Amendment One: A political powergrab

By Jennifer Nicole Howard

Why is it that so many conservatives are afraid of gay people? Something tells me they aren’t.

The North Carolina General Assembly, largely controlled by Republicans, has passed an amendment to the state’s constitution which will be decided on by voters next month.  NC Amendment One seeks to establish marriage between a man and a woman as the only legally recognized union in the state.  This objective will preclude legal recognition for all other domestic partnerships in the process. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in North Carolina, so why are the bureaucrats so apprehensive?

It seems that these politicians have passed the point of concern to control gays and have a concern to control society at large. The men behind such a disastrous policy have one thing: the control of other human beings. These men hold a view of life that is so narrow-minded that they feel the need to control others in order to keep its tradition. Man has long lived under the rule of brute force and its religious counterparts. History proves that these ideals are misguided, yet these cynical men want to hold back the minds of those who wish to evolve.

Senator Daniel Soucek, a Republican sponsor of the bill said, “It’s not just the term marriage; it’s all of the societal communal building blocks that make up traditional marriage. We think that’s the healthiest way to raise children.” The comment here proves my point. This law is based on an arbitrary opinion. These traditionalists are afraid of change.

Studies show that child-rearing in a same-sex household does not affect their self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health. The vast consensus of these studies is that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way. The supporters of this bill don’t care to know that such studies have been done. These types of people are simply stuck in their ways. They never care to seek the vast amount of information available to a human mind if one chooses to think. Instead they clench to outdated traditions, refuting new information that will contradict their premises, of which they are incapable of repudiating.

The effects of these measures are personal. Not to the politicians who create them, but on those whose lives are not narrow enough to fit into the confines of the traditionalist mind set. In the south, North Carolina has stood out as a possibility, where domestic partner benefits have been recognized in some cities and by some private companies. Unmarried straight couples living together would also lose any domestic partner benefits they might have if the measure is passed. In the absence of any legal recognition, unmarried couples, whether gay or straight, could conceivably see courts invalidate their domestic violence protections. It would depend on how judges read the amendment, but a broad interpretation is certainly possible.

Marriage is a tradition and also a huge commitment, which is why many people are beginning to choose not to do it. A century ago it was inconceivable to have a healthy long-lasting relationship without the commitment. Today, it is becoming more and more acceptable that marriage is not necessary, even when a person chooses to pursue a committed relationship. Most people get married for benefits, but why does it have to be that way? What if marriage became a voluntary act between two individuals defined on their own terms? Do we really need the government to divide up our things after a break up?

Does the government even belong in the marriage licensing business? Jeff Thigpen doesn’t think so.

The Guilford County Register of Deeds has filed a lawsuit seeking to put North Carolina out of the marriage licensing business. Thigpen, along with ministers and other residents who signed on as plaintiffs, say the current laws make members of the clergy agents of the state by requiring them to obtain licenses when performing marriage ceremonies. It’s safe to say that under our current system, every citizen is an agent of the state. Nearly everything we do is regulated. Worst of all, most of these laws are created based on some political opinion.

If we really want to see things change we are going to have to change the course of history. A new and definitive system needs to emerge where citizens will be able to perform the actions necessary of a government themselves. History proves it cannot be done otherwise. We need a society where people can work cooperatively while simultaneously having a means to settle disputes.