Part 2: Davenport & Smith, pro and con on NC's Amendment One

At the invitation of Greensboro Guardian editor Charles Davenport, Jr., I engaged in a writing pro/con with him over Amendment One, a proposed amendment to North Carolina's constitution. This is my piece in opposition, Davenport's piece in favor is here.
______________________________________

Americans are proud of our traditions. Perhaps none stands out as more American than that of liberty and justice for all. It was a promise delivered to us on our founding and one which has served as a guiding light through our history. Not always in a straight line, but with an eventual inevitability America has shown itself willing to abandon the familiar to fulfill its better ideals. We relinquished the norms of black people as chattel, women unworthy of voting and the criminalization of private acts between consenting adults. Generation after generation, Americans have moved forward in order to live up to the legacy of our Constitution.

The history of North Carolina's constitution reflects a similar tradition. It has been modified to abolish poll taxes, permit women to serve as jurors and to secure the rights of married women to manage their own property. While advancements were not without occasional interruptions, such as when the North Carolina Constitution was modified to require racial segregation in public schools, North Carolina ultimately moved towards more equitable liberty.

This is our tradition as Americans and North Carolinians—an eventual, if not consistent, strengthening of freedom and equality. Efforts to marginalize people or diminish rights have never gained a permanent foothold. The proposed “Amendment One,” on which North Carolina voters will vote this May, proposes the kind of step backwards that is contrary to this tradition.

Amendment One begins with “Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman...”. Were this the totality of the proposal, a discussion about marriage might be fitting.

Such discussion, however, is a diversion from the most serious implications of Amendment One which says in its entirety that marriage between one man and one woman “is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” With that prohibition against any other type of domestic union, this amendment goes beyond defending marriage and establishes a mean-spirited barrier against consenting adult couples of the same sex ever having even approximate equality with heterosexual couples.

In the mind of some, I imagine, the response is, “Good!” They would outlaw homosexuality itself if they could. Absent that, a spiteful wielding of the heavy hand of government to keep gays and lesbians from becoming equal participants in society will suffice.

People not motivated by such hatred, however—even the most stalwart conservatives—will recognize that this amendment is at odds with our common values. Allowing two consenting adults to join in a legally binding union is not simply just and fair, it is good for society.

At Conservative Underground, contributor to the Greensboro Guardian, Tim Duncan writes of marriage:

“When the passions of mankind are constrained within an institution that directs these passions into positive, constructive ends – building a home, raising and providing for a family, training up the next generation – and away from negative, destructive ends – wildcatting around, no financial or emotional stability, disorder caused by sexual competition and jealousy – then stable social systems can be maintained, along with all the good things like education, prosperity, technology, and the rest that come about as a result of social stability.”

Indeed; and when a segment of the population is denied participation in stable social systems, they and society at large are diminished.

Few people openly advocate for a cruel relegation of homosexuals to second class status. Many conservatives even say they want gays and lesbians to have equal rights. As Charles Davenport, Jr., publisher of the Greensboro Guardian writes:

“[M]ost of us would support extending to gay and lesbian couples many of the rights traditionally associated with marriage: commingling of finances, hospital visitation and the like."

There are over a thousand rights and responsibilities conferred by traditional marriage that cannot, even with extraordinary effort, be acquired piecemeal. In truth, genuine equal participation by homosexuals in society's stabilizing systems requires a state recognized legal union. Amendment One, in saying that marriage between a man and a woman “shall be the only domestic union,” establishes an insurmountable barrier to equal participation in stable society for gay and lesbian people.

This is our generation's moment to demonstrate a commitment to North Carolina's best traditions. Like the misguided generations that used the state's constitution to enshrine school segregation or secede from the union, we too can be an aberration or we can rise to meet the responsibilities of the great legacy of our ancestors, stand with tradition and reject Amendment One.
__________

Roch Smith, Jr. is a website designer living in Greensboro. A fervent supporter of free speech and diversity of opinion, he built and maintains Greensboro101.com . His personal blog is at roch101.blogspot.com. He thanks Charles Davenport, Jr. for his counterpoint in this important discussion.