without gay "marriage" and world will continue to turn without it.

    8. Pamella says:

      It takes a combination of male and female to procreate. So it stands to reason that a union other than male and female is just plain unnatural. Why should the deviants from nature be allowed to make changes on what God established? Our United States was founded by Bible believing, Christ followers. Because this nation has pulled away from it's early foundation (Jesus Christ), we are in moral decay. It is time to return to the Lord, our only hope.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.