In United States history, there is nothing new about controversies surrounding marriage. Debates over the validity of slave marriages 200 years ago to the concern over interracial couples marriages just 45 years ago has shown the rocky road for the cultural practice of marriage and all that it entails.
In the upcoming months, North Carolina will be taking part in the same sex marriage struggle amidst the proposal of NC Amendment One, a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Same sex marriage is already illegal in the state, and adding an amendment would make the existing law nearly impossible to overturn.
NC Amendment One will pass if a simple majority of North Carolina residents vote in favor of the movement. Lots of support for the amendment leads up to the May 8 voting, while organizations like Race tot he Ballot are campaigning around the state to raise awareness about the harms of the proposal.
Other dissenters of the amendment, like U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, say that passing NC Amendment One into legislation would harm the economic situation of the state, scaring away potential business with the harsh anti-gay marriage policies. Other arguments on the opposing side are speaking against the apparent discrimination that would be a result of the amendment, printing into the law blatant restrictions of freedom.
Gaining equal access of marriage is a good goal, but obtaining a right does not always result in justice. Not passing NC Amendment One is a big step in the right direction for the state as a whole, but more strides need to be taken in order to implement a gay-friendly atmosphere.
Elon speaker Rev. Dr. Marvin Ellison, an advocate for gay marriage, says that justice is the call. Justice is about showing respect for persons and honoring their humanity. Part of respecting a person is protecting their rights and the right to marry whomever a person pleases is important in this case.
Even incarcerated inmates on death row have the freedom to marry. The court has called it their “fundamental human right.” Has the court followed its own logic expanding into the realm of gay marriage? Not yet.