Being under his Lordship, I must obey
For followers of Jesus, the Bible - God's Word - is very clear. Marriage is not a right for humans to have. It's a gift from God, an ordinance written into creation. Its definition by God is not only for Jews and Christians, but a creation creed for all people everywhere. God defined marriage, not us! In original intent, God clearly defined his will for marriage in Genesis 2:24. ... God's will for marriage is one man, one woman, in a committed heterosexual, monogamous relationship.
Humans for centuries have tried to abrogate God's original intent. Whether it's pre-marital sex, adultery, pornography, polygamy, divorce among others, our hardened, selfish hearts deny marriage as God intended it. Whenever the prophets in the Bible saw these aberrations from God's original intent, they called God's people back to Genesis 2:24.
Although Jesus never directly addressed homosexuality per se, he did address God's intent for sexuality in marriage. He quoted Genesis 2:24. Being under his Lordship, I must too.
Every study I've read says marriage between a man and a woman is the healthiest way to raise children. It's the foundation for health of a nation.
- Excerpted from a letter from Forest Hill Church Pastor David Chadwick to his congregation
Traditional families raise children best
Raising children is difficult. Raising children in a non-traditional home is even harder.
As a society, we have historically recognized the importance of strong, traditional families as the basis of civilization. Statistical analysis and historical evidence show clearly the importance of the two parent, man and woman, family structure to our society. But that family structure has been under attack for decades.
Expanding the definition of "marriage" to include "alternate lifestyles" dilutes the distinction marriage and traditional families have always enjoyed in our society and thereby increases the proliferation of non-traditional and statistically "special needs" families. Strengthening and upholding the special nature of traditional one man-one woman marriage provides enormous societal and economic benefits while protecting and nurturing the next generation of productive citizens.
It is time to narrow and establish the definition of marriage, not increase the number of non-traditional families in our society.
- David Moore, a freelance writer in Matthews
Don't believe hype of what this would do
Let's look at what the amendment does and does not do. It would recognize only domestic legal unions between one man and one woman. The second sentence of the amendment makes clear that it would not prohibit private companies from entering into private contracts based on relationships chosen by the company.
The amendment will not adversely affect North Carolina's economy. It will not affect the enforcement of domestic violence laws. It will not determine the custody and visitation rights of unmarried parents unless their behavior affects the child.
There is a real threat to the institution of marriage. In several states same-sex marriage has been imposed upon the people by courts engaged in tortured judicial reasoning.
Now it's happening in North Carolina. Same sex couples in Asheville went to the courthouse for two weeks last fall seeking to obtain marriage licenses. A lawsuit was filed by the Register of Deeds of Guilford County in December challenging our state's marriage laws and asking the court to declare them unconstitutional. That case is on appeal.
The marriage amendment will ensure that marriage between one man and one woman will be determined by the voters, not a handful of judges.
- N.C. House Majority Leader Paul Stam, R-Wake
Let's slow marriage's long-running slide
Amendment One, if passed, will fortify our existing statute's earth levee with a concrete retaining wall.
Some are concerned that giving gays the right to marry is a slippery slope. I am not as concerned that same-sex marriage would slide us inevitably toward something worse as I am that it would further ratify what has already happened. We have come to think of sex, marriage, and divorce primarily in terms of freedom, rights, and happiness. No one should blame gays and lesbians for changing society's view of life's most intimate relationships. Many heterosexuals during the last half-century have embraced sexual freedom, redefined marriage as the pursuit of happiness, and pioneered no-fault divorce.
Long before gays demanded equality for their unions, however, this altered view of marriage was not working well for anyone. Neither matching partners through sexual experimentation, compatibility indicators and cohabitation, nor ubiquitous literature and counseling for married couples on how to be happier, have stabilized marital longevity.
Commitment to marriage has been eroding because in our attempts to improve it, we have forgotten what marriage is. Marriage is not two closely matched individuals making each other consistently blissful because their chemistry is unmistakable and unshakeable.
Marriage is two sexual and psychological opposites choosing a voluntary and mutual surrender for life.
I still deeply grieve the loss of two gay friends whose funerals I preached in the last year. All around me I see people - not gay or straight, not sinners or saints, not good or bad. I see only varying kinds and degrees of alienation and blindness, including my own, craving God's grace.
The role of the state is to provide for a secure, free, just, and stable society. Both church and state, even as each has insisted on maintaining their independence from the other, have historically concurred that social stability is best maintained by validating only "marriage between one man and one woman." We are wise to give the benefit of the doubt to a collective wisdom that preceded us.
- Robert M. Thompson, pastor of Corinth Reformed Church in Hickory.
Measure's opponents aren't conservatives
With a controversial ballot question looming, some on the right have raised the plaintive cry that conservatives should shun "social issues." But those issues aren't distractions; they are instead an integral part of the bedrock on which the whole conservative movement rests.
A number of public figures are revealing their feelings on the Marriage Amendment - and possibly giving an indication of how they feel on other social issues. By doing so they show they are out of the mainstream of what not only the majority of their party supports, but also what a majority of the voting population supports.
It is important in light of recent attacks on faith and family to ensure that those institutions are protected from attack by government. And attack from the government is what we are talking about with the Marriage Amendment. By putting this in the state constitution we are ensuring that no state judges will try to redefine marriage in North Carolina, just as they have in almost every other state where the issue first was brought up.
Looking at what has happened in other states where the constitutional protection does not exist is instructive. The government quickly goes from being neutral in the discussion to being an advocate for something that is hostile to most mainstream religions and most families.
If this amendment is defeated it will be merely the opening round in a much more divisive and bitter struggle that will envelop North Carolina.
- Francis De Luca, president of the Civitas Institute in Raleigh