33 common falsehoods used to support Amendment One in North Carolina.
These falsehoods appear on the website for the leading pro-amendment affiliate. Hundreds of hours of research, from original sources, shows that none of these arguments is supported by the facts. For the original list of falsehoods, go here.
These falsehoods appear on the website for the leading pro-amendment affiliate. Hundreds of hours of research, from original sources, shows that none of these arguments is supported by the facts. For the original list of falsehoods, go here.
Will Amendment One take away rights from gays and lesbians?
Opinion: "The amendment does not take away rights. Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don't have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.”
Fact: All citizens have the right to advocate for laws, just as the people, through their elected officials, had the right to enact North Carolina's law against same-sex marriage in 1996. There is no broad effort now to change that law, but if there were, it would have to be true that the citizens hold just as much right to broaden the definition of marriage as to limit the definition.
Opinion: "Homosexual couples can still engage in private commitment ceremonies and engage in private adult consensual sexual conduct."
Fact: Permission to engage in private commitment ceremonies is not the concern of those advocating for these rights nationwide. The concern is recognition of these unions in the courts, tax system, health care system, etc. However, this amendment affects heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “There is no right to marry someone of the same sex, just as there is no right to marry your sister, to marry someone who is under 14 years old, or to marry more than one person. "
Fact: Prohibitions against marrying a sister, or a 12-year-old, are laws which have changed radically over time, and which have been upheld because they serve a compelling public interest. It is also very easy to find multiple compelling public interests against polygamy, including laws controlling taxation, child support, and rights of inheritance. Our courts decide issues of fundamental rights every day. The Supreme Court decided, in 1967, that Mildred and Richard Loving, an interracial couple in Virginia, actually did have a right to marry, even though public opinion argued they did not. Those justices were not guilty of activism, but of evaluating the case based on compelling government interests, and finding none, they were required to decide as they did. In a thriving, not crumbling, democracy, the burden of proof is on those interested in denying rights.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Will Amendment One prevent businesses from continuing to offer benefits to same-sex partners?
Opinion: “The Amendment will not prevent businesses that offer benefits to same-sex couples from continuing to offer those benefits, including health insurance. It has no legal impact on private businesses in any way. "
Fact: The
experiences of other states and countries is that amendments against
domestic partnership effectively tie the hands of businesses and
insurers. All insurers extending coverage to partners of employees require
an "Affidavit of Domestic Partnership". A constitutional amendment
against domestic partnerships can only have a negative effect on court,
insurer, and business decisions as relates to benefits. The business community is virtually unanimous in opposing this amendment.
Opinion: “Nothing in the Amendment prohibits local governments or the UNC System from offering or continuing to offer benefits to same-sex partners of employees or students, as long as they do not base it on a relationship like domestic partnerships or civil unions. "
Fact: These benefits would be prohibited because the only way to control who gets those benefits is through some version of the "Affidavit of Domestic Partnership" in which partners essentially 'prove' they're married. Pro-amendment groups falsely suggest agencies may offer benefits to "roommates", and offer a false solution to a very real problem affecting thousands of North Carolinians.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Constitutional protections for marriage will actually help businesses, because the choice to offer same-sex partner benefits can continue to be based on the businesses’ own decision framework, instead of being mandated by government. "
Fact: The outcome of this amendment vote will not affect North Carolina's marriage laws. If same-sex marriage ever becomes legal, government could only mandate same-sex spousal benefits for companies also offering opposite-sex spousal benefits. Also, the state has no interest in 'helping' companies by allowing discrimination which is otherwise prohibited.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Will Amendment One harm recruiting efforts of businesses?
Opinion: “Passage of the Amendment will not keep the State from recruiting new businesses. Neither will the Amendment prevent companies in North Carolina from attracting the brightest and best workers. Companies located in states that have Constitutional Amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman continue to attract talented workers and grow their businesses." (1)
Fact: A very vocal business community in North Carolina, and nationally, compelled only by business interest, has said that these amendments make it harder to recruit from the largest possible field of good prospects. Restriction of any hiring pool is bad for business, but the population most affected by these amendments has higher-than-average education levels, so businesses are further harmed. Also, the studies referred to here were not designed to show links between marriage amendments and business environment, so any correlations drawn would be invalid.
Opinion: “North Carolina is consistently ranked as one of the top places in America to work, to do business, and to live. (2) Our state marriage laws have not hampered those ratings one bit, but are in fact one of the very reasons that North Carolina is ranked so highly. "
Fact: The data referenced here do not support this statement. None of the rankings linked here have factored in gay marriage laws as criteria, so any inferences about cause and effect would be unscientific. For the same reasons, it's impossible to say how much higher North Carolina would have scored if same-sex marriage were legal.
--
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Protecting marriage will actually benefit business, because marriage produces a stable, productive, balanced workforce. Without procreation, economic growth is impossible. "
Fact: Some studies do find correlations between marriage and certain stabilizing societal measures, though cause and effect aren't clear. But this does not argue against gay marriage. It argues for more marriage. Also, procreation and adoption are unrelated to marriage and to this amendment. In terms of the business interest in stable child-rearing environments, though, Tami Fitzgerald, of the NC Values Coalition, ignores the support by major child-welfare agencies for gay-couple adoptions. Fitzgerald accuses gay adoptive parents of showing off "trophy children".
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Will the amendment result in writing discrimination into the Constitution?
Opinion: “The Amendment is not about discriminating against anyone. It is about preventing radical redefinition of marriage, families, and the natural process of producing and raising children within the safe, nurturing, and successful incubator of marriage."
Fact: Discrimination happens when government makes policies which fail to meet the test of a "legitimate government interest". There is no such interest in preserving any of the hundreds of global definitions of marriage. For much of our history it was illegal for Caucasians to marry Chinese people. Also, same-sex couples are already part of traditional, and non-traditional families, and it's arbitrary and discriminatory to delegitimize those families. Existing natural and non-natural processes of producing children are unaffected by marriage laws, and children are raised today in thousands of different "family" arrangements. Further, all leading child welfare, medical and psychological associations recommend full legal adoption rights for gay people and couples.
http://sites.google.com/site/hemlockbluffcloggers/
Opinion: "The amendment does not take away rights. Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don't have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.”
Fact: All citizens have the right to advocate for laws, just as the people, through their elected officials, had the right to enact North Carolina's law against same-sex marriage in 1996. There is no broad effort now to change that law, but if there were, it would have to be true that the citizens hold just as much right to broaden the definition of marriage as to limit the definition.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: "Homosexual couples can still engage in private commitment ceremonies and engage in private adult consensual sexual conduct."
Fact: Permission to engage in private commitment ceremonies is not the concern of those advocating for these rights nationwide. The concern is recognition of these unions in the courts, tax system, health care system, etc. However, this amendment affects heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “There is no right to marry someone of the same sex, just as there is no right to marry your sister, to marry someone who is under 14 years old, or to marry more than one person. "
Fact: Prohibitions against marrying a sister, or a 12-year-old, are laws which have changed radically over time, and which have been upheld because they serve a compelling public interest. It is also very easy to find multiple compelling public interests against polygamy, including laws controlling taxation, child support, and rights of inheritance. Our courts decide issues of fundamental rights every day. The Supreme Court decided, in 1967, that Mildred and Richard Loving, an interracial couple in Virginia, actually did have a right to marry, even though public opinion argued they did not. Those justices were not guilty of activism, but of evaluating the case based on compelling government interests, and finding none, they were required to decide as they did. In a thriving, not crumbling, democracy, the burden of proof is on those interested in denying rights.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Will Amendment One prevent businesses from continuing to offer benefits to same-sex partners?
Opinion: “The Amendment will not prevent businesses that offer benefits to same-sex couples from continuing to offer those benefits, including health insurance. It has no legal impact on private businesses in any way. "
Fact: The
experiences of other states and countries is that amendments against
domestic partnership effectively tie the hands of businesses and
insurers. All insurers extending coverage to partners of employees require
an "Affidavit of Domestic Partnership". A constitutional amendment
against domestic partnerships can only have a negative effect on court,
insurer, and business decisions as relates to benefits. The business community is virtually unanimous in opposing this amendment.Opinion: “Nothing in the Amendment prohibits local governments or the UNC System from offering or continuing to offer benefits to same-sex partners of employees or students, as long as they do not base it on a relationship like domestic partnerships or civil unions. "
Fact: These benefits would be prohibited because the only way to control who gets those benefits is through some version of the "Affidavit of Domestic Partnership" in which partners essentially 'prove' they're married. Pro-amendment groups falsely suggest agencies may offer benefits to "roommates", and offer a false solution to a very real problem affecting thousands of North Carolinians.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Constitutional protections for marriage will actually help businesses, because the choice to offer same-sex partner benefits can continue to be based on the businesses’ own decision framework, instead of being mandated by government. "
Fact: The outcome of this amendment vote will not affect North Carolina's marriage laws. If same-sex marriage ever becomes legal, government could only mandate same-sex spousal benefits for companies also offering opposite-sex spousal benefits. Also, the state has no interest in 'helping' companies by allowing discrimination which is otherwise prohibited.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Will Amendment One harm recruiting efforts of businesses?
Opinion: “Passage of the Amendment will not keep the State from recruiting new businesses. Neither will the Amendment prevent companies in North Carolina from attracting the brightest and best workers. Companies located in states that have Constitutional Amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman continue to attract talented workers and grow their businesses." (1)
Fact: A very vocal business community in North Carolina, and nationally, compelled only by business interest, has said that these amendments make it harder to recruit from the largest possible field of good prospects. Restriction of any hiring pool is bad for business, but the population most affected by these amendments has higher-than-average education levels, so businesses are further harmed. Also, the studies referred to here were not designed to show links between marriage amendments and business environment, so any correlations drawn would be invalid.
Opinion: “North Carolina is consistently ranked as one of the top places in America to work, to do business, and to live. (2) Our state marriage laws have not hampered those ratings one bit, but are in fact one of the very reasons that North Carolina is ranked so highly. "
Fact: The data referenced here do not support this statement. None of the rankings linked here have factored in gay marriage laws as criteria, so any inferences about cause and effect would be unscientific. For the same reasons, it's impossible to say how much higher North Carolina would have scored if same-sex marriage were legal.
--
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm
Opinion: “Protecting marriage will actually benefit business, because marriage produces a stable, productive, balanced workforce. Without procreation, economic growth is impossible. "
Fact: Some studies do find correlations between marriage and certain stabilizing societal measures, though cause and effect aren't clear. But this does not argue against gay marriage. It argues for more marriage. Also, procreation and adoption are unrelated to marriage and to this amendment. In terms of the business interest in stable child-rearing environments, though, Tami Fitzgerald, of the NC Values Coalition, ignores the support by major child-welfare agencies for gay-couple adoptions. Fitzgerald accuses gay adoptive parents of showing off "trophy children".
--
>>
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2012/01/19/marriage-equality-in-washington-state-would-be-good-for-business.aspx
>> http://christianactionleague.org/news/state-senator’s-same-sex-adoption-allowed-and-upheld/ Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Will the amendment result in writing discrimination into the Constitution?
Opinion: “The Amendment is not about discriminating against anyone. It is about preventing radical redefinition of marriage, families, and the natural process of producing and raising children within the safe, nurturing, and successful incubator of marriage."
Fact: Discrimination happens when government makes policies which fail to meet the test of a "legitimate government interest". There is no such interest in preserving any of the hundreds of global definitions of marriage. For much of our history it was illegal for Caucasians to marry Chinese people. Also, same-sex couples are already part of traditional, and non-traditional families, and it's arbitrary and discriminatory to delegitimize those families. Existing natural and non-natural processes of producing children are unaffected by marriage laws, and children are raised today in thousands of different "family" arrangements. Further, all leading child welfare, medical and psychological associations recommend full legal adoption rights for gay people and couples.
>> http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “The real issue is whether we want to grant a government license for gay marriage. The purpose of a license is to protect society. "
Fact: It's the responsibility of those arguing for restrictive, protective licensing to demonstrate a compelling public interest, and that demonstration must rely on quantitative analysis rather than abstract, unjustifiable fears. Not insignificantly, marriage licenses were used since 1741 in North Carolina to "protect society" against a Caucasian human being marrying a black human being. Why did we realize that "protection" was unjustified? There was no compelling government interest in it.
>> The State Records of North Carolina, Volume 8", William Laurence Saunders
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Drivers' licenses seek to protect other motorists and pedestrians from danger stemming from unqualified drivers. "
Fact: If the implication is that gay people are unqualified to be married, due to public risk, then an "marriage test" would need to be administered to all prospective newlyweds - gay and straight. Since no such test is likely, and there is no evidence that gay couples would score any lower on it than straight couples, drivers' licenses may not be a good analogy for marriage licenses. In North Carolina, no 'qualifications' are required for a fishing license. Perhaps that's a better analogy.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Marriage licenses protect society from familial chaos by promoting stable unions for the purpose of responsibly producing and raising healthy, successful children in the best social unit possible - one consisting of their own mother and father. "
Fact: Marriage licenses are not promotional in nature; nor are drivers', fishermans', and pilots' licenses. A good example of this government non-endorsement comes from the NC Values Coalition website itself, on which these ‘opinions’ are listed. The disclaimer explaining the Coalition’s nonprofit license specifies: “The license is not an endorsement by the State.” Also, marriage licenses are issued independent of any plan to have or adopt children. But, if future child outcomes are criteria for licensing unions, then the science tells us that the poverty, smoking, alcoholism, and low educational achievement of the betrothed are the major concerns for children.
>> http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ny_19980730_nc-supreme-court-takes-custody-from-gay-father
>> http://www.northcarolinafamilylawnews.com/2010/09/01/homosexuality-and-child-custody-in-north-carolina/
>> http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/freedman-marriage-recs.html
>> http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/127975/
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Are bans on gay marriage like the bans on interracial marriage?
Opinion: "Gay marriage is totally different from interracial marriage. Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. "
Fact: Case law and social science show us that the bans on gay marriage are exactly the same as the bans on interracial marriage because the justifications for both are arbitrary, unscientific, and based on fears which fail to materialize. An alarming 40 percent of Alabama's residents voted twelve years ago to keep its ban on interracial marriage. People do vote based on arbitrary and unscientific fears. Mildred Loving, whose interracial marriage was so feared that it was challenged in the Supreme Court, said in 2007, "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and dad, and women don't get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone."
Fact: No one holds the trademark on "marriage". Cultures define it according to a changing, diverse set of understandings. Pastor Trewhella of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Wisconsin refuses now to marry anyone with a state-issued license, believing them to be "immoral". The national Libertarian Party believes government should not license any kind of marriage unions. The Cherokee societies of western North Carolina practiced polygamy. For much of our nation’s history, women had no standing in marriages, legally did not exist, and couldn't alone provide for children since they didn’t have any legal right to a salary or property. Of our state’s 1 million total households raising their own children, almost 400,000 are doing so without a husband or wife present. Single-parenting may be a valid concern, but it has no disproportionate association with legalized same-sex unions.
--
>> http://www.unctv.org/birthofacolony/act4.php
>> http://www.gemworld.com/US-MarriageLicense.htm
>> (Mary Ann Mason, excerpt from From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody, Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1994).
>> http://www.lp.org/platform
>> Cherokee women: gender and culture change, 1700-1835 By Theda Perdue
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/health/07broke.html?pagewanted=all
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother or your father. "
Fact: Again, marriage licenses are not issued based on any intent to parent children. But this statement claims that same-sex couple parenting should be illegal because every child must have a parenting father and mother. Since there’s no similar denunciation of single-parent adoptions or continuing as a single parent after a spouse dies, the argument is that if there are two parents involved, one must be biologically male and the other female. In other words, we’re told, it’s terrible for a child to have two mothers, but legally acceptable when a child has one mother and no father. This relies on the assumption that two loving parents are worse than one loving parent, which in turn relies on the full suspension of reason.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
If we want to limit the legal definition of marriage to one man and one woman, should we allow same-sex couples to have domestic partnerships and civil unions?
Opinion: “Domestic partnerships and civil unions are just a "stepping stone" to legalizing gay marriage. In states that have compromised by protecting marriage while leaving the issue of domestic partnerships open, bills are filed in the legislature every year to give legal status to domestic partnerships. Legislators have to deal with the issue over and over again. "
Fact: Amazingly, this statement suggests that bills introduced in support of legalized domestic partnerships are less legitimate than bills in opposition. Bills are introduced in response to the real concerns of a constituency. This is what lead Representative Forrester to introduce a bill eight consecutive years asking our state's legislators to “deal with” this amendment in North Carolina. Presumably he was responding to at least a small but vocal part of his constituency. Also, if lawmakers create a half-baked solution to a non-existent problem, they can expect challenges to it.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Domestic partnerships have all the rights and benefits of marriage, so eventually gay rights activists push to call it "marriage." The compromise is used as the hammer to push for same-sex "marriage."
Fact: Domestic partnership recognition is sought in places where full marriage rights are seen as currently unattainable. But, citizens have a right to 'hammer' for any policy they choose, and though this statement suggests otherwise, America is defined by this one fact. And if you believe citizens don't have the right to make marriage more inclusive, then you must also believe that citizens don't have the right to make it more exclusive.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Government endorsement and financial benefits should not be given on the basis of sexual behavior. "
Fact: Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a sexual behavior. The same is true of heterosexuality. That being said, this statement contradicts other arguments here that heterosexuals deserve the government "endorsement" of marriage licenses specifically because they produce children through sexual behavior. Both arguments are irrelevant, though, because the many couples - gay and straight- who have no sexual behavior whatsoever are just as deserving of legalized union as those who do.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Is gay marriage inevitable, because the tide of public opinion is turning?
Opinion: “North Carolinians and Americans still overwhelmingly believe marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. When asked if they agree with the statement: “I believe MARRIAGE should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman," 62% of Americans agree." (3)
Fact: This statement is false, and refers to data generated by the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund. In an apparent linking error, the article linked here actually exposes the ADF's strategy to skew the data. The respected polling, from Gallup, CNN, ABC News/Washington Post, all show at least 51 percent support for full, legal same-sex marriage, and that number is steadily growing.
>> http://washingtonindependent.com/110140/gay-marriage-poll-released-by-religious-right-group-was-intentionally-skewed
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “In North Carolina, most polls show between 62% and 70% of registered voters support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman." (4)
Fact: In all polling, and specifically on this issue, much is revealed by the specific questions asked, and the way they are asked. Elon University’s data on this issue differ from the conservative Civitas Institute data referenced here because the Elon polls have given respondents the opportunity to differentiate between opposition to gay marriage and opposition to this amendment. Because this amendment prohibits not just marriage, but domestic partnerships and civil unions, we see that a growing majority of North Carolinians oppose this amendment.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Advocates of gay marriage should not be allowed to redefine marriage for the rest of us. "
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Gay households in North Carolina number less than three percent of the population." (5)
Fact: The number of households identifying as “same-sex” in the 2010 North Carolina census is 27,250. A fundamental right is not validated by how many people are affected, but by how one single person is affected. In the United States of America, Mildred Loving represents thousands of others. But, if this is an attempt to suggest that only 27,250 households are fighting this amendment, there may be willful ignorance of the enormous outcry against the amendment from heterosexual households, individuals of all orientations, and civil rights advocates of every kind.
>> www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/ss-report.doc
>> http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Does same-sex marriage hurt anyone?
Opinion: “Same-sex marriage hurts everyone. The people of North Carolina will lose the right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife. "
Fact: The people of North Carolina include gay people, straight people, and all people who oppose this amendment. Our citizens have always retained the right to “redefine” marriage according to social change. In our early history, marriages performed by Presbyterian ministers were considered invalid, as were interracial marriages, until we ‘redefined’ them as legitimate in 1977 (some years after the Supreme Court required us to). But this argument is wrong mainly because it's circular: "if our citizens legalize same-sex marriage it will prevent our citizens from keeping it illegal."
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
Fact: This argument has been repeatedly shown to be false. Catholic Charities, for instance, is still tax-exempt even after some of its branches opted to give up federal contracts for adoption-placement because they didn't want to let gay couples adopt children. In terms of the use of parks, even the tax-exempt hate group lead by Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church (unambiguous web address: godhatesfags.com) get permits to use public spaces. So far in America, abhorrent views are not grounds for denial of free speech and association. Also, states legalizing same-sex unions have all stated clearly that no religious organization will be required to ‘endorse’ those marriages and can’t be penalized if they refuse to perform them. These religious exemptions against ‘facilitating a same-sex marriage’ may be so arbitrary, though, that they require revision. Is it ok to refuse goods and services for a wedding, but not ok to refuse goods for a same-sex anniversary party? What about the fuel for the cars driven by wedding guests, the mortgage on the house?
>> Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1438-39 nn.157-158]
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Small businesses like wedding florists and bed and breakfasts will be denied the right to refuse service to gay couples on religious grounds."
Fact: The very few lawsuits against vendors who have refused services for same-sex weddings have all been argued on the grounds that applicable state law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. North Carolina has no such law. Florists in our state currently have the right to forgo money from gay people, and even if same-sex marriage were legalized here, our discrimination laws are handled separately from marriage law. Many religious people would say there's a simple solution for the florist who wants to discriminate. “I’ll serve you but my religion tells me I must deeply disapprove of your desire for flowers at your gay wedding”. The florist would end up with his deeply held views intact, and government wouldn't have to regulate what is naturally self-correcting: either the couple pays for the roses in spite of what’s been said, which is unlikely, or they go elsewhere. Who would want roses from a florist who says that?
Religious liberty, however, does not trump our legitimate public interests. Parents acting on deeply held religious views may not, for instance, deny medical care to their children.
>> http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njlsp/v5/n2/4/index.html#note13
>> http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/32-5/Underkuffler.32-5.pdf
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “All businesses will be forced to provide benefits to same-sex partners. This will take away their freedom to make the decision based on business principles and subject them to government mandated same-sex partner benefits."
Fact: No business in the United States is required to provide optional benefits such as health insurance to any employee. However, in states where same-sex marriage is legal, companies may not extend benefits only to opposite-sex spouses. This is a function of insurance regulation in the respective states, and would be expected in any state extending legal marriage to same-sex couples. But, in Massachusetts, some companies have opted to stop extending benefits to domestic partners on the grounds that those couples can now legally marry. Benefit laws are not necessarily proportional to a state’s acceptance of domestic partnerships.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Public schools will teach young children that same-sex relationships are normal, and sex education classes will include explicit same-sex instruction. "
Fact: This statement inspires passionate responses, but is false. Though rights should never be decided based on what might, hypothetically, ever be taught to children, nothing inherent in any future legalization of same-sex unions leads necessarily to any curriculum content whatsoever. Citizens advocate for curriculum and opt-out laws independently of marriage law. The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage refers deceptively to a National Public Radio story on sex-education curriculum discussions in states allowing same-sex unions. The story quoted an 8th grade teacher as saying the content of her required sex-education curriculum had not changed. NOM objects to the teacher's statement that she now has more confidence to continue teaching the existing curriculum without facing arbitrary complaints.
However, there is no exclusively “same-sex intimacy” to instruct about. Our state’s General Statute 115C-81 on curriculum requires that instruction be objective and based upon scientific research that is peer reviewed by credentialed sexual health education experts. It would be unscientific and untrue, based on the best peer-reviewed evidence, to teach that there are acts engaged in by some homosexuals which are not also engaged in by heterosexuals.
Some states where same-sex unions are legal may coincidentally require school instruction about variations of sexual orientation, or it may be that the same citizenry would likely advocate for both. These citizens are probably responding to the science which says that some school children are gay, and may benefit from a neutral education about sexual orientation.
>> National Public Radio, All Things Considered, 9/13/04.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Gay marriage by definition deprives children of either a mother or a father. Social science concludes that children need both a mother and a father for the healthiest outcomes. "
Fact: Gay marriage does not, by definition, deprive children of anything, because children may not be a part of any marriage, gay or straight. All leading child-advocacy organizations have enthusiastically endorsed gay-couple adoptions - because the science clearly shows healthy outcomes for children. Also, thousands of gay couples are co-parenting children with former opposite-sex spouses. This means at least 3 loving parents, an increasingly common "modern family", and children deprived of nothing. If children were being harmed by gay parents, presumably we'd see an outcry of support for them, and presumably by the groups pointing out the supposed harms. We are not seeing this.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Gay marriage threatens social survival by severing procreation from marriage. It undermines public interest in favoring relationships required to perpetuate the race. "
Fact: It is doubtful that there's any official public interest in perpetuating “the race”. The “species” is probably what’s meant here, but government has no interest in maximizing the number of babies born. Again, North Carolina’s marriage licensing laws have no presumption of favoring procreation of any kind. Actually, procreation was popularized first by early humans interested in perpetuating the species long before the concept of marriage occurred to anyone. Legal marriage is the formalization of various rights and responsibilities of two people, whether they are parenting children or not. There may be efforts by species-perpetuation proponents to make all out-of-wedlock procreation illegal, but nothing in North Carolina marriage law favors procreation.
>> http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/DOMAfiling.pdf
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/doma-defense-lawsuit-house-representatives-gay-power_n_1021009.html
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Is divorce a bigger threat to marriage than gay marriage?
Opinion: “Same-sex marriage will not reduce the number of divorces but will remove what gives marriage institutional structure. We should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it."
Fact: State Representative Paul Stam worried recently about the “depreciation” of marriage if this amendment is voted down. The real depreciation of marriage comes from rhetoric which equates marriage with club membership and ignores the "appreciation" resulting from millions of people fighting for the right. Nothing about same-sex marriage leads to any change in the 'promotion' of marriage. More marriage is more marriage. Though the United States of America is a radical social experiment, and allowing women to vote was called a radical social experiment, it isn't an "experiment" when some state justices find that their constitutions do not show a compelling government interest in denying gay marriage. It's the normal functioning of the 3 branches of our government.
>> http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/lauamendmentsprotectmarriage.pdf
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “It would make sense if, and only if, homosexuals believed in saving sex for marriage and limiting sex to marriage, which is simply not the case. Monogamy among heterosexuals is 83 percent but less than 2 percent for homosexuals." (6)
Fact: Statistics on monogamy are irrelevant in deciding the legality of same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages alike. But, these numbers are false, and come from a book by the anti-science “gay-conversion” enthusiast Jeffrey Satinover. Satinover unscientifically mixes the data from various parts of the definitive study titled "The Social Organization of Sexuality", and elsewhere uses easily debunked statistics from the aggressively anti-gay Family Research Institute. But, fundamental rights are not decided, by rational societies, based on the perceived behaviors of some, true or otherwise. It’s also not logical to argue simultaneously that marriage promotes ‘healthy, stable relationships’ and that same-sex marriage should be banned because gay people don’t engage in those same healthy, stable relationships. Even if one of those arguments were valid, the other couldn't also be valid.
>> Gary J. Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute, a research group that studies gay issues at U.C.L.A]
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2098/
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,139848,00.html#ixzz1lC29kRMb
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/fashion/03marriage_bg.html?pagewanted=2
>> Murdock GP (1981) Atlas of world cultures. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Same-sex marriage will actually increase divorce. "
Fact: No evidence is presented here to support this argument because no such evidence exists. However, UNC Law Professor Holning Lau has compiled 10 years of marriage and divorce data from the United States: none of the five states with the lowest divorce rates has a marriage amendment, and states with the highest divorce rates do have marriage amendments. Connecticut, in the years after legalizing same-sex marriage, saw a sharp drop in divorces. Even if this argument were more supported by data than the argument that same-sex marriage will increase tornadoes, government laws concerning divorce are dealt with entirely separately than laws concerning marriage. It would be counterproductive for government to deny the marriage of some for fear others may divorce.
>> http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/lauamendmentsprotectmarriage.pdf
>> www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/marriage_rates_90_95_99-09.pdf www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce_rates_90_95_99-09.pdf.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
---------
For more detail about each of these 'opinions', please click the 'Go here' links above. Each detailed response can also be accessed by clicking back through this blog's posts. Each 'opinion' is presented in a distinct post, with the oldest post corresponding to the first 'opinion' listed in this post (above).
--------
Are our voting citizens passionate about opinions, or facts?
In the News and Observer recently, House Majority Leader Paul "Skip" Stam, referring to North Carolina’s current discussion on amending its constitution to ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, and same-sex marriage, said when asked about his fondness for logic, "Logic is a tool. If an argument is not logical, it's not persuasive.”
On May 8th, the ballot for the primary election will ask voters to mark “for” or “against” a “Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." Most initiatives of this kind in other states have limited their scope to the issue of marriage, but the legislature here voted to propose restricting not just marriage for same-sex couples, but civil unions and domestic partnerships for all couples, same-sex as well as opposite-sex, permanently in our constitution. The significance of this distinction, and the language used in discussions, matters a great deal. Those opposed to same-sex marriage may often be quite supportive of legal recognition for domestic partnerships. The proposed amendment here would make any such legal recognition illegal, and would nullify any recognition a couple may already have in another state.
Stam, one of the primary sponsors of the bill bringing the amendment to a popular vote, may be technically correct, but not logically correct. Every one of us every day is persuaded, and watches as others are persuaded, by utterly illogical arguments, or, more frequently, by arguments we choose not to subject to the rules of logic. Political candidates are today spending unprecedented money for negative campaign ads. Everyone knows it’s illogical to believe ads without evidence, but the ads are successful. They’re not meant to appeal to logic, they’re meant to be persuasive.
Supporters and denouncers of this amendment do agree: the right to engage in a public contract of union with another person is close to fundamental. The current disagreement is about who should be given that right. Our Constitution guides us: unless there is compelling public interest in denying a right, the right is assumed to exist, and is sometimes codified into law. The only real argument for a such a right is that there is no legitimate argument against it. The burden of proof, therefore, is on those who would argue against the right, and, ironically, those arguing for the right subtly send the message that the right must be “won”, and is not inherent.
Did
the eighty-year campaign of women for the right to vote ultimately
bring us the 19th Amendment? No, it came through lack of a compelling
public interest against it.
The last time North Carolinians voted on a Constitutional Amendment concerning familial affairs was in 1977, when women were given the same rights as men in certain aspects of life insurance. The people of our state have had 140 opportunities to vote on changes to the Constitution, and have rejected 36 of them. Sometimes amendments are well-reasoned, sometimes not: an 1835 amendment removed the right of free black men to vote. Of course, only property-owning white males could vote or hold office, so the full wisdom of the people was not employed. The rules of engagement change also depending on who’s in charge. Last September, Majority Leader Stam defended the decision not to allow public comment on the proposed amendment by saying “the public won’t get to speak because they will get to speak at the ballot box.” Stam didn’t believe the public should weigh in on whether this civil right should ever be put up to a popular vote, though, in the past, public comment has gone on for weeks about things like what day school should start.
Should we all be voting on fundamental rights? Most likely not. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Constitutions, where we choose to store our most cherished rights, are designed to protect the minority from the majority. This may sometimes only be crystal clear to those who’ve spent time in the minority. We generally elect representatives according to our own individual interests, but those representatives must act in the broadest interest of all the people. At the federal level, Constitutional amendments are only enacted after a long, broad, deep gauntlet of representational democracy, and are not put to a popular vote, because the creators of our federal system had extensive, unfortunate prior experience with “majority rule”.
We don’t question the federal system for deciding personal freedoms because we know it’s the best system we have. Elected officials have sworn to uphold the constitution, have imperatives to show up for debates and votes and to talk to constituents, must justify their votes to a broad electorate, and know that their votes will follow them everywhere, forever. Private citizens have none of those imperatives, and can vote based on emotions, not facts, quietly in a booth. Because personal freedoms are so important, we’ve made sure elected officials must at least hear debate before voting, and must vote or justify to us why they did not. There are no such assurances in direct-voting.
During the current debate, both sides have speculated on the benefits of low voter turnout. The founders of our country would find this very sad. Our country is strongest when everyone votes, no matter the outcome. But turnout in America is always low. This illustrates why a 100% turnout of distracted elected officials voting in the General Assembly has a far better chance of reaching a sustainably constitutional outcome than a 25% turnout of riled-up citizens.
But here we are. We will go to the polls and vote our consciences, or not. It’s tempting to say that extending rights to some takes away rights from others. This has never happened in the history of our nation. Enslaved people, newly freed, took no rights away from those who were already free. Civil rights are not a zero-sum game.
No
matter the outcome of this amendment vote, same-sex marriage will
still be illegal in our state. If the amendment passes, domestic
partnership and civil union recognition will also be illegal. The
provisions of this amendment would apply to opposite-sex couples as
well as same-sex couples, so it is not a vote only about gay rights.
Opinions differ, and they change. I remember public discussions some
decades ago about the first “gay rights” proposals. Much of the
opposition seemed to feel the rights weren’t deserved because of a
misapprehension that, in paraphrase, “they never settle down with one
partner to form lasting unions.” The question now is: to what extent
are we willing to legally ignore the unions which were always there.
Opposition to this amendment is not just from gay people, of course. Many gay people aren’t interested in marriage, and some same-sex couples aren’t interested in legal recognition. Religious communities, people of various faiths, parents and families of couples who would be affected, citizens who are passionate about a more perfect union - members of all these groups loudly oppose the amendment. In North Carolina, faith groups have offered some of the strongest opposition to this amendment.
Neither is support for the amendment monolithic. Some supporters may believe in virtually complete civil rights for gay people, but not the right to a legal union. Though tolerant language about sexual minorities is rare in the promotional materials of local and national groups opposed to same-sex unions, and these groups tend to oppose many other gay rights initiatives (equality in adoptions, hate-crimes laws, etc.), these groups generally present themselves officially as not “anti-gay”. North Carolina’s Reverend Ron Baity is unapologetically anti-gay. His rallies in Raleigh supporting pro-amendment legislators were endorsed by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the leading national group fighting same-sex unions and an affiliate of our state’s leading opponent of same-sex unions, the North Carolina Values Coalition. Baity’s January, 2012 newsletter includes an admonition against, in his words, “the warped, depraved gray matter of the homosexual community.” Baity is also keeping alive Anita Bryant's 30-year-old irrational, fact-free accusations. He says, “Since [gay people] cannot produce they must recruit young people.” That involves an impossible strategy toward a non-existent goal, and is fantastically false.
Majority Leader Stam has been responsible for some abbreviated compassion and reasoning in the past. During 2009 General Assembly debates about an anti-gay-bullying bill, Stam and the Christian Action League fought the bill by claiming the American Psychiatric Association maintains a list of 30 sexual orientations deemed “mental disorders”. No such list exists. General polling in our state shows that this level of opposition to the most basic gay rights may be rare.
Does North Carolina need an amendment against same-sex unions? A citizen could offer an opinion, “Yes, because I think those unions are for men and women.” We all act on our opinions daily, and even vote based on them. We’re entitled to act on opinions, and it’s unproductive to argue with someone who says that, in his opinion, dogs should fly airplanes. But if the same person begins to offer reasoning, supporting information, and logical analysis of his dog-pilot theory, he should expect some counter-arguments.
For these reasons, and because Majority Leader Stam invoked the importance of logic, I am offering responses to each of the arguments listed on the web site of the NC Values Coalition under the heading “Common Myths About the Marriage Amendment”. These ‘myths’ appear to be taken in some cases directly from materials produced by the National Organization for Marriage. The NC Values Coalition, heading up the local pro-amendment campaign, lists these ideas not as opinions, free from the requirements of verification, but as truths.
Each of the ideas presented by the NCVC as ‘myths’ is below, rephrased as an 'opinion'. Following these opinions are what I'm calling 'facts'.
-----
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “The real issue is whether we want to grant a government license for gay marriage. The purpose of a license is to protect society. "
Fact: It's the responsibility of those arguing for restrictive, protective licensing to demonstrate a compelling public interest, and that demonstration must rely on quantitative analysis rather than abstract, unjustifiable fears. Not insignificantly, marriage licenses were used since 1741 in North Carolina to "protect society" against a Caucasian human being marrying a black human being. Why did we realize that "protection" was unjustified? There was no compelling government interest in it.
>> The State Records of North Carolina, Volume 8", William Laurence Saunders
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Drivers' licenses seek to protect other motorists and pedestrians from danger stemming from unqualified drivers. "
Fact: If the implication is that gay people are unqualified to be married, due to public risk, then an "marriage test" would need to be administered to all prospective newlyweds - gay and straight. Since no such test is likely, and there is no evidence that gay couples would score any lower on it than straight couples, drivers' licenses may not be a good analogy for marriage licenses. In North Carolina, no 'qualifications' are required for a fishing license. Perhaps that's a better analogy.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Marriage licenses protect society from familial chaos by promoting stable unions for the purpose of responsibly producing and raising healthy, successful children in the best social unit possible - one consisting of their own mother and father. "
Fact: Marriage licenses are not promotional in nature; nor are drivers', fishermans', and pilots' licenses. A good example of this government non-endorsement comes from the NC Values Coalition website itself, on which these ‘opinions’ are listed. The disclaimer explaining the Coalition’s nonprofit license specifies: “The license is not an endorsement by the State.” Also, marriage licenses are issued independent of any plan to have or adopt children. But, if future child outcomes are criteria for licensing unions, then the science tells us that the poverty, smoking, alcoholism, and low educational achievement of the betrothed are the major concerns for children.
>> http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ny_19980730_nc-supreme-court-takes-custody-from-gay-father
>> http://www.northcarolinafamilylawnews.com/2010/09/01/homosexuality-and-child-custody-in-north-carolina/
>> http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/freedman-marriage-recs.html
>> http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/127975/
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Are bans on gay marriage like the bans on interracial marriage?
Opinion: "Gay marriage is totally different from interracial marriage. Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. "
Fact: Case law and social science show us that the bans on gay marriage are exactly the same as the bans on interracial marriage because the justifications for both are arbitrary, unscientific, and based on fears which fail to materialize. An alarming 40 percent of Alabama's residents voted twelve years ago to keep its ban on interracial marriage. People do vote based on arbitrary and unscientific fears. Mildred Loving, whose interracial marriage was so feared that it was challenged in the Supreme Court, said in 2007, "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and dad, and women don't get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone."
Fact: No one holds the trademark on "marriage". Cultures define it according to a changing, diverse set of understandings. Pastor Trewhella of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Wisconsin refuses now to marry anyone with a state-issued license, believing them to be "immoral". The national Libertarian Party believes government should not license any kind of marriage unions. The Cherokee societies of western North Carolina practiced polygamy. For much of our nation’s history, women had no standing in marriages, legally did not exist, and couldn't alone provide for children since they didn’t have any legal right to a salary or property. Of our state’s 1 million total households raising their own children, almost 400,000 are doing so without a husband or wife present. Single-parenting may be a valid concern, but it has no disproportionate association with legalized same-sex unions.
--
>> http://www.unctv.org/birthofacolony/act4.php
>> http://www.gemworld.com/US-MarriageLicense.htm
>> (Mary Ann Mason, excerpt from From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody, Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1994).
>> http://www.lp.org/platform
>> Cherokee women: gender and culture change, 1700-1835 By Theda Perdue
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/health/07broke.html?pagewanted=all
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother or your father. "
Fact: Again, marriage licenses are not issued based on any intent to parent children. But this statement claims that same-sex couple parenting should be illegal because every child must have a parenting father and mother. Since there’s no similar denunciation of single-parent adoptions or continuing as a single parent after a spouse dies, the argument is that if there are two parents involved, one must be biologically male and the other female. In other words, we’re told, it’s terrible for a child to have two mothers, but legally acceptable when a child has one mother and no father. This relies on the assumption that two loving parents are worse than one loving parent, which in turn relies on the full suspension of reason.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
If we want to limit the legal definition of marriage to one man and one woman, should we allow same-sex couples to have domestic partnerships and civil unions?
Opinion: “Domestic partnerships and civil unions are just a "stepping stone" to legalizing gay marriage. In states that have compromised by protecting marriage while leaving the issue of domestic partnerships open, bills are filed in the legislature every year to give legal status to domestic partnerships. Legislators have to deal with the issue over and over again. "
Fact: Amazingly, this statement suggests that bills introduced in support of legalized domestic partnerships are less legitimate than bills in opposition. Bills are introduced in response to the real concerns of a constituency. This is what lead Representative Forrester to introduce a bill eight consecutive years asking our state's legislators to “deal with” this amendment in North Carolina. Presumably he was responding to at least a small but vocal part of his constituency. Also, if lawmakers create a half-baked solution to a non-existent problem, they can expect challenges to it.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Domestic partnerships have all the rights and benefits of marriage, so eventually gay rights activists push to call it "marriage." The compromise is used as the hammer to push for same-sex "marriage."
Fact: Domestic partnership recognition is sought in places where full marriage rights are seen as currently unattainable. But, citizens have a right to 'hammer' for any policy they choose, and though this statement suggests otherwise, America is defined by this one fact. And if you believe citizens don't have the right to make marriage more inclusive, then you must also believe that citizens don't have the right to make it more exclusive.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Government endorsement and financial benefits should not be given on the basis of sexual behavior. "
Fact: Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a sexual behavior. The same is true of heterosexuality. That being said, this statement contradicts other arguments here that heterosexuals deserve the government "endorsement" of marriage licenses specifically because they produce children through sexual behavior. Both arguments are irrelevant, though, because the many couples - gay and straight- who have no sexual behavior whatsoever are just as deserving of legalized union as those who do.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Is gay marriage inevitable, because the tide of public opinion is turning?
Opinion: “North Carolinians and Americans still overwhelmingly believe marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. When asked if they agree with the statement: “I believe MARRIAGE should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman," 62% of Americans agree." (3)
Fact: This statement is false, and refers to data generated by the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund. In an apparent linking error, the article linked here actually exposes the ADF's strategy to skew the data. The respected polling, from Gallup, CNN, ABC News/Washington Post, all show at least 51 percent support for full, legal same-sex marriage, and that number is steadily growing.
>> http://washingtonindependent.com/110140/gay-marriage-poll-released-by-religious-right-group-was-intentionally-skewed
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “In North Carolina, most polls show between 62% and 70% of registered voters support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman." (4)
Fact: In all polling, and specifically on this issue, much is revealed by the specific questions asked, and the way they are asked. Elon University’s data on this issue differ from the conservative Civitas Institute data referenced here because the Elon polls have given respondents the opportunity to differentiate between opposition to gay marriage and opposition to this amendment. Because this amendment prohibits not just marriage, but domestic partnerships and civil unions, we see that a growing majority of North Carolinians oppose this amendment.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Advocates of gay marriage should not be allowed to redefine marriage for the rest of us. "
Fact: Advocates of gay marriage are “the rest of us”, as were advocates of abolition and women's suffrage.
But, the suggestion here is that not only do certain groups not
deserve equal civil rights, but they don’t even deserve the right to
advocate for those rights. Everyone in America is “allowed” to try to
redefine whatever they wish. Beyond this clarification, this
statement attempts again to redefine this amendment. Proposition 8 in
California sought to define "marriage". Amendment One doesn’t stop at
defining marriage. It defines any form of civil union or domestic
partnership as forever illegitimate.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Gay households in North Carolina number less than three percent of the population." (5)
Fact: The number of households identifying as “same-sex” in the 2010 North Carolina census is 27,250. A fundamental right is not validated by how many people are affected, but by how one single person is affected. In the United States of America, Mildred Loving represents thousands of others. But, if this is an attempt to suggest that only 27,250 households are fighting this amendment, there may be willful ignorance of the enormous outcry against the amendment from heterosexual households, individuals of all orientations, and civil rights advocates of every kind.
>> www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/ss-report.doc
>> http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Does same-sex marriage hurt anyone?
Opinion: “Same-sex marriage hurts everyone. The people of North Carolina will lose the right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife. "
Fact: The people of North Carolina include gay people, straight people, and all people who oppose this amendment. Our citizens have always retained the right to “redefine” marriage according to social change. In our early history, marriages performed by Presbyterian ministers were considered invalid, as were interracial marriages, until we ‘redefined’ them as legitimate in 1977 (some years after the Supreme Court required us to). But this argument is wrong mainly because it's circular: "if our citizens legalize same-sex marriage it will prevent our citizens from keeping it illegal."
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
Fact: This argument has been repeatedly shown to be false. Catholic Charities, for instance, is still tax-exempt even after some of its branches opted to give up federal contracts for adoption-placement because they didn't want to let gay couples adopt children. In terms of the use of parks, even the tax-exempt hate group lead by Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church (unambiguous web address: godhatesfags.com) get permits to use public spaces. So far in America, abhorrent views are not grounds for denial of free speech and association. Also, states legalizing same-sex unions have all stated clearly that no religious organization will be required to ‘endorse’ those marriages and can’t be penalized if they refuse to perform them. These religious exemptions against ‘facilitating a same-sex marriage’ may be so arbitrary, though, that they require revision. Is it ok to refuse goods and services for a wedding, but not ok to refuse goods for a same-sex anniversary party? What about the fuel for the cars driven by wedding guests, the mortgage on the house?
>> Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1438-39 nn.157-158]
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Small businesses like wedding florists and bed and breakfasts will be denied the right to refuse service to gay couples on religious grounds."
Fact: The very few lawsuits against vendors who have refused services for same-sex weddings have all been argued on the grounds that applicable state law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. North Carolina has no such law. Florists in our state currently have the right to forgo money from gay people, and even if same-sex marriage were legalized here, our discrimination laws are handled separately from marriage law. Many religious people would say there's a simple solution for the florist who wants to discriminate. “I’ll serve you but my religion tells me I must deeply disapprove of your desire for flowers at your gay wedding”. The florist would end up with his deeply held views intact, and government wouldn't have to regulate what is naturally self-correcting: either the couple pays for the roses in spite of what’s been said, which is unlikely, or they go elsewhere. Who would want roses from a florist who says that?
Religious liberty, however, does not trump our legitimate public interests. Parents acting on deeply held religious views may not, for instance, deny medical care to their children.
>> http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njlsp/v5/n2/4/index.html#note13
>> http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/32-5/Underkuffler.32-5.pdf
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “All businesses will be forced to provide benefits to same-sex partners. This will take away their freedom to make the decision based on business principles and subject them to government mandated same-sex partner benefits."
Fact: No business in the United States is required to provide optional benefits such as health insurance to any employee. However, in states where same-sex marriage is legal, companies may not extend benefits only to opposite-sex spouses. This is a function of insurance regulation in the respective states, and would be expected in any state extending legal marriage to same-sex couples. But, in Massachusetts, some companies have opted to stop extending benefits to domestic partners on the grounds that those couples can now legally marry. Benefit laws are not necessarily proportional to a state’s acceptance of domestic partnerships.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Public schools will teach young children that same-sex relationships are normal, and sex education classes will include explicit same-sex instruction. "
Fact: This statement inspires passionate responses, but is false. Though rights should never be decided based on what might, hypothetically, ever be taught to children, nothing inherent in any future legalization of same-sex unions leads necessarily to any curriculum content whatsoever. Citizens advocate for curriculum and opt-out laws independently of marriage law. The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage refers deceptively to a National Public Radio story on sex-education curriculum discussions in states allowing same-sex unions. The story quoted an 8th grade teacher as saying the content of her required sex-education curriculum had not changed. NOM objects to the teacher's statement that she now has more confidence to continue teaching the existing curriculum without facing arbitrary complaints.
However, there is no exclusively “same-sex intimacy” to instruct about. Our state’s General Statute 115C-81 on curriculum requires that instruction be objective and based upon scientific research that is peer reviewed by credentialed sexual health education experts. It would be unscientific and untrue, based on the best peer-reviewed evidence, to teach that there are acts engaged in by some homosexuals which are not also engaged in by heterosexuals.
Some states where same-sex unions are legal may coincidentally require school instruction about variations of sexual orientation, or it may be that the same citizenry would likely advocate for both. These citizens are probably responding to the science which says that some school children are gay, and may benefit from a neutral education about sexual orientation.
>> National Public Radio, All Things Considered, 9/13/04.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Gay marriage by definition deprives children of either a mother or a father. Social science concludes that children need both a mother and a father for the healthiest outcomes. "
Fact: Gay marriage does not, by definition, deprive children of anything, because children may not be a part of any marriage, gay or straight. All leading child-advocacy organizations have enthusiastically endorsed gay-couple adoptions - because the science clearly shows healthy outcomes for children. Also, thousands of gay couples are co-parenting children with former opposite-sex spouses. This means at least 3 loving parents, an increasingly common "modern family", and children deprived of nothing. If children were being harmed by gay parents, presumably we'd see an outcry of support for them, and presumably by the groups pointing out the supposed harms. We are not seeing this.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Gay marriage threatens social survival by severing procreation from marriage. It undermines public interest in favoring relationships required to perpetuate the race. "
Fact: It is doubtful that there's any official public interest in perpetuating “the race”. The “species” is probably what’s meant here, but government has no interest in maximizing the number of babies born. Again, North Carolina’s marriage licensing laws have no presumption of favoring procreation of any kind. Actually, procreation was popularized first by early humans interested in perpetuating the species long before the concept of marriage occurred to anyone. Legal marriage is the formalization of various rights and responsibilities of two people, whether they are parenting children or not. There may be efforts by species-perpetuation proponents to make all out-of-wedlock procreation illegal, but nothing in North Carolina marriage law favors procreation.
>> http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/DOMAfiling.pdf
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/doma-defense-lawsuit-house-representatives-gay-power_n_1021009.html
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Is divorce a bigger threat to marriage than gay marriage?
Opinion: “Same-sex marriage will not reduce the number of divorces but will remove what gives marriage institutional structure. We should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it."
Fact: State Representative Paul Stam worried recently about the “depreciation” of marriage if this amendment is voted down. The real depreciation of marriage comes from rhetoric which equates marriage with club membership and ignores the "appreciation" resulting from millions of people fighting for the right. Nothing about same-sex marriage leads to any change in the 'promotion' of marriage. More marriage is more marriage. Though the United States of America is a radical social experiment, and allowing women to vote was called a radical social experiment, it isn't an "experiment" when some state justices find that their constitutions do not show a compelling government interest in denying gay marriage. It's the normal functioning of the 3 branches of our government.
>> http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/lauamendmentsprotectmarriage.pdf
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “It would make sense if, and only if, homosexuals believed in saving sex for marriage and limiting sex to marriage, which is simply not the case. Monogamy among heterosexuals is 83 percent but less than 2 percent for homosexuals." (6)
Fact: Statistics on monogamy are irrelevant in deciding the legality of same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages alike. But, these numbers are false, and come from a book by the anti-science “gay-conversion” enthusiast Jeffrey Satinover. Satinover unscientifically mixes the data from various parts of the definitive study titled "The Social Organization of Sexuality", and elsewhere uses easily debunked statistics from the aggressively anti-gay Family Research Institute. But, fundamental rights are not decided, by rational societies, based on the perceived behaviors of some, true or otherwise. It’s also not logical to argue simultaneously that marriage promotes ‘healthy, stable relationships’ and that same-sex marriage should be banned because gay people don’t engage in those same healthy, stable relationships. Even if one of those arguments were valid, the other couldn't also be valid.
>> Gary J. Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute, a research group that studies gay issues at U.C.L.A]
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2098/
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,139848,00.html#ixzz1lC29kRMb
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/fashion/03marriage_bg.html?pagewanted=2
>> Murdock GP (1981) Atlas of world cultures. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
Opinion: “Same-sex marriage will actually increase divorce. "
Fact: No evidence is presented here to support this argument because no such evidence exists. However, UNC Law Professor Holning Lau has compiled 10 years of marriage and divorce data from the United States: none of the five states with the lowest divorce rates has a marriage amendment, and states with the highest divorce rates do have marriage amendments. Connecticut, in the years after legalizing same-sex marriage, saw a sharp drop in divorces. Even if this argument were more supported by data than the argument that same-sex marriage will increase tornadoes, government laws concerning divorce are dealt with entirely separately than laws concerning marriage. It would be counterproductive for government to deny the marriage of some for fear others may divorce.
>> http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/lauamendmentsprotectmarriage.pdf
>> www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/marriage_rates_90_95_99-09.pdf www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce_rates_90_95_99-09.pdf.
Go here for more details which prove the opinion isn't supported by the facts.
---------
For more detail about each of these 'opinions', please click the 'Go here' links above. Each detailed response can also be accessed by clicking back through this blog's posts. Each 'opinion' is presented in a distinct post, with the oldest post corresponding to the first 'opinion' listed in this post (above).
--------
Are our voting citizens passionate about opinions, or facts?
In the News and Observer recently, House Majority Leader Paul "Skip" Stam, referring to North Carolina’s current discussion on amending its constitution to ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, and same-sex marriage, said when asked about his fondness for logic, "Logic is a tool. If an argument is not logical, it's not persuasive.”
On May 8th, the ballot for the primary election will ask voters to mark “for” or “against” a “Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." Most initiatives of this kind in other states have limited their scope to the issue of marriage, but the legislature here voted to propose restricting not just marriage for same-sex couples, but civil unions and domestic partnerships for all couples, same-sex as well as opposite-sex, permanently in our constitution. The significance of this distinction, and the language used in discussions, matters a great deal. Those opposed to same-sex marriage may often be quite supportive of legal recognition for domestic partnerships. The proposed amendment here would make any such legal recognition illegal, and would nullify any recognition a couple may already have in another state.
Stam, one of the primary sponsors of the bill bringing the amendment to a popular vote, may be technically correct, but not logically correct. Every one of us every day is persuaded, and watches as others are persuaded, by utterly illogical arguments, or, more frequently, by arguments we choose not to subject to the rules of logic. Political candidates are today spending unprecedented money for negative campaign ads. Everyone knows it’s illogical to believe ads without evidence, but the ads are successful. They’re not meant to appeal to logic, they’re meant to be persuasive.
Supporters and denouncers of this amendment do agree: the right to engage in a public contract of union with another person is close to fundamental. The current disagreement is about who should be given that right. Our Constitution guides us: unless there is compelling public interest in denying a right, the right is assumed to exist, and is sometimes codified into law. The only real argument for a such a right is that there is no legitimate argument against it. The burden of proof, therefore, is on those who would argue against the right, and, ironically, those arguing for the right subtly send the message that the right must be “won”, and is not inherent.
The last time North Carolinians voted on a Constitutional Amendment concerning familial affairs was in 1977, when women were given the same rights as men in certain aspects of life insurance. The people of our state have had 140 opportunities to vote on changes to the Constitution, and have rejected 36 of them. Sometimes amendments are well-reasoned, sometimes not: an 1835 amendment removed the right of free black men to vote. Of course, only property-owning white males could vote or hold office, so the full wisdom of the people was not employed. The rules of engagement change also depending on who’s in charge. Last September, Majority Leader Stam defended the decision not to allow public comment on the proposed amendment by saying “the public won’t get to speak because they will get to speak at the ballot box.” Stam didn’t believe the public should weigh in on whether this civil right should ever be put up to a popular vote, though, in the past, public comment has gone on for weeks about things like what day school should start.
Should we all be voting on fundamental rights? Most likely not. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Constitutions, where we choose to store our most cherished rights, are designed to protect the minority from the majority. This may sometimes only be crystal clear to those who’ve spent time in the minority. We generally elect representatives according to our own individual interests, but those representatives must act in the broadest interest of all the people. At the federal level, Constitutional amendments are only enacted after a long, broad, deep gauntlet of representational democracy, and are not put to a popular vote, because the creators of our federal system had extensive, unfortunate prior experience with “majority rule”.
We don’t question the federal system for deciding personal freedoms because we know it’s the best system we have. Elected officials have sworn to uphold the constitution, have imperatives to show up for debates and votes and to talk to constituents, must justify their votes to a broad electorate, and know that their votes will follow them everywhere, forever. Private citizens have none of those imperatives, and can vote based on emotions, not facts, quietly in a booth. Because personal freedoms are so important, we’ve made sure elected officials must at least hear debate before voting, and must vote or justify to us why they did not. There are no such assurances in direct-voting.
During the current debate, both sides have speculated on the benefits of low voter turnout. The founders of our country would find this very sad. Our country is strongest when everyone votes, no matter the outcome. But turnout in America is always low. This illustrates why a 100% turnout of distracted elected officials voting in the General Assembly has a far better chance of reaching a sustainably constitutional outcome than a 25% turnout of riled-up citizens.
But here we are. We will go to the polls and vote our consciences, or not. It’s tempting to say that extending rights to some takes away rights from others. This has never happened in the history of our nation. Enslaved people, newly freed, took no rights away from those who were already free. Civil rights are not a zero-sum game.
No
matter the outcome of this amendment vote, same-sex marriage will
still be illegal in our state. If the amendment passes, domestic
partnership and civil union recognition will also be illegal. The
provisions of this amendment would apply to opposite-sex couples as
well as same-sex couples, so it is not a vote only about gay rights.
Opinions differ, and they change. I remember public discussions some
decades ago about the first “gay rights” proposals. Much of the
opposition seemed to feel the rights weren’t deserved because of a
misapprehension that, in paraphrase, “they never settle down with one
partner to form lasting unions.” The question now is: to what extent
are we willing to legally ignore the unions which were always there.Opposition to this amendment is not just from gay people, of course. Many gay people aren’t interested in marriage, and some same-sex couples aren’t interested in legal recognition. Religious communities, people of various faiths, parents and families of couples who would be affected, citizens who are passionate about a more perfect union - members of all these groups loudly oppose the amendment. In North Carolina, faith groups have offered some of the strongest opposition to this amendment.
Neither is support for the amendment monolithic. Some supporters may believe in virtually complete civil rights for gay people, but not the right to a legal union. Though tolerant language about sexual minorities is rare in the promotional materials of local and national groups opposed to same-sex unions, and these groups tend to oppose many other gay rights initiatives (equality in adoptions, hate-crimes laws, etc.), these groups generally present themselves officially as not “anti-gay”. North Carolina’s Reverend Ron Baity is unapologetically anti-gay. His rallies in Raleigh supporting pro-amendment legislators were endorsed by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the leading national group fighting same-sex unions and an affiliate of our state’s leading opponent of same-sex unions, the North Carolina Values Coalition. Baity’s January, 2012 newsletter includes an admonition against, in his words, “the warped, depraved gray matter of the homosexual community.” Baity is also keeping alive Anita Bryant's 30-year-old irrational, fact-free accusations. He says, “Since [gay people] cannot produce they must recruit young people.” That involves an impossible strategy toward a non-existent goal, and is fantastically false.
Majority Leader Stam has been responsible for some abbreviated compassion and reasoning in the past. During 2009 General Assembly debates about an anti-gay-bullying bill, Stam and the Christian Action League fought the bill by claiming the American Psychiatric Association maintains a list of 30 sexual orientations deemed “mental disorders”. No such list exists. General polling in our state shows that this level of opposition to the most basic gay rights may be rare.
Does North Carolina need an amendment against same-sex unions? A citizen could offer an opinion, “Yes, because I think those unions are for men and women.” We all act on our opinions daily, and even vote based on them. We’re entitled to act on opinions, and it’s unproductive to argue with someone who says that, in his opinion, dogs should fly airplanes. But if the same person begins to offer reasoning, supporting information, and logical analysis of his dog-pilot theory, he should expect some counter-arguments.
For these reasons, and because Majority Leader Stam invoked the importance of logic, I am offering responses to each of the arguments listed on the web site of the NC Values Coalition under the heading “Common Myths About the Marriage Amendment”. These ‘myths’ appear to be taken in some cases directly from materials produced by the National Organization for Marriage. The NC Values Coalition, heading up the local pro-amendment campaign, lists these ideas not as opinions, free from the requirements of verification, but as truths.
Each of the ideas presented by the NCVC as ‘myths’ is below, rephrased as an 'opinion'. Following these opinions are what I'm calling 'facts'.
-----
(*) The sources marked with small blue parentheses are the misleading links cited on the NC Values Coalition's web page of ‘opinions’. These sources are listed here:
[1] States like Virginia and Michigan which have the highest level of protection for marriage in their State's Constitutions show numerous companies listed with a 100% rating. Human Rights Campaign, "Best Places to Work: Corporate Equality Index 2011, at http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_CEI_2011_Survey.pdf.
[2] Ranked #3 in CNBC"'s, "America's Top States for Business 2011" at http://www.cnbc.com/id/41665883; Raleigh, NC Ranked #1 in Forbes"', "Best Places for Business and Careers," June 29, 2011, at http://www.forbes.com/best-places-for-business/; US News: Money, "Best Places to Live 2009" at http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/real-estate/articles/2009/06/08/best-places-to-live-2009.
[3] Stephanie Samuel, "Most Americans Still Believe in Traditional Marriage, Poll Shows," June 17, 2011 at http://washingtonindependent.com/111398/gay-marriage-poll-released-by-religious-right-group-was-intentionally-skewed.
[4] 73% favor or strongly favor, Civitas Institute Poll, December 2009, at http://www.nccivitas.org/2009/december-2009-poll-results/; 70% favor or strongly favor, Civitas Institute Poll, April 2010, at http://www.nccivitas.org/2010/civitas-poll-7-10-north-carolina-voters-support-constitutional-amendment-defini/.
[5] Mitch Weiss, "Census Shows Jump in Reported Number of Gay Households," Greensboro News-Record, June 30, 2011, at http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/06/30/article/census_shows_jump_in_reported_nc_gay_households.
[6] Jeffrey Satinover, M.C., "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 54. The data from which Dr. Satinover draws these figures is the Sex in America survey published by researchers from the University of Chicago in 1994.
[1] States like Virginia and Michigan which have the highest level of protection for marriage in their State's Constitutions show numerous companies listed with a 100% rating. Human Rights Campaign, "Best Places to Work: Corporate Equality Index 2011, at http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_CEI_2011_Survey.pdf.
[2] Ranked #3 in CNBC"'s, "America's Top States for Business 2011" at http://www.cnbc.com/id/41665883; Raleigh, NC Ranked #1 in Forbes"', "Best Places for Business and Careers," June 29, 2011, at http://www.forbes.com/best-places-for-business/; US News: Money, "Best Places to Live 2009" at http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/real-estate/articles/2009/06/08/best-places-to-live-2009.
[3] Stephanie Samuel, "Most Americans Still Believe in Traditional Marriage, Poll Shows," June 17, 2011 at http://washingtonindependent.com/111398/gay-marriage-poll-released-by-religious-right-group-was-intentionally-skewed.
[4] 73% favor or strongly favor, Civitas Institute Poll, December 2009, at http://www.nccivitas.org/2009/december-2009-poll-results/; 70% favor or strongly favor, Civitas Institute Poll, April 2010, at http://www.nccivitas.org/2010/civitas-poll-7-10-north-carolina-voters-support-constitutional-amendment-defini/.
[5] Mitch Weiss, "Census Shows Jump in Reported Number of Gay Households," Greensboro News-Record, June 30, 2011, at http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/06/30/article/census_shows_jump_in_reported_nc_gay_households.
[6] Jeffrey Satinover, M.C., "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 54. The data from which Dr. Satinover draws these figures is the Sex in America survey published by researchers from the University of Chicago in 1994.
http://sites.google.com/site/hemlockbluffcloggers/
