news-record.com

Reps. Dale Folwell, of Winston-Salem, and Paul "Skip" Stam, of Apex, both members of the Republican leadership team in the House, held a news conference today to build support for a proposed marriage amendment to the state constitution.

Update: Click here for video of the news conference.

Lawmakers will return to Raleigh Sept. 12 and the most high-profile piece of business on their agenda is passing a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. North Carolina already has a law, passed in 1996, that bans same sex marriage.

For background, click here for my story from Sunday (link).

More on today's newser from the Associated Press (link), the liberal Progressive Pulse (link) and the conservative Carolina Journal (link).

Nothing that came during today's news conference was a big surprise. Stam did say he believed Gov. Bev Perdue, a Democrat, was calling Democratic lawmakers asking them to oppose the amendment. (Update: Perdue contradicted Stam later in the day, saying she was not making calls. (link).) Stam said that seemed odd since Perdue voted for the state marriage law in 1996. (I have a call into the governor's office asking if she is making calls and if so, why.) 

Handouts from news conference included:

• Stam's news release (link).
• The second part of Stam's news release (link).
• A release by Equality NC, which opposes the amendment (link).

One of the questions I put to Stam and Folwell was whether this amendment was more political ploy than policy imperative. Republicans, say some analysts, think the marriage amendment will help drive turnout. (There are, by the way, some very smart people who thinks it won't change turnout much either way.)

Folwell had an interesting answer to this question, pointing to three states where President Obama won in 2008 -- Minnesota, Indiana, Pennsylvania -- where voters also passed a marriage amendment. (Update: Minnesota doesn't look like it should be on this list. My friend Rachel Stassen-Berger reported in 2011 that the measure was on the ballot in 2012 (link)).(Update 2: According to NCSL's website, neither Indiana nor Pennsylvania had same sex marriage as part of their constitution (link). Whether his point is valid or not, the actual information Folwell used was incorrect.) (Update 3: For example, Obama DID win California (link), where Prop 8 passed (link).)(Update 4: A staffer for Folwell later said he was confused and meant to cite Florida and California as the states where Obama won that passed gay marriage bans in 2008. )

The current debate is not about legalizing gay marriage. Still, those who lobby for an amendment say they're trying to head off a day when same sex marriage becomes legal due to a court action. I asked Stam about comparisons between gay marriage bans and miscegenation laws that kept people of different races from marrying during a large part of the 20th century. (Background here and here.) Could the same sex marriage ban be viewed as a similar violation of civil rights? 

"Miscegenation laws never had the slightest basis in morality, biology or good political philosophy. They were just sheer racial prejudice. This is about the future good of society and children. It fits with the ways that people have thought of marriage for thousands of years," Stam said.He went on to argue that if same sex marriage were allowed one day, it would devalue or degrade traditional marriage.

Stam was also pushed as to what anti-same-sex-marriage laws were needed.

"You cannot construct an argument for same sex marriage that would not justify, philosophically, legalization of polygamy and adult incest," Stam said.

Video of the full news conference coming in a minute or two.

Update: Rep. Joe Hackney, the House Democratic leader, said this about the GOP marriage amendment: "At a time when we should be focused on helping our neighbors in the east recover from a terrible storm, we are instead returning to Raleigh to vote on a constitutional amendment that simply mirrors existing law in North Carolina. What a waste. This proposed constitutional amendment runs against the tide of history, and has become a form of hate speech. Modern corporations do not tolerate this kind of discrimination and neither should our state. But many of us recognize this unneeded amendment is not about rights or morality. It is part of the Republican political strategy to drive Republicans to the polls in 2012 while suppressing Democratic voting through voter ID legislation and cutbacks in early voting."