The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Those of us who lived through the 2006 marriage amendment campaign well remember the ridiculous claims of “unintended consequences,” things like contracts not being valid and domestic violence laws no longer being enforcable. Many were repeated by the media and editorial pages. Virginans saw through such nonsense of course, and passed the amendment with 57 percent support.
Since its passage there have been no reports of “unintended consequences.” In fact, the amendment has done simply what it was intended to do, protect the definition of marriage. (We haven’t, however, seen any editorals admitting that they were wrong about the amendment’s impact.)
But such realities aren’t stopping opponents of North Carolina’s marriage amendment from making exactly the same claims. You could really just plug “Virginia” in every place articles say “North Carolina” and you too can relive 2006. Despite the fact that none of the wild claims have come true in the past six years, same-sex marriage advocates continue to use the same talking points.
But facts have never been a big part of the same-sex marriage movement.
As in Virginia, expectations are that North Carolinians will pass the amendment, making marriage amendments the most popular ballot initiatives perhaps in history (with NC, they will be 31-0).
Despite this overwhelming number, same-sex marriage advocates and their media apologists continue to claim that they are, in fact winning. A spokesman for the so-called “Human Rights Campaign” said, “No matter the outcome [of NC], support for these divisive amendments is nowhere near where it once was.”
A claim made with as much validity as “unintended conseqences.”
Constitutional amendments about marriage are a gimmick. As proponents of limited Constitutional government, Family Foundation surely realizes the definition of marriage has no place in the foundational organizing documents of a State (or Federal) government. That’s what laws are for. Anyone who thinks that enshrining the definition of marriage in a State constitution is somehow permanent is kidding themselves. It’s just away around using the proper legislative processes. The Republican NC State House Speaker already said he thinks that if this amendment passes it will be repealed within 20 years.
This entire Constitutional strategy is a strategy to roadblock activist judges, instead of using the political process properly to influence the appointment or election of judges. Failure in using those processes is not a justification for drastic Constitutional amendments. It sets a precedent for amending the Constitution whenever there is a fear that judges might interpret laws in an unpopular way. And that is NOT consistent with limited government.
David: Are you a self-style libertarian or a liberal trying to tell us what conservatism means? – Steve, The Admin
[...] yes, the opposition. My colleague Chris Freund commented on its tactics earlier today: it used the same worn out and unapologetic lies they used in Virginia in 2006 and in the 29 other [...]
Steve: I am neither, and far from liberal. I do believe that doing a Constitutional end-run around the legislative and judicial processes because you are afraid of what a judge might do somededay is an insult to the concept of Constitutional government. Read FF’s own principles about Constitutional government on your own web site, including:
“The Family Foundation seeks to limit government to the jurisdictions it is entitled to by our Constitution – areas like public safety and infrastructure.” I know you’re talking about Federal, but you espouse a Constitutional point of view. If FF supports a Federal marriage amendment, that would be total hypocrisy.
You can preserve marriage through legislation if you do your job effectively. Now that the precedent is set, it will be interesting to see what constitutional amendments FF supports next to neuter the legislative and judicial processes.
David: Thanks for you original comment and your reply to my question. I’m glad you realize it was of legitimate interest and not sarcasm. I couldn’t comment without knowing what angle you were taking.
I respectfully disagree. Constitutions have amendment processes for exactly the reason you state: Activist judges and other circumstances that can take away our rights and liberties or change the meaning of institutions upon which the country was founded. The Founders knew the country would evolve and needed an mechanism to change or protect rights and institutions. It’s not easy to get constitutions changed — at least not the federal one, and Virginia’s is not a picnic, either.
You say you can preserve marriage through legislation, but that hasn’t been the case. Airtight laws and precedent have not mattered to left-wing judges. Look at Roe. It was a completely contrived decision, finding a “privacy” right to allow the murder of the unborn.
Just looking at it from the states’ perspective, it took away a state prerogative at the time, to define life, and federalized something not addressed by the constitution. If it’s not in the federal constitution, it is supposed to be left up to the states to decide. Marriage has always been a state issue. So, by any measurement, we are being completely consistent, with our support for marriage amendments, and even a federal one if it comes to that. To say we can’t advocate for amending the constitution to remedy a wrong means we couldn’t amend the constitution for any of the 27 amendments we have.
- Steve, The Admin
We’ll have to agree to disagree. First there has to be a wrong to remedy, and there were no same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships in Virginia (or North Carolina, for that matter) before these amendments were made. Amending the constitution to organize government and protect rights, yes. These amendments aren’t doing that; they’re circumventing the government mechanisms that were set up by Constitutions, as some kind of preventative measure, not in response to anything that has actually happened. The North Carolina Constitutional amendment is Amendment 1, which means that Constitution hadn’t been amended since 1789. To contend that 223 years later an amendment was suddenly needed to prevent same-sex marriage when the law already prohibited it is extremely disingenuous. Since we have a friendly disagreement, and we have both voiced it, I have nothing further to add except that I am genuine in my comments.
Whoops…I’m wrong about the history of NC amendments but can’t edit the above The 1971 has been amended before, but those amendments are incorporated, not listed as amendments. In only one case was a right restricted, the right of a felon to hold the office of Sheriff. All others were expansions. The rest of my comments hold.
David: What do you mean “not in response to anything that has actually happened”? These amendments are in response to courts in several states imposing same-sex marriage. Just b/c it may not have happened in VA or NC doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protect ourselves. The people of Iowa, for example, never saw its SC decision coming. Completely blind sided. Your other point about circumventing mechanisms is what is disingenuous. The amending process in VA or for the US says NOTHING about the reasons at why the constitution should be amended. So, yes, we can have a gentleman’s disagreement, but there should be valid points made. You have made two assertions that just are not true. – Steve, The Admin
Amending a State constitution based on something that happened in another State is exactly my point about nothing happening in the State. It’s a preventative end run, and a misuse of a founding organizational document. Your charge that my statements are untrue is equally so. You will, however, have the last word since this is your web site. Good day.
David: I hope you don’t think I’m rushing you off this page. Feel free to come back and make as many points as you’d like. This is a good discussion about constitutional mechanisms, which I appreciate. I just see it another way. I see amendments done in advance all the time to inoculate frameworks of government from an interpretive crisis by the judiciary. The Bill of RIghts did so. How many times do we see judicial opinions say laws are not clear and invite legislatures to clarify them or enshrine them so they cannot be misinterpreted? Again, there is nothing in our history, laws or anything anywhere that restricts the when and why we should amend the VA Const. Show me that I will agree with you. But the Founders knew that we’d have to adjust our const from time to time for any given reason and gave us the mechanism to do it, without a proscription to defer to the legislature first. It just isn’t there and nothing you’ve written over rides that. – Steve, The Admin
Admin, you suggest that “courts in several states imposed same-sex marriage.” Is the remedy for that to allow society at large to vote on whether one segment of that society (gays) should be granted the same constitutional rights that the rest of us enjoy?
And another point; is your opposition to gay marriage a religious based argument? If so, who elevated homosexuality above other sins? God never did. Jesus never did. But they had plenty to say about adultery and keeping the Sabbath holy. Why do you not seek legislation that would ban those who divorce their spouses from remarrying? After all, doesn’t that facilitate serial adultery? Why do you not seek laws that go after Sabbath violating CEO’s who enjoy Sundays with their families while their workers toil so the shareholders can watch their portfolios grow?
The reality is, you rank-order sin in ways that neither God nor Jesus ever did just to fit your twisted doctrine under the guise of “Christian values.”
Mr. Siegel: You use the Leftist tactics of not only wanting to redefine institutions, but to assign motives. It makes for a dishonest discussion. First, we don’t agree with taking away one’s rights. But we do not agree on redefining an institution that has been around as long as civilization. If two men want to live together, we can’t stop that nor would we want to. However, that’s a big difference from the state recognizing and conferring upon it the privileges reserved for one man and one woman.
You assign us the motive of elevating a certain sin and trying to define what we believe,and label it as “Twisted Christian values” to demonize us. Not true. Again, no one is trying to keep two men or women from living together. We dont’ agree with it, but marriage amendments do not address that. But marriage was instituted as a bond between one man and one woman to procreate, create families and raise children. This is a law of nature. So, your argument isn’t with us. We are not elevating certain sins. That is your (and the Left’s) cynical tactic to discredit marriage amendments. It won’t work and hasn’t worked in 31 states.
As for voting on matters, it is a mechanism for amending our constitution and takes a combination of the legislature and the voters to approve. So the voters and legislatures in 31 states are wrong and have no right to determine the laws of their states? Even the president said it was a state issue.
Lastly, states are not banning anything, but affirming the recognized and traditional definition of something that is the bedrock of communities and has been for thousands of years. If not, what is to stop polygamy, adults marrying minors or other such situations.
- Steve, The Admin
Please give your definition of “Leftist” because there seems to be a disconnect between the admins and the dictionary.