Same-sex marriage back on N.C. front burner

Same-sex marriage was a hot topic across the state this past week, as the N.C. House and Senate both voted in favor of putting a constitutional amendment that bans legal recognition of same-sex marriage on the May 2012 ballot.

But the topic was not new to the N.C. General Assembly. Fifteen years ago, in 1996, legislators passed a law that stipulated that a marriage between individuals of the same gender was not valid in the state.

Back then, a law was passed by legislators.

This time, the voters will decide. In May, they will be able to vote "yes" or "no" as to whether a "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."

Some proponents want a constitutional amendment to provide a stronger legal stance in case a federal judge attempts to strike down the state law.

In 1996, legislators gave that measure an overwhelming majority vote. According to the legislative library, the state House voted 98-10 to approve that provision. The state Senate voted 42-5.

This past week, the state House voted 75-42 to approve the matter. The state Senate voted 30-16.

The Forsyth County delegation in 1996 largely supported the measure.

But Rep. Larry Womble, a Democrat who still represents District 71, opposed it then and opposes it now.

He said this shows that he has been consistent on the issue.

"We should not put this in the constitution," he said. "It discriminates against people."

Womble said Thursday that he didn't recall whether the bill generated much debate among legislators in 1996.

Supporters of the marriage amendment argue that the polls show a majority of North Carolinians favor the proposal. Opponents say that the amendment would discriminate against same-sex couples and might hurt the business climate in North Carolina because of the perception that gays and lesbians are not welcome.

The Forsyth County delegation last week voted mostly along party lines. Republican Sen. Pete Brunstetter and Republican House members Larry Brown, Dale Folwell and Bill McGee voted for the referendum.

Democratic Sen. Linda Garrou and Democratic House members Earline Parmon and Womble opposed it.

Brown, Folwell and McGee said they supported the referendum because the public, rather than legislators, should decide the issue.

"It is too serious a topic for a handful of people (legislators) to make a decision like that," Brown said.

It is time for voters to finally settle this issue in North Carolina, Folwell said.

"I don't care how people choose to live their lives," he said. "If the government is going to sanction marriage, it ought to protect it."

Brunstetter and Garrou could not be reached for comment.

Parmon said she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman only but opposed this year's GOP-led effort for a constitutional amendment, saying that Republicans were playing politics with the issue.

Parmon had been a co-sponsor of a 2009 House bill that would have put a similar constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage before the voters. The bill did not make it out of committee.

"I think this whole issue is more of a political issue than it was when it was first brought up," she said, adding that she did so "because of my own faith and belief."

Now, she said, she sees the amendment as something Republicans are using "to enrage people" and avoid dealing with unemployment, health care and education.

Despite the proposed amendment, Wake Forest Baptist Church will continue to perform civil unions for same-sex couples, said the Rev. Angela Yarber, the church's pastor of preaching and worship.

"We don't think it is government's job to discriminate against any group of people," Yarber said.

The proposed amendment also says, "This section does not prohibit a private party from entering contracts with another private party, nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Professor Suzanne Reynolds, who teaches family law at the Wake Forest University School of Law, said that the intent of that provision was to allow corporations to provide health benefits for employees with domestic partners, if they so chose.

"I don't know if it achieves that," Reynolds said. "I don't know if an insurance company would feel it's legal for them to cover domestic partnerships."