Amendment One defined by human-made law
Carl Brzorad's column, "North Carolina voters show ignorance at polls" in Wednesday's Daily Gamecock was disappointing to read. The timing of the topic is odd (the North Carolina vote occurred a few months ago) especially as there is not a shortage of current events of monumental importance which could be discussed.
The biggest problem with the column is that the columnist missed the entire point of Amendment One. The columnist declared the marriage ban as "hateful" and based on "bigoted morality" from "outdated" biblical passages. In multiple instances, same-sex marriage was said to be a "right." However, what the columnist failed to recognize is the fact that the law denied no "rights" to anyone, and that all "rights" have remained the same.
Before Amendment One, the only individuals in the state of North Carolina that could be married were two individuals of the opposite gender who were of legal age, regardless of sexual orientation. In other words, one man (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.) could not marry five women, and a woman could not marry a dog. The law prohibits two heterosexual males from marrying each other and also prohibits five heterosexual women from entering into a marriage together.
That being said, same-sex marriage is not a current right, nor has it ever been a right. Marriage throughout the existence of history has been between a man and a woman; it is the primary pillar of a strong society. To allow individuals of the same gender to enter into legal matrimonial status is to entirely redefine what marriage is.
The columnist's argument that North Carolina is a southern holdout of conservative values is also contradicted by his own statement that it is the 31st state to amend its constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The South consists truly of eleven states, maybe thirteen or fourteen if one wants to be picky. Interestingly, California, Oregon and Minnesota (all left-leaning states to say the least) have all passed amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. These laws have passed with a majority vote in each of those states.
The overarching problem is not that of an outdated Bible, but a humanistic ideology purported by teachers and leaders that changes with the whims of society. Today's society says two men can constitute a marriage. In ten years, why not a man and three women (as in Islamic nations)? In twenty years, why not a woman and a dolphin (as in Israel a few years ago)? I believe in objective truth and right and wrong, and apparently so do the majority of people in 31 states in America.