Republican Assemblymen to consider bill declaring marriage as "belonging to the dominion of God"

Although the deadline has passed for bills to be drafted in the NC Assembly, a great deal of damage to our state has already been dealt. And if these regressive politicians are kept in power, we are only going to suffer more.

One of the biggest losses in 2012 was Amendment One, which declared that marriage was to be between only a man and a woman - unnecessary as NC already lacked gay marriage legislation. And now marriage equality will be much harder to attain.

Yet though I am optimistic about the future of LGBT rights, there seems to be a division. Those on the progressive side often argue for marriage equality - that they want the same benefits and recognition from the government that heterosexual couples receive. Those on the Libertarian side argue for government not to recognize marriage at all, in line with their rhetoric of "big government" being the problem. In general both believe in lgbt rights, they just have different ideas of what it means to have them.

Then there are the typical regressive sort who believe in the government giving benefits only to heterosexual couples, specifically being exclusionary towards our homosexual friends. These are the kind of people who we typically fight against, and for good reason. But there seems to be this fourth perspective sometimes missed.

Back in 2011, a bill was introduced which would have been right under Amendment one for us to vote on, which would have added

"Marriage belongs to the dominion of God under the authority of the Church. Licensure of marriage is prohibited in the State."

to the NC Constitution. This phrase would have taken a somewhat libertarian stance in that both hetero and homosexual couples would not receive government benefits, but it also would have been a violation of the separation of church and state. It is not up to the assembly to decide what is and isn't in the dominion of God, as that is up to individuals who believe in a creator deity.

And individuals who promote this are often portrayed as supporting LGBT rights, such as NC Rep. Glen Bradley.

"Of course, NOTHING could be further from the truth, but I don't think the truth matters to some folks. You aren't likely to find anybody in Raleigh with the guts to support introducing this action after they painted me as a 'supporter of gay marriage' for having done so."

- said Bradley on a comment of Marc Thomson's Facebook. In other words, it is a product of those who do not support LGBT solidarity. Thomson then asked NC Senator Ronald Rabin to support reintroducing this bill on his facebook, to which Rabin replied

"I will keep this copy with me and see what I can do next session. The sanctity of marriage is very important to me and I promise to do all I can to protect the state of North Carolina."

How cute. These people care about us so much they wish to protect us from homosexual marriage. Rabin, here is some advice, you already have your hands full trying to take the right to vote away from students and the mentally challenged, why don't you not make it hard on yourself and try a divide and conquer strategy by taking away the rights of groups one at a time. It will make it much easier for you to push your regressive agenda onto the people of North Carolina.

Comments

I've seen this alot

Those on the progressive side often argue for marriage equality - that they want the same benefits and recognition from the government that heterosexual couples receive. Those on the Libertarian side argue for government not to recognize marriage at all, in line with their rhetoric of "big government" being the problem. In general both believe in lgbt rights, they just have different ideas of what it means to have them.

My response tends to be, whatever you think the ultimate goal for laws surrounding marriage should be in the US, here in the south we aren't going to see an end government involvement in marriage any time soon, probably not in my lifetime.

And even if you support an end to government sanctioned marriage, in the meantime there's no reason for denying a minority rights and access to things like hospital visitation, inheritance, immigration, property rights, insurance, taxes, being able to change your name, and so many other things in our society in 2013 that are so deeply entangled with the word marriage for how governments, companies, and medical facilities treat people.

Ending bans like DOMA, Prop 8, and Amendment 1 I would think would seem like a step in the right direction to libertarian-minded folks.