The purpose of the Marriage Protection Amendment is to restrict anybody in the North Carolina government from operating by fiat or by cabal to redefine a relationship that is unquestionably acknowledged as the basic building block of a stable society going back thousands of years and preceding any modern religion or political party. The amendment would prohibit government officials from changing the existing statutes (which ban same-sex marriage) without the express permission of the citizenry. The amendment also specifically frees the private sector to define marriage as it wants to.
Why do we need to do this? Since the time of Nero in Rome, the natural trajectory of government is to expand anywhere and everywhere it can; and when government expands, personal liberty contracts. The notion of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is vanishing concept. While we still have elections where we can effect some changes via in the legislative and executive branches, we are at a tipping point where the most powerful entities are the judicial branch and administrative agencies, because of their ability to establish precedent and to author regulations.
In Iowa, four judges imposed their will on all the whole state by establishing a precedent regarding same-sex marriage that cannot be undone through judicial elections. In New York State, the government legalized gay marriage last summer. Many people loudly denounced the legislature and the governor. However, they only provided the icing on the cake, as the overwhelming majority of the work to legalize gay marriage was already performed by low-level judges in New York who had been consistently and quietly establishing legal precedent for the last few years.
Governing through judicial precedent and through administrative agency regulations are far more threatening than making law or issuing executive orders because they are nearly impossible to reverse. The only rock-solid remaining check on government is through the constitutional amendment process.
Through trial and error, and before the appearance of any organized religion, human societies have recognized that a lifelong partnership between one man and one woman is the only model that is beneficial to society as a whole. Many societies have tried to integrate a homosexually based and /or polygamous-based model alongside the traditional model. However, the results have been detrimental not just to these alternative relationships, but to the society as a whole.
From European history classes in high school I learned that the acceptance of homosexual relations was co-incident with the decline of Athenian and of Roman society. This lifestyle influenced a decrease in the fertility rate (below the replacement rate), greater promiscuity among heterosexuals, increased alcoholic consumption to dangerous levels and an increase in abortion (which was forbidden by Catholic Church since the 1st century AD).
I hear many people argue, How does the acceptance of homosexual relationships within the definition of marriage cheapen my traditional marriage? Using the same logic, how does my neighbors use of drugs within his home affect the non-use of drugs in my home? Shouldnt we therefore legalize the personal use of drugs by adults?
I have viewed the YouTube videos by Gov. Beverly Purdue and U.S. Rep. David Price in opposition to the marriage amendment. I have read the statement by Sen. Kay Hagen. They simply read off a litany of incredible consequences without expanding on a single one of them. If any of these doomsday scenarios are real, how is it that they are not manifest today, as the amendment only constitutionalizes the status quo? And how is it that none of these doomsday scenarios are manifest in our neighboring states that already have this kind of constitutional amendment in place?
Gerard Falzon lives in Morrisville.