A Moderately Conservative Case for the Defeat of NC Amendment 1

Posted Apr 17 2012 by Margot Starbuck with 22 Comments

    As soon as my husband accepted our friends’ offer of an “Another Family Against the Amendment” yard sign in January, I knew exactly how it would play out.  The corrugated plastic sign wouldn’t be forgotten in somebody’s car trunk until after the May 8 North Carolina election, the way it would if I was responsible for doling anything out.  It wouldn’t be hidden by shrubbery so that no one ever had to see it in front of my house.  No, it would be—and was—stabbed right in the middle of our tiny yard just as our socially and politically diverse cadre of acquaintances paraded into our home for my groom’s stupid Super Bowl party.

    When I say diverse, I mean political-advisor-to-G.W.Bush and local-GLBT-activist diverse.

    “HEY, WHO WANTS MORE SALTY SNACKS?!?!?!”

    Those opposed to the proposed legislation to our state constitution refer to it as the “Anti-Gay” amendment and supporters call it “Marriage Protection” amendment.  For non-North-Carolinians, proposed Constitutional Amendment 1 affirms that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”  It is about marriage, but it’s about a lot more than marriage.  In fact, the affirmation is already in NC law, but to further codify it into the Constitution would have other far-reaching implications.  Reflecting the larger cultural conversation, most supporters of the legislation are people of faith.  However, many of those opposing the amendment’s passage are also people of faith.

    I am one of them.

    Admittedly, many of the reasons I hope for the amendment’s defeat have nothing to do with my faith. The provision, which will limit current protections for same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried couples, does not belong in the Constitution of any democracy.  It hinders the economy of our state, dissuading employers from locating here by limiting their ability to attract the talented professionals who won’t want to live in a state which is, though Amendment supporters would want to deny it, anti-gay.  It compromises protection of the vulnerable—children, single folks—that are currently in place. For instance, when a company currently extending domestic benefits to unmarried partners decides it no longer cares to do so, the proposed Amendment could be used as legal justification.  This directly threatens the security of families that I love.  And God loves.

    If it wasn’t obvious from my anxious Super Bowl palpitations, please know that I am a card-carrying heterosexual Evangelical.  So I understand that many of my crew, most with hearts in the right places, view this legislation differently than I do.  Yet even though many Evangelicals don’t want to “bless” families with two mothers or with two fathers or with opposite-sex partners cohabitating—and are exercising the rights within our faith communities not to do so—these families, beloved by God, still exist.  Their children still need medical coverage.  Their partners deserve security.  Individuals in violent relationships, both opposite-sex and same-sex, need protection.  Whether or not we agree with their choices, we are still obligated by our faith to protect their health and well-being.

    Protection of the vulnerable, as it’s expressed in the Old Testament law, is a fundamental biblical value. Again and again in Deuteronomy, God commands his people to include, protect, provide for orphans, widows and aliens.

    In the Scriptures, the God of Israel is the God who cares for vulnerable children, namely ones who don’t experience the social and financial protection of living in a home with a heterosexual mother and a father.

    In the Scriptures, the God of Israel is the God who cares for women who don’t experience the social and financial privileges of being married to a man.

    In the Scriptures, the God of Israel is the God who cares for aliens—foreigners who worship other gods!—who live among his people.

    That last one is extra-important: biblically, the protections and provisions of God’s law, and ideally the protections of state law, are not reserved only for those who share our convictions. Whether we like it or not, they’re for all.

    Deuteronomy 10:18-19 confirms, “He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” To be clear, this isn’t about a kind of Free-To-Be-You-And-Me hippy love.  Again and again the poetic rhythm of God’s law-giving follows this pattern: exercise love and protection and provision for the marginalized because this is how God loved you when you were oppressed in Egypt.  God’s people are expected to practice this radically just hospitality, for those who do and do not share our values, because we have experienced God’s graciousness to us.

    The Almighty, who admittedly frowned on inter-faith marriage, could just as easily have commanded, “Remain pure by legislating against the aliens among you so that, failing to flourish, they are pushed outside of your boundaries.”  Recently, in a letter to the editor of one of our North Carolina papers, one hostile Christian offered this very solution: “Suggestion: Why not relocate to a state more to your liking?”  Though the possibility is no doubt pleasing to some, the suggestion is an ungodly one, illustrating what Miroslav Volf, in his award-winning Exclusion and Embrace, has identified as the sin of exclusion which “often passes as virtue, especially in Religious circles.” (p. 72)  [Please read this wonderfully nourishing book, as I’m unable to do it justice here!]

    In fact, this is what will happen in North Carolina if Amendment 1 passes.  Gifted and beloved individuals and families will not accept positions here and some of those currently here will, eventually, trickle out of the state, leaving grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins. So it’s important for moderate and conservative Christians to recognize that, even though we do not live in a theocracy, what God actually commands—radical hospitality, welcome into God’s family—is the diametric opposite of the proposed legislation.

    As a person of faith, I am convinced that the vote on NC Amendment 1 is a holy opportunity for those of us who already enjoy social privileges and protections to say to those who do not believe, and to the GLBT community, and to the less-organized community of opposite-sex co-habitators, “Though our social and political convictions may differ, God is, and we are, fundamentally for you.” I have to believe that this honey-drenched gospel of good news will touch more of these hearts than the other vinegar-soaked variety.

    Regardless, when a state extends protection and provision to the most vulnerable, God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

    In North Carolina?

    Come join: FAITH IN ACTION: GET OUT THE VOTE!

    THIS Sunday April 22 at 1:00 PM

    Meet at the Trotter Building (410 West Greer, Durham).

    A faith-based rally featuring Jay Bakker, David LaMotte, Ginger Brasher-Cunningham and other community leaders. After the rally we march to the polls and cast a ballot.

    After party at Fullsteam Brewery (beginning around 3:00).

    VOTE AGAINST AMENDMENT ONE

    —-
    Margot Starbuck is a speaker, volunteer and author of The Girl in the Orange Dress: Searching for a Father Who Does Not Fail. Her new book, Small Things With Great Love: Adventures in Loving Your Neighbor, with a foreword by Tony Campolo, was released in January!

    Sponsor a Child in Jesus Name with Compassion

    Print Friendly

      About the Author

      Margot Starbuck

      Margot StarbuckMargot Starbuck is a speaker, volunteer and author of The Girl in the Orange Dress: Searching for a Father Who Does Not Fail and Small Things With Great Love: Adventures in Loving Your Neighbor. Her next book, Permission Granted: And Other Thoughts on Living Graciously Among Sinners and Saints releases in March 2013.View all posts by Margot Starbuck →

      Popular Posts

      Related Posts

      • Celeste Lee

        Margot, thank you for sharing so honestly from your heart. Even though I believe that the Bible shows us God’s design for marriage — one man one woman — His word also shows us His designs for us in so many areas — and we as humans fail to reach those designs. In His love He does not leave us, or throw us out, or stop the sun from shinning on us – He sends it to shine on the just and unjust. Through studying ethics in my college class — I came to the belief — that for me it is imperative as a Christian to stand up for and, yes even fight for human rights for all. It puts us at odds with the majority — but thank you again for such a balanced view of our responsibility.

        • Joanne

          Human rights do not include harming yourself and others. It is true God loves all, the just and unjust, but we need to discern what He, not your college professor, considers to be loving and kind or abusive and demeaning, in human life. Being winsome and caring does not require abandoning virtues and accepting vices in others while soberly judging ourselves as failing in the same ways! 

      • Anonymous

        Thank you for the article. I am in the same situation as you when it comes to my political views and attitudes. For me it seems that we, as believers, sometimes focus too much on others behavior and not our own. It is our actions and attitudes, though, which should concern us. I do not believe that our function as believers is to control the behavior of others. It seems, however, that many believe that is our function. We are to be mindful of our actions and love others.

        • Joanne

          Certainly true for individuals, but we are not judging individual others in voting; we are setting public policy. Laws do control behavior, else why would they exist? Government exists to reward good and punish wrong, and in a democratic republic, we must participate in doing that. Caring for the truly vulnerable is included, but we ought to discern clearly who is truly vulnerable (widows, orphans, aliens) and who is not. 

      • Questioning

        Amen! 

      • sylvanchick

        It seems we are in agreement here.  I also blogged on this issue, and I’m pretty sure you & I are viewing this matter in a very similar way.  People don’t want to look into the meat of an issue these days.  They hear, “Anti-GLTB bill” and jump on board to support it without ever reading it.  These are the same people who used to wind up in terrible long-distance phone contracts because they signed without ever reading the fine print.  And heaven forbid you should try to point out to them the error of their ways – I have a friend whose unmarried daughter and her three children are living with a man who is not her husband and his three children – and now she’s pregnant.  This friend just doesn’t understand that her daughter is as much a sinner as a homosexual.  Sometimes I feel like I’m beating my head against the wall.

        If you’re interested, this is my blog on Amendment 1.  http://heathermcamp.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/one-christians-word-on-amendment-1-in-north-carolina-why-i-will-not-support-it/

        At some point in the future I think I’m going to tackle how Christians don’t act very Christ-like in this day and age when faced with people with different beliefs.

      • Doug

        Margot
        You claim that it deters talented individuals from coming to work …
        Disagree: You can’t marry your sister, dog, horse, mum , there are numerous non-recognized relationships. Incest-o-philes and their civil libertarian bandwagon jumpers will no doubt make the same argument. If your state is so vulnerable to the disdain of those who mock thousands of years of human tradition I suggest you need to fundamentally address your business model not your recognition of marriage.
        Should we make society more pedophile friendly so we don’t deter business or technically talented pedophiles from relocating ?
         
         
        Likewise you claim that it endangers the children of same sex relationships. This is another furphy and dare I say a dangerous emotive card playing exercise in political correctness. Fact: Homosexual relationships are very much more unstable that straight ones. Research has shown that gay ‘monogomy’ is less than 5% after 5 years of gay partnerships. These children are already at risk in gay relationships.

         
        Quote : Suggestion: Why not relocate to a state more to your liking?”  Though the possibility is no doubt pleasing to some, the suggestion is an ungodly one, illustrating what Miroslav Volf, in his award-winning Exclusion and Embrace, has identified as the sin of exclusion which “often passes as virtue, especially in Religious circles.” (p. 72)

         
        Well lets make the state more pedophile friendly then , lets welcome NAMBLA , after all lets not suffer the ‘sin of exclusion’ right  ?
        And what are you doing to make the state more racist and KKK friendly , again after all there may be many talented racist business and technical personnel who we wouldn’t want to feel ‘excluded’.

         
        Well congrats Margot, in the worst tradition of spin doctoring you have managed to trample God’s idea of marriage supported by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition with the gay friendly revisionist view of marriage and normality whilst putting it in a Christian friendly wrapper. Good for you you must feel very ‘enlightened’.

        • Questioning

          Quote: 
          It compromises protection of the vulnerable—children, single folks—that are currently in place. For instance, when a company currently extending domestic benefits to unmarried partners decides it no longer cares to do so, the proposed Amendment could be used as legal justification.  This directly threatens the security of families that I love.  And God loves.

          Unmarried partners covers more than same sex partners.
           
          Quote:
          If it wasn’t obvious from my anxious Super Bowl palpitations, please know that I am a card-carrying heterosexual Evangelical.  So I understand that many of my crew, most with hearts in the right places, view this legislation differently than I do.  Yet even though many Evangelicals don’t want to “bless” families with two mothers or with two fathers or with opposite-sex partners cohabitating—and are exercising the rights within our faith communities not to do so—these families, beloved by God, still exist.  Their children still need medical coverage.  Their partners deserve security.  Individuals in violent relationships, both opposite-sex and same-sex, need protection.  Whether or not we agree with their choices, we are still obligated by our faith to protect their health and well-being.

          These are two very valid points and define much of where the opposition comes from. Every lawyer I have read or heard comment on the amendment, says it will lead to a litany of litigation costing taxpayer money, and bogging down an already overtaxed legal system. There is already a law on the books concerning this. The legislation is not necessary. Like most proponents all you focused on was the “gay marriage” spin and missed the whole point.    

          • Drew

            I’m assuming the amendment is being proposed so that activist judges do not overthrow the current law as has happened in other states.  However, all your points are valid.

          • Drew

            I’m assuming the amendment is being proposed so that activist judges do not overthrow the current law as has happened in other states.  However, all your points are valid.

        • Drew

          I didn’t agree with all of Margot’s points but I thought she was pretty solid in coming from a good place with her suggestions.  I’m not sure if your heated criticism is coming from a similar good place.

          Once the amendment is in place, it makes it impossible for activist judges to overturn the law, but it also makes it almost impossible for the people to overturn the law or modify the law, since a super majority would be needed.  It’s not something to take lightly or to rush through.  The conservative thing to do is to not change a constitution.

        • sylvanchick

          Doug, pedophilia & homosexuality are two very different “perversions.”  Homosexuality as addressed in the proposed amendment is a relationship and life choice of consenting adults.  Pedophilia is abuse of minors who aren’t morally or legally of age to consent.  I hope you see how ridiculous your comment is.

          • Doug

            Well NAMBLA might disagree with such a ‘prejudiced’ and ‘bigotted’ viewpoint Sylvanchick. They maintain that loving and consensual ‘trans generational’ relationships are possible. No doubt they’d describe you as bigotted against them. And no doubt in 40 years time we’ll have RedFlagChristians standing alongside pedophiles ‘fighting discrimination’ and demandinng ‘inclusiveness’ for them. I hope you’ll see how philosphically flawed your comment is. After all in the humanistic perspective it’s all a matter of perspective. Something to think about the next time you see NAMBLA proundly marching in a gay rights parade. 

            • sylvanchick

              NAMBLA is the only group that believes that, Doug.  No one else does.  The church doesn’t; the government doesn’t; hell, even the ACLU doesn’t.  There’s a difference between two adults choosing to sin together and an adult choosing to abuse a child.  You can’t use NAMBLA’s advocacy of child abuse as a reason to oppose protection of a homosexual couple’s civil liberties.  As far as child abuse goes – children have civil liberties too.  We cannot seek to deny any consenting adult’s civil right to enter into a relationship.  We CAN protect a child’s civil right not to be abused.  I don’t understand why you’re unable to see the very obvious distinction.

              • Drew

                Not that I agree with Doug, but by your definition, polygamy would be okay – everyone involved is a consenting adult, are they not?

              • Aaaaaaargh

                Polygamy and same-sex relationships are both between consenting adults.  Pedophilia is not, by definition.  For consistency, I think gay marriage supporters need to be open to the idea of polygamous marriages–at least those which do not involve a clear misuse of power, like a 60 year old man with teenage wives or something.  But Biblical literalists certainly can’t claim opposition to polygamy based on Scripture.

              • Drew

                Even though I think it would be consistently wrong, you are correct in saying that it would be consistent.

              • Keith Carr61

                To quote Sylvan….HELL we should just all have orgys and adopt children into relationships that are contrary to the bible. Better yet…lets do away with marriage period and all be swingers…yeah  anything goes and nothing matters…the only thing that defending this crap does is diminish the authority of the bible. Watering it down to the point that it actually has not meaning. Oh I forgot you guys  have almost got there by just giving merit to ‘red letters’ so when the printers run out ofnred ink then ‘game on’…..   pathetic

      • Drew

        My dad and I have a pretty similar view on most issues.  However, a similar amendment came up in our home state in 2006 – I voted for the amendment while my dad voted against it.

        It’s a tough issue and I appreciate hearing the other side.

      • Greg H in Fort Worth, Texas

        Excuse me… you make some
        good points, but why do you accept a sign that is a lie? Tell
        your dear Hubby that if he wants to put up a “Football lovin’ Straight
        Men Against the Amendment” sign, fine. But get the “Family” claim off
        the lawn. My wife and I have been known to split the yard with opposing candidates’ signs on either side.

      • JS

        Doug’s confused.

      • Joanne

        “Whether or not we agree with their choices, we are still obligated by our faith to protect their health and well-being.”  Yes, indeed, and so what do we know about the health and well-being of the LGBT community? Major problems with high risk sexual behaviors, chronic diseases caused by unhealthy sexual behaviors, plus physical and psychological illness that exceeds the rates of comparison groups – cited research on this has been available for at least a decade. It is most unfortunate that such problems exist, but ignoring them is irresponsible. You selectively cite God’s Law to care for widows, orphans, and aliens in the Old Testament, but ignore Old Testament laws on sexuality that actually protected Israel’s health! Those same laws were not revised by Jesus Christ or any New Testament writers: the love they advocate never condones doing harm (i.e. sin). Jesus did not condemn, but he did tell the adulterous woman to “Go and sin no more”. It is more compassionate to discourage such behaviors.  
        In current law, medical and health coverage, security, and protection from violence are all attainable for unmarried people; you note that your friends have them already.The NC General Assembly considered such concerns when they passed the amendment, which is why the second sentence was added: to be clear that private contracts with employers, partners, insurers, etc. would not be affected. Even the State Board of Elections link states that legal experts disagree about conclusions you espouse. Thirty states have passed similar amendments without the dire consequences you envision. Even the State Board of Elections link states that legal experts disagree with these conclusions.  On business, you imply that the state should force all employers to provide samesex benefits, even if it violates their conscience. This is happening in states with samesex marriage laws; Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts shut down, even though they processed half the adoptions. Should we not care about those orphans, too? If Catholics’ First Amendment rights are violated under coercion by the state, surely Evangelical Protestants will be, too.You claim gay rights attract business. But economists report the most highly rated states for business are the ones with marriage protection amendments,and the worst rated states have samesex protections? Did you read anything other than gay rights propaganda before proposing that the Bible supports virtually all of it? Finally, people of faith are not only obligated to consider the health and well-being of the few who feel they don’t belong; we are told to be wise about our behavior toward everyone, and that the government exits to reward goodness.That means  the public good should be paramount in making public policy, lest we focus so much on marginalized people that we actually endanger everyone else. Scholars assert that destruction of marriage and kinship ties would do exactly that. For a scholarly summary, read Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles, published by the Witherspoon Institute in 2008. After forty years of study in biological and social sciences, plus analysis from political and moral philosophy, seventy scholars report that the intrinsic goods of marriage are worth preserving. And they don’t even mention that God would approve.

      ×

      TRENDING: Caught in the Act: Reputation and Relationship >>