North Carolina already has a statute defining legal marriages in the state. In 1996, the state legislature amended the general marriage statutes to include 51-1.2. that declares, “Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or preformed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.” But the statute is not enough for the Republican-led legislature. After the 2010 election, the GOP won control of both houses of the state legislature, the first time in 100 years. Although vowing not to promote social issues over budget concerns, leaders of the legislature now want to endorse an amendment to the state constitution that, in essence, bans same-sex marriage.
The Basis for a Ban on Same-sex Marriages in North Carolina
On May 24, 2011, Forsyth County GOP chairman Nathan Tabor gave the “pragmatic conservative” rationale against same-sex marriages in an op-ed piece printed in the Winston Salem Journal. Tabor began with the conservative argument that, “marriage remains the cornerstone of society.” Yet, as the New York Times (May 20, 2011) reported, new census data demonstrates that, “Married couples have dropped below half of all American households…” reflecting a rejection of “traditional forms” of family experience.
Recent high profile infidelities on the part of both Democrats and Republicans have dented the notion of the sanctity of the marriage vows. Some of these Republicans were conservatives who promoted themselves as family men.
In his first paragraph, Tabor appeals to the notion of a higher law, dismissing “government or judicial response…” He elaborates with the phrase, “…the tyranny of back-robed lawyers – judges…” But, as Tabor reminds his readers, “Marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman.” It is interesting that he uses the Puritan term covenant, taken from the Old Testament, to define a non-legal but religious relationship. That is the basis for the ban on same-sex marriage.
Using the Bible Selectively to Damn Homosexuals
Every conservative begins with Leviticus 18:22. A male that lies with another male is an “abomination.” The passage is straight forward and requires little deeper interpretation. It is, however, part of a much larger document that allows God’s chosen to possess slaves and bans working on the Sabbath under pain of death. In Exodus 21.7, a father is permitted to sell his daughter into slavery.
Slavery was a prominent feature of the New Testament as well. In the epistle to Philemon, a fugitive slave is counselled to return to his master and the master is admonished to treat his slave fairly. Toward the end of the second century more wealthy Romans than ever before turned to Christianity, keeping their slaves. Even in the New Testament, the Greek term for “household,” used in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles like the letters to Corinth, denote Roman-style homes that include slaves as part of the entire paterfamilias familial system.
The New Testament, conversely, says very little about homosexuals. Even Paul’s writings in Romans 1 do not describe the modern gay lifestyle but, as now deceased Yale professor John Boswell details, refers to temple prostitution. This makes more sense when the reader considers that most Christians in Rome at the time of Paul’s writing were slaves and lower income citizens. Jesus never called for a slave uprising. He also never addressed homosexuality.
Wasted Tax Dollars and the Possibility of a Hate Campaign
North Carolina is home to several large military bases. Gays in the military no longer need fear the “don’t Ask don’t tell” policy (December 2011). Additionally, many North Carolina cities have vocal gay communities. A needless referendum on same-sex marriage, especially after other states have legalized it, may result in a bitter hate campaign. At a time the Republican legislature emasculates public education with a punitive state budget, any funds allocated toward such referenda are a mockery.
Are Gays Demanding Special Rights?
Nathan Tabor, whose op-end piece continues to generate state-wide response, resorts to the same illogic he accuses the liberals of: gays are in essence inventing special rights that do not exist. Tabor refers to the newly created rights of “a right to food, a right to shelter, etc…” reminding readers that these rights are, “not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.” Yet Tabor invokes Christianity in the same brief paragraph.
Jesus, the founder of Christianity, spent many hours feeding the hungry, at times performing miracles to provide food such as the feeding of the five thousand men. Jesus also spent most of his time with the unclean, persons deemed outcasts by society’s mainstream. His own disciples were fishermen and, in the case of Matthew, despised tax collectors. He reminded his listeners not to judge and that each person stands alone as a sinner before God.
North Carolina no longer has slaves. Mixed marriages based on racial considerations are a thing of the past (Loving v. Virginia, 1967). Blacks can sit today at any lunch counter in the nation, a process that began in Greensboro, North Carolina. Opposition to these “rights” was also Bible-based. Gays are not demanding special rights. Rather, they seek to be treated as equal, full members of a post modern society.
Sources:
- John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980)
- Nathan Tabor, “The pragmatic conservative and same-sex marriage,” Winston Salem Journal, May 24, 2011
- New American Standard Bible (Moody Press, 1973)
- Garry Wills, What Jesus Meant (Viking, 2006)
Join the Conversation