Videos and statements for and against Amendment One:
Family law professors from North Carolina universities explain the harms of Amendment 1:
"Vote FOR Marriage NC" launched ad "refuting false claims about Amendment:"
The State Board of Education passes a resolution against Amendment 1:
"The State Board of Education passed a resolution today opposing the constitutional amendment on marriage by a vote of 5-4.
Board member John Tate of Charlotte proposed the resolution because, he said, passing it will cause disruption in families that will hurt children's classroom performance." 10
"Why marriage matters," from the Vote FOR marriage NC website:
"In recent years, the definition of marriage in our country has become a passionate topic of debate at both the state and federal levels. Although on its surface, the debate may seem straight forward, the issues and subsequent consequences surrounding the definition of marriage are much more complex than many of us may think.
This May, North Carolina voters will have the opportunity to forever preserve the definition of marriage in our state by voting YES on the Marriage Protection Amendment.
What is the Marriage Protection Amendment and what is at stake for North Carolinians with the amendment vote this May?
While many people would like to believe that proposals to allow same-sex marriage are simply about allowing a different form of marriage to coexist alongside traditional man/woman marriage, they are wrong. The impact that same-sex marriage will have on society is much deeper and far-reaching then a modest change in the word’s definition.
What is at stake in this debate are two competing definitions of marriage. One definition – advocated by same-sex “marriage” activists – would define marriage as the union of any two people regardless of gender, with the law treating the parties’ genders as irrelevant to the meaning of marriage. The other definition, contained in the proposed constitutional amendment and reflective of North Carolina’s current law and the collective understanding of virtually every nation throughout recorded history, is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Under the law, one definition of marriage would not exist alongside the other. Only one of the competing definitions of marriage would legally exist. As noted in a scholarly review published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, “…once the judiciary or legislature adopts ?the union of any two persons’ as the legal definition of civil marriage, that conception becomes the sole definitional basis for the only law-sanctioned marriage that any couple can enter, whether same-sex or man-woman. Therefore, legally sanctioned genderless marriage, rather than peacefully coexisting with the contemporary man-woman marriage institution, actually displaces and replaces it.”
Why has virtually every society throughout history defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman? The answer can be summarized in one word: children.
Protecting the interests of children is the primary reason that government regulates and licenses marriage in the first instance. After all, government does not license or regulate any other form of intimate relationship – not friendship or dating. People are free, under the law, to live as they choose, and engage in sexually intimate relationships with whomever they choose – all without any governmental recognition or regulation.
But marriage is a special relationship reserved exclusively for heterosexual unions, because only the intimate relationship between men and women has the ability to produce children as a result of that sexual union." 13
2012-MAY-04: North Carolina Psychoanalytic Society issues statements against Amendment 1:
"We have never before taken a public stand on a political issue, with profound respect for each individual’s right, and need, to express their own true opinions -- not ours.
But we speak up now AGAINST Amendment One because we understand up-close, in our work talking deeply with good people about their lives, what a devastating impact this proposed amendment to our State Constitution -- to ban same-sex marriage -- would have on the emotional well-being of many loving, healthy and successful North Carolina families.
Modern psychoanalytic research indicates that these families share the strengths and struggles of all families -- and that they are doing quite well. Gender development can proceed healthily for children, intergenerational bonds can strengthen, family values and traditions can grow, love can mature -- in equal measure with all families.
We ask North Carolinians to imagine what it would be like for YOU if an essential part of who you are -- your faith, your race, your family’s values -- were publicly and officially declared wrong and illicit under our State Constitution by a majority vote of fellow citizens and neighbors. What would you say to your children? What would it be like going back into your workplace, your children’s school, a neighborhood gathering, or a courtroom seeking equal justice under the law?
We believe that if the people of North Carolina can have that kind of understanding and respect for one another, they will vote overwhelmingly and decisively AGAINST Amendment One on May 8." 7
NAACP statement against Amendment 1:
"... the recently unsealed secret documents from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) ... [reveal] the real strategy behind this amendment. Their 2009 report reads:
'The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks -- two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wantsto take up and push an issue that splits the base of his party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is keyto raising the costs of pushing gay marriage toits advocates ... find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally.'
We already know that two groups on the steering committee behind this amendment,the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, are affiliated with national organizations recognized as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The real insult to the Civil Rights Movement is that the same regressive, ultra-conservative Tea Party type folks suing to overturn the 1965 Voting Rights Act, re-segregating and robbing our public schools of valuable resources, blocking workers' rights to organize, trying to force us all to get photo ID's to exercise our right to vote and cut back on the time and opportunities to vote, and attempting to repeal the Racial Justice Act, now somehow think the sons and daughters of the Civil Rights Movement cannot see through their Trojan Horse trick.
And now this -- the allegation of a blatant reference to a twisted race-based rationale for Amendment One being written in the first place. North Carolinians must reject this ultra-conservative, regressive and mean spirited agenda. We must be better than this as a state and as a people who make glowing claims to our belief in justice and fairness for all. We must vote AGAINST discrimination, division and hate in our Constitution. We must vote AGAINST Amendment One." 6
"Potential Legal Impact of the Proposed Same-Sex Marriage Amendment to the North Carolina Constitution," American Civil Liberties Association of North Carolina, 2011-JUN-06, at: http://www.acluofnc.org/ This is a PDF file.