No need to amend

Advocates for a ban on same-sex marriage often lure opponents into a confrontation that amounts to a clever set-up. Shouting matches ensue, and supporters of a ban accuse those who disagree with them of being against religious principles, common decency and Adam and Eve. It's hard for people who honestly disagree even to be heard amid all the implications that they are siding with the devil.

So state Sen. Marc Basnight of Manteo, Democratic leader of the state Senate, is due credit for getting right to the heart of the matter in opposing a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in North Carolina. For one thing, he said, North Carolina doesn't recognize gay marriage now. (A 1996 law says that such marriages are invalid.) And for another, the senator said, "The constitution is not the place to make law. If so, every interest group would want their issue embedded in the constitution."

This is a fight not worth having -- though the several thousand folks who rallied Tuesday near the Legislative Building to support such an amendment are entitled to their opinions, which undoubtedly are sincere. Their beliefs, deep and abiding, are important to them. And legislators who want a constitutional amendment say that the laws currently on the books -- including that 1996 one -- could be overturned if a judicial ruling found them unconstitutional.

OK, but just how much of a threat is that? Such a ruling doesn't seem to be looming.

The same jargon about the threats to society posed by same-sex marriages might be used against civil unions, called gay marriages by some, or even to argue against benefit packages offered by more and more companies to the domestic partners of employees, no matter their sexual orientation. And let's not forget that when civil rights laws required integration of public schools and other spaces, some said doom was on the horizon.

The lifestyles of same-sex couples may be disapproved of by many, but putting the issue in the political arena scarcely helps anyone. It gives grandstanding pols a chance to show off, but it's hard to argue that a little tolerance of differing views on the issue threatens the American family structure. It's even harder to make a case for an unnecessary constitutional amendment.