Amendment 1 in North Carolina is a contest of values. They say there is a big divide between the values of rural and urban counties, as well as a generational divide, and this will be revealed in the May 8 election on Amendment 1, to the state Constitution. Amendment 1 establishes marriage as between a man and a woman. North Carolina is the only state in the South that does not Constitutionally protect traditional marriage. If the marriage amendment is affirmed be the voters on Tuesday, May 8 that will fix the will of the people in the Constitution on the subject of marriage. Polls indicate an urban bias to the amendments defeat and it has wide support in rural counties
The urban-rural ethic extends beyond North Carolina, and is very curious, for a lot of reasons. The generational divide may be based or perceived as a narrow “rights” matter. However, same-sex marriage is not a narrow “rights” issue. There is a sharp difference in voting habits of the generations. Young people are historically poor voters.
Billy Graham and his association have come out in recent days in support of the amendment. Any other marriage arrangement outside of one man-one woman violates Bible teaching. This truth dominates the thesis of the proponents of the marriage amendment. Also, traditional marriage is recognized and secure as the primary building block of civilization.
Many of the politicians, both inside and outside of North Carolina are getting involved in it’s defeat. Former president Clinton is saying, in advertisements, that this amendment, if passed, will adversely affect the economy of the state. That is a cheap answer ! I didn’t see any empirical evidence coming from Clinton defending his allegations. What about the rest of the Southern states that have such Constitutional guarantees? Is their businesses leaving in droves? Furthermore, Clinton is elevating “economics” over the ethical preferences of the people of North Carolina. It is probably more accurate to say that economic reversals, like we are experiencing as a nation, is merely a symptom of various and deeper ethical choices.
With politicians, you can never know their thought processes for sure. Maybe they calculate they can take a position against this amendment and reap solid votes without jeopardizing the pro-amendment voters. After all, people are more interested in the “economy” than all this culture stuff. So, taking a position that is affront to nature, might actually keep them in office. This might explain why we are living in an era where well organized minority interests tend to rule.
In recent weeks I have worshiped in the North Carolina mountains. The churches, in this rural setting, are concerned and vocal about securing a firmer legal protection for the ancient and proper definition of marriage.