Marriage vote set for May

North Carolina voters will decide in the May 2012 primary whether to add an amendment to the state constitution that bans legal recognition of same-sex marriages, after a 30-16 vote Tuesday in the state Senate in favor of a referendum.

The state House approved the vote by a 75-42 vote Monday. Votes in both the House and Senate were more than the three-fifths margin required to send the issue to the voters.

Supporters and opponents of the marriage amendment say they expect to be busy trying to persuade people between now and next spring.

"It (the proposed amendment) would write discrimination into the state constitution for no good reason," said Katie Booher of Kernersville, a volunteer with Equality North Carolina. "It allows the majority to vote on the rights of the minority, which is not OK."

Supporters of the marriage amendment said polls show the numbers are on their side.

"It is wonderful," said the Rev. Ron Baity, the pastor of Berean Baptist Church. "It is time for voters in North Carolina to make a decision."

Baity said he would meet soon with other pastors to work out a plan of support for the amendment.

Analysts said the turnout for the May primary is likely to be lower than it would be in November 2012, the original date for the proposed amendment. Turnout is always high when the general election is in a presidential-election year.

But there's debate over whether the timing would affect the outcome of the marriage amendment. To get the votes from Democratic lawmakers that Republicans needed in the House, the GOP had to agree to move the date of the amendment referendum from November to May.

"I always felt (a November vote) was a get-out-the-vote plan for Republicans," said Susan Campbell, chairwoman of the Forsyth County Democratic Party.

Campbell — who opposes the amendment — said that she thinks that the amendment may stand a better chance of passage in May than November because Republicans will be voting in large numbers in presidential and gubernatorial primary contests. Democrats won't have as many exciting races on the ballot.

John Dinan, a professor of political science at Wake Forest University, said that political scientists are skeptical about whether ballot measures on issues such as same-sex marriage affect turnout that much.

"The general reason you place something on the November ballot is to get as broad a cross-section of the voters as possible," Dinan said.

Dinan believes there's no doubt that voters will approve the amendment banning same-sex marriage. He cited the long list of states that have approved such amendments, especially in the South.

"The lowest score was 57 percent in Virginia," he said. "I don't think anybody has doubt about whether it would pass. We have had 31 times that these things have been submitted and 30 times they were successful. Only one time was it defeated (in Arizona), and then it came back and won."

North Carolina law already forbids same-sex marriage, and opponents of the referendum argue that a constitutional amendment is unneeded. Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, agreed but also voted in favor of the referendum. He said a vote against the amendment would be "misconstrued that you are in favor of same-sex marriage" — which he is not.

If the marriage amendment passes, Dinan said, it would be harder for same-sex marriages to become legal in the future in North Carolina. A law can be changed by a simple majority vote in the legislature. But repealing a constitutional amendment would have to be done by a vote of the people after approval by three-fifths majorities in the House and Senate.

But that's not the main force driving support of the amendment, Dinan said.

"The main point from the point of view of supporters is to prevent state courts from overturning the laws," he said. He pointed to Iowa, where the courts overturned a state law banning same-sex marriages.

Joyce Krawiec of Kernersville, the local grass-roots chairwoman of the N.C. Federation of Republican Women, said that citizens should be in charge of the definition of marriage.

"Marriage should be defined as a man and a woman," she said. "Marriage should not be decided by a federal judge."

Dinan said opponents of the marriage amendment "are on their strongest ground when they say that the North Carolina Supreme Court is unlikely to issue a decision" that would overturn the state's law against same-sex marriage.

Jennifer Ruppe of Winston-Salem said she hopes voters will reject the constitutional amendment and called it "a giant waste of time."

She said congressional repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which was criticized as forcing gays to remain in the closet, and President Barack Obama's support for repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as well as the approval by some states of same-sex marriage, show that there's a national trend toward more acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Law or not, amendment or not, Michelle J. Hawks of Winston-Salem said she still plans to marry her female partner.

"We will still be wife and wife," she said.

Nathan Tabor, the chairman of the Forsyth County Republican Party, said that local Republicans, tea-party members and conservatives will be raising money to run pro-amendment ads on television, in print and in social media.

Alex Miller, the interim executive director of Equality North Carolina, said that his organization also will raise money to educate the public about the proposed amendment and try to persuade voters to reject it.

Miller said that ads that proponents have run on television in other states contained language that was "ugly, hurtful and divisive, and that goes for this legislation, too."

Opponents also have argued that the marriage issue will hurt the state's business climate because of the perception that gays and lesbians are not welcome.

Several business executives and a nonprofit leader warned that passage would move jobs to other states and discourage companies that offer benefits to partners of same-sex couples from expanding here.

Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth, the speaker pro tem of the House, said that a change to the original wording of the amendment would allow companies to offer benefits to whomever they choose — including same-sex partners.

"Whether they choose to offer that is none of my business, but they should have that freedom," he said.