The Marriage Amendment

     I know I've had something to say on North Carolina's upcoming vote on the "Marriage Amendment" in the past.  I know how much of a polarizing issue this is for a number of people out there.  Granted this is my blog and my opinions reign, however, I am willing to open the floor to anyone who would like to email me their opinion or counter opinion.  I don't usually believe in the whole op-ed format but, in this case, I believe it's called for.  I was made aware this morning that there are a number of people I know on the fence about the issue and, since several of them apparently are avid readers, I not only encouraged them to research the issue themselves but told them I would open the floor here as well to anyone wishing to voice what they had to say.  What I will do is collect any and all responses to this posting and publish them, in their entirity minus the name of the contributor, late afternoon on Saturday 5/5/12.  Please rest assured that if I didn't feel this issue was significantly important I would not be contributing this space to it. 
     I am unequivocably against the proposed Amendment to the North Carolina State Constitution which will define marriage as being between one man and one woman.  Not that it matters but I am a registered Independant and I consider myself to be fairly conservative in my views.  There are two reasons I believe this amendment is a poor decision.  First, I believe in the right of any citizen of this state to pursue their own happiness.  More succinctly, to borrow a phrase from a surprisingly open-minded older gentleman I spoke with regarding this issue today, I believe in everyone's right to be miserably married no matter what their sexual orientation may be.  Therefore, I consider this amendment to be essentially antithetical to that right to pursue happiness.  I am a proponent of love, always have been and always will be, no matter what form that love may take.

     Secondly, I believe this amendment lends itself to the "slippery slope" argument.  Essentially, passing this amendment allows our state government to dictate, to a degree, what is acceptable behind close doors between consenting adults.  Remember Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist and his repeated dissenting opinion arguments about the letter versus the spirit of the law?  Bill Rehnquist's point was that while a law may not specifically make something illegal it can, and often does, create a legal grey area from which interpretation can lead to governmental action that was not intended verbatim in the original document.  Simply put, if I want elected officials to tell me what is and is not okay to do in my bedroom with my partner of choice I will invite them over, give the a mining helmet and some flip cards, and hope they agree with the German judge on my overall score.  Allowing the government to define marriage as between one man and one woman can, not necessarily will but can, point us in a direction where lifestyles can once again be defined as illegal.

     Hopefully you'll notice that I'm not going in to any of the scare tactics that both the pro and con side are using in their ads because, if you actually read the proposed amendment, you'll find that some of these are alarmist over-reactions and some are outright fabrications.  Let's not waste time with those.  Let's stick to the facts.

     That's my humble opinion and why I will vote the way I will this coming Monday.  I hope as many of you as possible will take a moment to either comment or email your opinions in to me so we can open this as a dialogue.  No one will be ranted at or picked on, even if your opinion is a bit less than, shall we say, informed.  I want to give anyone that wants it a chance to speak your peace.