iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

North Carolina Puts Gay Marriage Ban On May 2012 Ballot

First Posted: 09/13/2011 4:36 pm Updated: 11/13/2011 4:12 am

WASHINGTON -- North Carolina residents will vote whether to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage in May 2012, after the state Senate approved legislation placing the measure on the ballot on Tuesday.

The amendment would bar legal recognition of any union besides marriage between one man and one woman, including civil unions and domestic partnerships for gay and straight couples.

Local business leader Martin Eakes was at the capitol in Raleigh on Tuesday trying to argue against the amendment.

"This was one of the worst days that I've ever seen in my home state, and I've seen some pretty bad days over the past 25 years," Eakes said of the vote to advance the amendment.

Republican leaders in the state legislature elected not to allow any public comment, which enabled them to fast-track the legislation to a vote and passage only 24 hours after it was first introduced. The state House of Representatives passed the same bill on Monday.

The bill passed by a 30-16 vote in the state Senate, in which Republicans hold a 31-19 majority.

Constitutional amendments do not require action by the governor, which means Gov. Bev Perdue (D) has no veto power, and the amendment will now go before voters in the 2012 primary election.

"This is deeply disappointing and hurtful to thousands of North Carolina same-sex couples who simply want to be able to care for each other and their families, as all families do," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in a statement.

Same-sex marriage is already outlawed in the state. The amendment would block challenges to that ban on constitutional grounds.

Indeed, during floor debate, several Republicans said a constitutional amendment was needed to prevent "activist judges" from overturning the marriage ban. High courts in other states have ruled that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

"Moms and dads are not interchangeable,” said the bill's sponsor, state Sen. James Forrester (R-Gaston), during floor debate. “Two dads don't make a mom. Two moms don’t make a dad. Children need both a father and a mother.”

But the law could have unintended consequences for many unmarried couples, both gay and straight.

Maxine Eichner, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, and some of her colleagues prepared a report on the proposed amendment in June that outlined potential problems. Even with the revisions made in the last week, Eichner said in an email, the amendment could still interfere with existing child custody and visitation rights and invalidate trusts, wills and end-of-life directives in favor of an unmarried partner, no matter the genders of the unmarried pair.

"The Amendment still has the potential to invalidate domestic violence protections for members of unmarried couples, as an Ohio court did with even narrower language in its state’s marriage amendment," Eichner warned.

Further, the North Carolina amendment would invalidate domestic partner benefits now offered by several municipalities.

That effect on unwed couples, combined with the anticipated campaign to sway voters on the amendment, led several state business leaders -- including Eakes -- to hold a press conference at the state capitol Tuesday just prior to the vote.

Mitchell Gold, CEO and co-founder of Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams, and Bob Page, CEO and founder of Replacements Ltd, argued that the inevitable campaign urging voters to pass the constitutional amendment would have a detrimental effect on children who may just be learning they're gay. Gold and Page said the atmosphere churned up by the campaign would also discourage businesses from relocating to the state.

"This amendment is a black eye. What's bad about this for business is it's sickening. ... It is sickening that they would put kids' lives on the line for their political ambitions," Gold said.

Eakes, who is CEO of Self-Help Credit Union and the Center for Responsible Lending, said that while he is not a spokesman for Bank of America, he has served on the company's advisory council and could attest that the North Carolina-based bank has some 25,000 gay staff members.

"If you want to figure out a way to push Bank of America to move its headquarters from Charlotte to New York, pass this amendment," Eakes said.

Republican lawmakers, repeating a tactic from the House debate on Monday, pushed back against the idea of a business impact by citing a report from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council. GOP legislators said nine of the 10 states with the strongest economies prohibited same-sex unions, according to the report.

State Sen. Dan Soucek (R-Watauga) said the bottom 10 in the report all have laws that "deteriorate natural marriage."

However, at least 76 local CEOs signed a letter urging a rejection of the marriage amendment. And polling shows a majority of the North Carolina public opposes the bill.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,356
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (105 total)
10:10 AM on 11/10/2011
I've lived my entire life in the state of NC and I am so disgusted and angry right now that I literally want to cry. I'm straight and a christian and the idea that a religious group finds it ok to legally force their views on an entire population of people truly terrifies me. How is ok to remove the rights of so many simply because you try and justify your ignorance with the bible? I can tell you one thing, Jesus would NEVER judge people like this. If you call yourself a Christian and you vote for something like this, you are lying to yourself you hateful, ignorant bigots. Continue on in your illusions of godliness and see where you end up.

It's one thing to ban illegal marriage, at least in the future when popular opinion shifts the law can be changed to reflect it. But to amend the constitution so it can never be changed? It's ridiculous. The republicans didn't open this up for public discussion because they know if they did this issue never would have made it to a vote.
09:25 AM on 11/09/2011
I can't believe this, I get truly hurt with stories like these. Sorry that one day I will want to marry the man of my life and just live a normal life like everyone else.
01:30 AM on 11/05/2011
"Moms and dads are not interchangeable,” said the bill's sponsor, state Sen. James Forrester (R-Gaston), during floor debate. “Two dads don't make a mom. Two moms don’t make a dad. Children need both a father and a mother.”

If that's the case, then divorce and single parenting should be illegal too, right? And who said that all gay couples even want children? And being a heterosexual couple doesn't automatically make you good parents. I would prefer gay/lesbian parents who are loving to heterosexual parents who are abusive. This logic is ridiculous.
10:56 PM on 10/01/2011
These laws are not God's laws, and who determined what is 'God's Law' and what he will accept in heaven....................man did!!! What year was that, 'a union or marriage shall be between a man and woman', when was that written and by whom.......................man? Who wrote the bible.............man. Who interpreted it............man. Don't get me wrong, I believe in God, and a heaven beyond this world. Man has interpreted, been the judge of others, determined others fate, not God. He, God, said he would be the judge and the final decision maker, so for us to sit here and twist and turn, and take short cuts to different things and deny someone there personal happiness is ludacris. Let people live, and not let you be the judge, but let God.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dzadzey
Afflicting the comfortable
08:39 AM on 09/30/2011
Don't like "Gay" marriage? Don't get "Gay" married.
10:09 AM on 09/23/2011
this is an absolute disgrace to this nation!!! congress should not have the power to ban two loving consenting adults from marriage. this isnt about "preserving" traditional marriage, its about God sticking his fat nose into politics again. what happened to separation of church and state?!?!? church and government are not synonymous. i would much rather this nation be run by athiests than religious zealots!!!
11:09 PM on 09/21/2011
If we DON't want it in OUR state then it's OUR business!
02:49 PM on 09/19/2011
I was in class:
Teacher: "That brings me to a tangent about gay marriage. North Carolina is trying to pass a law to-"
Me: (thinking: GO NORTH CAROLINA! I knew they'd get on the progressive ball!)
Teacher: "-ban gay marriage."
Me: "Wut."
I have never so annoyed about moving to South Carolina. I wish I still lived in NC just so I could vote against this. I'm not going to choose who someone else can marry, much less who they can or can't love. Marriage should be between people (of consenting age, 'cause you know how those teenagery hormones can get to you) who love each other.
“Two dads don't make a mom." No, of course not. "Two moms don’t make a dad." No, they don't. "Children need both a father and a mother.” Like heck they do. Children don't need a mother and a father, they need a VILLAGE. I was raised by my mom, my aunt, and my grandma. I'm nearly 19, and I like to think not drinking, not doing drugs, and having my V-card means I turned into an alright person. If a child needs a mother and a father, are you going to put children with single mothers up for adoption? It's very difficult for two people to raise a child on their own; that's why you have babysitters and family members to help take care of children.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Herbert Spencer
09:44 PM on 09/16/2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/nyregion/for-gay-marriage-movement-momentum-but-challenges.html?_r=1&ref=us

"Twenty-nine states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, while 12 others have laws against it"

Correction: June 28, 2011

An article on Monday about the obstacles that the movement to legalize same-sex marriage faces beyond New York State misstated the success of efforts to defeat same-sex marriage proposals at the ballot box. In 2006 Arizona voters defeated a measure that would have banned a broad range of same-sex partnerships — including marriage. (In 2008 they approved a narrower measure banning same-sex marriage only.)

It is not the case that no state referendum or initiative to outlaw same-sex marriage has been defeated."

TRANSLATION: Evety state that has had an state referendum or initiative to outlaw same-sex marriage has passed the voters.

How many state referendum or initiative in support of same-sex marriage has passed the voters?

If you guys lose in NC what will you do? Quick! Find a liberal or even gay judge?
photo
StevenKeirstead
Photographer and Biologist who happens to be gay.
05:25 PM on 09/17/2011
Referendum 71 passed in 2009 in Washington state enacting civil unions for same sex couples with many, but not all, of he rights of marriage. It was opposed by anti-gay groups like the National Organization For Marriage that tried to brand it as "gay marriage lite." However voters approved it. Given the ongoing increases in support for same sex marriage in the general US population, the vote in Washington state was probably representative of the tipping point toward support for marriage equality.

But if some states continue to impose the tyranny of the majority in discriminating against same sex couples, the courts will eventually intervene on behalf of what is a right, as has already happened in Federal courts in California and Massachusetts.

PS. Same sex marriage is being pushed for by the more conservative members of the LGBT community. It's not a liberal idea at all, but a conservative, mainstream one.
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
06:25 PM on 09/17/2011
Thankfully we live in a constitutional republic where civil rights are not up to a simple democratic, majority rules votes. We have this thing called a Constitution of the United States of America that supersedes a democratic vote.

I know that is a difficult pill to swallow for those who want to be able to control the lives of others, but there are many other countries in this world that do not have such safeguards for minorities. Perhaps you should choose to live in one of them.
05:55 PM on 09/15/2011
Homophobes have a totally self-serving concept of "equal rights".
11:11 PM on 09/21/2011
What's a HOMOPHOBE? What drugs do you treat it with?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
BigGayInc
11:10 PM on 09/30/2011
You treat it with education.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
01:39 PM on 09/15/2011
To those who think that heterosexual marriage is required to keep our species thriving: Marriage does not guarantee children. Humans will procreate with or without a piece of paper saying they are legally married. Humans procreated before marriage existed and will procreate until the world ends.

Marriage was not invented by religion. Marriage was entered in to by multiple people for multiple reasons for years before any religion got it's hands on it. By supporting the ban on homosexual marriage you are only hurting yourself and showing how truly ignorant you are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DanBeach
non-profiteer
01:05 PM on 09/15/2011
Re-intarnation …coming back to life as a "Hillbilly"
10:24 AM on 09/15/2011
You can't see it from the picture at the top of the article, but this same picture has a broader field of vision in its 'promo' blurbs elsewhere on HP, and the sign that the 'good "Christian" woman' is holding says in full (quoting the QJV of the Buybull), "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

An observation: not ONE heterosexual marriage has been "put asunder" because of same-gender marriage in the seven years since it has been legal in the United States. NOT. ONE.

Not ONE heterosexual couple has been denied the right to marry (and it IS a right - the SCOTUS has said so - TWICE!) since gay couples have been allowed to exercise that exact same right.

Now, heterosexual D.I.V.O.R.C.E. - doesn't THAT betray this Scriptural pull-quote?

Selective fundaMENTALists from the 'religious' frightwing is all you are.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MCWAY
10:58 AM on 09/15/2011
Nope. Divorce is allowed in certain instances, most notably adultery.
11:23 AM on 09/15/2011
Divorce is allowed in a LOT more instances than that. Your 'sole' 'reason' is Biblical. There is not one non-religious reason to disallow same-gender marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
r henry
I live between concrete walls
02:46 PM on 09/15/2011
How interesting that the current civil laws allow divorce under for any reason at all, even reasons not sanctioned by the Bible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gottlieb
hated by left since 1973 and right since 1982
01:19 AM on 09/16/2011
I agree with you and I think this is going to be used as a wedge issue in 2012.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Eric Shin
The Asian Superbrain Redundant I know
08:52 AM on 09/15/2011
Is this North Carolina or North Korea we're talking about?

If gay people want to be miserable in marriage like the rest of us it should be their right. lol
10:26 AM on 09/15/2011
What about those of us who are in perfectly happly marriages? Just because some betterosexuals' marriages are "miserable" doesn't mean gay citizens' are going to follow suit.

Sorry YOUR marriage is "miserable"; mine certainly isn't.

Thanks for your 'support'.