What Lead To North Carolina Marriage Amendment Vote - Essay Example

 North Carolina Marriage Amendment Vote Introduction The North Carolina Marriage Amendment vote is a ballot initiative that took place in North Carolina on the proposed amendments to the North Carolina Constitution which had put limits to the types of marriage unions. Only domestic unions that were established within the provisions of the North Carolina Constitution were legally valid and recognized. Prior to the amendment, the North Carolina State law referred to marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The North Carolina Marriage Amendment vote had its genesis in Peter Brunstetter, a Republican Senator who sponsored the bill to have the North Carolina Constitution amended. The culmination of this initiative was the North Carolina voters approving the proposed amendment by 61.05%, on May 8th, 2012. Like any other amendment, there are other anteceding factors that had orchestrated the North Carolina Marriage Amendment vote into realization, as shall be seen forthwith. One of the factors that led to the North Carolina Marriage Amendment (NCMA) vote was the fact that the law is dynamic and thus, subject to amendment. Because of its dynamic nature, the law is always debated in the state legislature. Amendments may be made to the law, if any need arises, and if the bill calling for the amendments garners enough support. In this case, the law on marriage was debated during the spring of 2011 legislative schedule in the state legislature. At this juncture, the bill calling for the amendments had failed to receive enough votes needed to qualify for the referendum. This was to be followed by a debate on the same, in September 2011. The very day the bill was introduced in the House, the state legislature voted 75 against 42, in favor of the proposed amendment, and to the effect that a statewide ballot should be carried out. Similar results were produced in the State Senate on September 13th, 2011. It is important to note that this NCMA vote is also known as North Carolina Marriage Amendment One. The voting for Amendment One came about as a result of a legislative precedence that North Carolina had set previously. In 1875, North Carolina had altered its charter to proscribe all marital unions between a Negro and a white person, and between a person of Negro descent, down to the third generation and any white person. Although this move was a show of superiority assertiveness and a bold antipathy to egalitarianism, yet the people of North Carolina had set a legislative precedence which they used to define and amend marriage laws. It was only in order that they follow the precedence when determining the fate of NCMA (Otterbourg, 2012). In itself, the NCMA vote had its origin in three bills which had been filed in the House and North Carolina Senate. The bill HB 777 had been filed in the House and the other two, SB 106 and SB514 in the North Carolina Senate. On one hand, the two bills in the North Carolina Senate, SB514 and SB106 had their sponsors in the persons of Jerry Tillman, James Forrester and Daniel Soucek. Peter S. Brunstetter sponsored the House bill HB 777 on the other hand (Robertson, 2012). Conversely, it is also important to note that these bills had their roots in previous unresolved arguments. Those who held opinions supportive of the amendments waxed polemical that in the absence of laws that proscribed homosexual unions, cases of homosexual couples moving from other states to North Carolina in search of their rights would abound, yet North Carolina was not legally prepared to handle this precedence. Particularly, Rep. Paul Stam was categorical that as homosexuals migrate from other states to North Carolina, legal matters such as the right to same-sex marriages, divorce and custody issues were going to surface, yet North Carolina was not legally equipped to handle these matters. There are others like Rep. Larry Brown who truly felt that the issue was too sensitive to be solely decided by the House of Representatives and North Carolina Senate and that instead, there was a legitimate need for the proposed amendment to be subjected to a plebiscite. In light of the foregoing, although tabling the bills in the House and North Carolina Senate was in order, subjecting it to a referendum was the most appropriate thing to do. This is because the referendum would fulfill the democratic process by giving everyone the right to vote. By failing to subject the amendment to the ballot, the House and North Carolina Senate would have arrogated themselves roles that are not theirs. Particularly, the power to determine how marriage is to be defined and sexual orientation is a preserve of the people, the citizens of North Carolina. According to Owens and Chou (2012), another factor that necessitated the NCMA vote is the ideological tussle between the Democrats and Republicans. Being that Democrats are Liberals and see same-sex marriage as a matter of human discretion and Republicans as Conservatives see same-sex relations as a contravention of societal values, both parties would have pulled in different directions. As a matter of fact, no sooner had President Barrack H. Obama issued a statement of opposition to the House Bill, HB 777, than Bishops Burbidge and Jugis penned a statement showing and explaining their affirmative support of the same amendment. Bishops Jugis and Burbidge stated that in their profound respect for marriage as the voluntary, complementary and fruitful union between a man and a woman, they were not repudiating their concern for the society’s collective welfare, but that on the contrary, they were seeking to reinforce it. Apart from President Obama and Democrats, others who were opposing the Amendments were former US President Bill Clinton, Rep. Larry Hall, Commissioners of the Orange County Board and the North Carolina chapter for the Association and Advancement of Colored People. These opponents were arguing that matters touching on minority rights should not be subjected to a vote. The same liberals also advanced the argument that the proposed amendment may precipitate bullying of homosexual youth and the invalidation of specific domestic violence protections that had been set aside for all unmarried couples. This diametrical opposition between Democrats and Republicans was therefore best solved by engaging the public in the suffrage (Robertson, 2012). The issue of homosexuality and same-sex unions also has a very emotive and polarizing nature. Immediately same-sex relations and issues are mentioned, two diametrically opposed groups emerge: supporters of homosexual lifestyle and marriages, and opponents of the same. In the same way, two groups emerged, supporting or opposing the proposed amendment. Among the parties and outfits that opposed the amendment are The Pilot, a North Carolina newspaper outlet, The Independent, a Triangle-area newspaper, the Spring Hope Enterprise and the New York Times. These media outlets formed a part of a larger lobby group that was to oppose the amendment. The concern of the Republicans that had sponsored the Bill HB 777 had come about as a culmination of the vigorous and aggressive nature of same-sex lobbyists and activists. Particularly, among other lobbyists for the Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals (LGBT) community, the Gay Liberation Front, the Gay Activist Alliance and the Radicalesbians have successfully sought to extend the growth, appeal and influence of non-heterosexual lifestyles. Also, recent rulings did not help allay the concerns that the Republicans had about the maintenance of the status quo in North Carolina, as far as the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is concerned. Particularly, the Lawrence v. Texas 539 US 588 as a landmark decision that had been issued by the US Supreme Court in 2003 basically annulled the sodomy laws in thirteen American states and invalidated the sodomy law in Texas. The gravity of the ruling is that it made homosexual relations and activities legal in every American state and territory. The ruling had proceeded to overrule the Bowers v. Hardwick and found the need to uphold a constitutional protection of all sex-related privacy. In respect to the foregoing, Republicans and conservatives felt that there was a dire need to put legal measures to stem the spread of same-sex behavior in North Carolina. The senators and governors of North Carolina felt that the best way to curtail the aggressiveness of same-sex behavior from suffusing into North Carolina was through legislation. Conservatives such as Peter Brunstetter, Representatives Paul Stam, Mitch Gillespie, Larry Brown, and Rev. Billy Graham rightly deduced that although the presence of homosexuals and homosexual activities could not be regulated in North Carolina, yet it was expedient to institute legislations that would protect traditional or conventional marriages, since it was a matter of time before subscribers of same-sex relations started demanding for their legal rights. Conclusion Thus, subjecting the NCMA to a vote was a result of legislative and socio-cultural developments that had been taking place, not only in North Carolina, but in the entire US. The need for the vote as a way of making the decision was nevertheless necessitated by the need to tinker the unwavering positions of the interests groups and lobbyists, and the profound division between liberals and the conservatives. Again, the fact that the amendment was a matter that was touching on a people’s way of life, made it very logical that the amendment be subjected to a vote. By voting, the people would have decided, with the majority carrying the day. The director of North Carolina Values Coalition underscored the veracity of the foregoing when he stated that placing the amendment to a vote was the most appropriate thing to do, since: there was no accurate process more democratic than allowing the people to vote; and the onus was upon the people of North Carolina to decide for themselves, the manner in which they wanted marriage to be legally defined. References Otterbourg, K. (2012). “Two of a Kind Make a Pair?” Business North Carolina, 32 (3), 54-57. Owens, A. & Chou, R. (2012). “Marriage Amendment Passes.” WRAL.com. Retrieved From: http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11079217/ Robertson, C. (2012). “North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban.” The New York Times. Retrieved From: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/north-carolina-voters-pass-same-sex-marriage-ban.html?_r=1 Read More