Pin It
What began as a discussion of the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act morphed into a conversation about the morality of the anti-LGBT amendment.

At N.C. Central teach-in, professors blast DOMA 

What began as a discussion of the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act—DOMA—morphed into a conversation about the morality of the anti-LGBT amendment.

Last week's teach-in and panel discussion was hosted by N.C. Central University School of Law. Panelists included N.C. Central law professors Irving Joyner, Lydia Lavelle and Angela Gilmore; UNC-Chapel Hill law professor Barbara Fedders and Duke law professor James Coleman Jr.

Lavelle told the audience that DOMA, also known as Amendment 1, is one of the strictest of its kind in the nation. It states, "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid." Not only could same-sex partnerships lose certain rights, but any domestic union, regardless of gender pairing, could lose rights as well.

"Any other intimate relationship between two adults won't be granted legal respect," Gilmore said.

Joyner added that the legal right of due process could be abridged, because DOMA would strip people of certain fundamental rights, such as entering into contracts. Same-sex couples would not have the "right to contract, because marriage is a contractual relationship."

Beyond the legal implications, Coleman blasted DOMA on moral grounds. "The reason we should oppose this amendment is because it's wrong, not primarily because it raises troubling legal issues, but because it's offensive to what a constitution is supposed to be " he said. "It is a bigoted attempt to amend the state constitution."

Coleman also questioned the motives of DOMA supporters. He said that he believes lawmakers who sponsored Amendment 1 are attempting to give it legitimacy by cloaking it in religion—and by trying to appeal to conservative black churches.

"The sponsors of this amendment have made an aggressive effort to solicit the votes of black people, appealing to their religious faith. This is a cynical and crass political campaign which we should actively oppose," Coleman said.

Coleman compared DOMA to the constitutionality of interracial marriage, which, despite a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision, technically remained illegal in North Carolina until 1971. DOMA "has no more to do with religion than anti-miscegenation laws had to do with religion."

Tiara Hodges is an intern at the Independent Weekly.

This article appeared in print with the headline "'A cynical and crass political campaign.'"

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in North Carolina

Facebook Activity

Twitter Activity

Comments

I hope they clean the house and get rid of the Oil company strawmen and Duke power puppets....Our Electric bills …

by Tony Edward Dockery on The Republican incumbent resorts to desperate name-calling in re-election campaign (North Carolina)

Still a stretch to bring Art Pope into this story.

But having built him up as North Carolina's Devil …

by MJKopechne on The Republican incumbent resorts to desperate name-calling in re-election campaign (North Carolina)

© 2014 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation