Same-sex marriage ban proposed for Constitution

RALEIGH — A Gaston County Republican state senator is trying once again to write a ban on same-sex marriages into the N.C. Constitution.

Sen. Jim Forrester, who authored a law in the 1990s banning such unions, filed the proposed change this past week as lawmakers returned for the short session of the General Assembly. He’s filed similar bills in other legislative sessions.

“I keep swinging that bat,” Forrester said. “Sooner or later we’re going to get a hit on it.”

Supporters of the ban say laws written into the Constitution carry more weight than mere statutory laws. They believe it’s less likely that a state judge will declare such a prohibition unconstitutional.

Opponents say that it would be writing discrimination into the state’s highest law.

“Our hope is that the Legislature focuses on other issues, like creating jobs and balancing the state budget, rather than putting this discriminatory amendment into our Constitution,” said Ian Palmquist, executive director of Equality NC, an organization advocating for gays and lesbians.

Forrester said he’s hoping the proposed constitutional change will have a better chance this year since the Senate has a new Rules Committee chairman. Former Sen. Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, resigned late last year to take a post heading the state’s parole system.

In previous years, the bill has been sent to the Ways and Means Committee, which rarely meets.

The new chairman is Sen. David Hoyle, D-Gaston. Hoyle signed on as a cosponsor of the proposed amendment last year.

Hoyle said he expects to send the bill to the Rules Committee this year. But he doesn’t expect the committee to take up the bill.

“I don’t think we’re going to be taking up any constitutional amendments in the short session,” Hoyle said. He said a number of legislators want this year’s session to go by quickly and avoid controversial issues that could keep lawmakers in town.

Forrester said there are about 30 other states that have same-sex marriage bans in their constitutions.

Palmquist was critical of the proposal, noting that it had broader implications.

“As we understand it, it would prevent recognition of any union outside of (one man and one woman) marriage,” Palmquist said. “That would include a private company’s ability to offer domestic union benefits.”

He also said he thought it would be “a political wedge issue” in an election year.

If lawmakers approve the proposed amendment, North Carolina voters would have their say on it in a referendum on Nov. 2.