The battle lines are emerging in the fight for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions, as a new pro-referendum committee formed.
A group of religious and advocacy organizations on Thursday announced the formation of Vote For Marriage NC to spearhead the campaign supporting the marriage amendment on the May 8 primary ballot.
The referendum would make marriage between one man and one woman the only domestic legal union recognized in the state constitution.
"We've never really had a dialogue like this in our state before," said Tami Fitzgerald, a founding member of the group.
Fitzgerald's NC Values Coalition led the fight to get the amendment approved by the legislature earlier this year. Her group made the first donation to the referendum committee -- $1,000 -- on Nov. 21.
Pro-amendment organizers plan to appeal to a broad group of voters but will focus particular attention on black voters and the faith community, especially after N.C. Baptists endorsed the referendum. "Obviously voter turnout is the key to winning the election," Fitzgerald said, noting that recent polls show the amendment succeeding by a two to one margin.
She said the campaign's message will target on how marriage affects children and the economy, saying it "generates the next generation of workers and the next generation of healthy children."
"We are going to keep it on a positive note: keeping marriage as marriage and keeping it from being redefined," she said, mentioning court cases and lawmakers in other states that allowed gay marriage or civil unions.
Fitzgerald declined to share specifics about the campaign, including fundraising targets and the name of the campaign manager.
An anti-amendment committee, Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families, formed earlier in November.
Comments
Really drew?
December 2, 2011 - 3:28pm — richardfocRace and sexual orientation are different? Um, no, they aren't. They are both inate and naturally occuring and neither are chosen. I can no sooner choose to be heterosexual or homosexual than I can choose to be white or black. Just for kicks why don't you let us know when you chose to be heterosexual.
Try again
December 2, 2011 - 3:14pm — gaylibare you suggesting that gay people aren't capable of having "biological" children? because yes, they can and do. We also allow people who are unable to have children "biologically' to marry. Your argument is as flawed as your ability to hide your REAL motivation which is bigotry, plain and simple, most likely based on your religious beliefs.
Fair critique of my
December 2, 2011 - 2:53pm — drewinncFair critique of my phrasing. But don't dodge the argument.
The greater point I was making is that the forms of discrimination that we have in our marriage law is tied to a legitimate rationale. We dont let kids marry because they can't consent. We don't let siblings marry because of what we know about genetic issues for the children. We don't let people who are already married get married again because that will result in the exploitation and oppression of women and highly unstable environments for children.
The reason the state recognizes and subsidizes marriage is to encourage stable, healthy environments for children with their biological parents.
An interracial couple can fulfill that purpose and thus there is no good reason to regulate marriage with regard to race.
A same-sex couple by definition cannot fulfill that purpose thus there is a good reason to restrict marriage to dual-sex couples.
Race and sexual orientation are different.
drewinnc...
December 2, 2011 - 11:30am — richardfocDo you know what the word discriminate means? I ask this because you suggest that current marriage related laws do discriminate but then suggest that further limitations on marriage do not discriminate. By your logic a law stating that adult, unmarried, non-siblings of different races could not marry would not discriminate either. Interesting.
Tami Fitzgerald
December 2, 2011 - 8:57am — gaylibIt is a joke that this woman would talk about doing anything "positive". Her association with a SLPC designated hate group, the Family Research Council,alongside groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis should tell you all you need to know about her. She represents all that is negative and hateful in this country and should be an embarrassment to this state. This amendment is not about protecting marriage, it is about stripping rights from North Carolina citizens to form domestic partnerships already granted by local municipalities. It is mean spirited, bigoted and hateful. Those are the values that Tami Fitzgerald represents.
Re: "New"
December 1, 2011 - 11:45pm — drewinncWe discriminate against people under the age of 16 against getting married.
We discriminate against people who are already married from getting married to another person.
We discriminate against people who are siblings from getting married.
Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not discriminate because everyone who is not already married and of the legal age is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex who they are not related to.
Constitutional Amendment to Define Marriage
December 1, 2011 - 8:12pm — eliforbesDefining marriage to exclude "specific" groups of American citizens is discrimmination. Any way you define it.
If everyone who got "married" in NC had to adhere to one groups ideas on what marriage should be, I, for one,would never have gotten "married".
I am a white, middle aged woman who believes in liberty and freedom for all!
I have been married for 21 years.