news-record.com

GREENSBORO — Anyone visiting Bob Page’s office on the second floor of Replacements Ltd.’s sprawling Knox Road complex will likely focus on one of two features: pictures of his adopted 12-year-old twin boys perched on the edge of his desk or a large window looking down on the china-laden showroom.

Truth be told, Page probably would be happier talking about the company he founded or his boys’ achievements rather than a proposed amendment to add a ban on gay marriage to North Carolina’s constitution.

But the Rockingham County native, a PAC formed by his company’s employees and some members of his staff are working against the measure, which lawmakers may consider during a session that begins Sept. 12.

Backers of the amendment — various politically conservative and religious groups — say it is needed to preserve North Carolina’s state law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Page says it’s merely an attempt to institutionalize bigotry against his family, which includes his longtime partner, Dale Frederiksen.

“I know personally about this because I have a sister and her two daughters who are fundamentalists, and they believe Dale and I, you know, there’s no hope for our salvation,” he said. “And they also don’t think our family is a valid family.”

Lawmakers will consider a number of proposed constitutional amendments and other matters during what is expected to be a four- or five-day session.

The amendment needs approval of three-fifths of the House and Senate and then would be put on the ballot for voter approval.

Other amendments that might be discussed would limit the terms of legislative leaders and curb the state’s use of its power to take property.

But the battle over the gay marriage ban is likely to be highest profile and hardest fought.

The measure is inextricably linked to 2012 politics, when voters will cast ballots for president, governor and legislative offices. Backers hope a push to end North Carolina’s status as the only state in the Southeast without a constitutional definition of marriage will bring out conservative voters in large numbers.

Reports from behind-the-scenes negotiations among legislators say some conservative Democrats favor the amendment but would like to blunt its political impact by putting it on the May primary ballot.

Those pushing the amendment eschew talk about the political calculus involved, focusing instead on what they say is an ongoing threat to traditional families.

“Marriage was ordained by God, not by government. God set it in motion,” said the Rev. Ron Baity, president of Return America, a Winston-Salem-based conservative Christian organization that has led rallies in Raleigh on behalf of the amendment.

“We’re trying to uphold the biblical standard of marriage.”

Baity sees a persistent danger that an “activist judge” could strike down North Carolina’s gay marriage ban, pointing to litigation in California, Iowa and Massachusetts. Thus far, there doesn’t appear to be a North Carolina case challenging the marriage law.

Baity is unequivocal in his language, calling homosexuality an “error” and saying that failing to push back against gay marriage would open the door to other social ills.

“I said a long time ago that if we allow the fence down on the marriage issue, then there will come a day when things like pedophilia will be looked at with ease and become accepted,” he said.

That kind of statement enrages some people inside and outside the gay rights movement.

Page seems content to laugh off the more extreme rhetoric.

During an interview last week, he showed off a web posting that said the recent earthquake along the eastern seaboard was caused by permissive attitudes toward gay marriage.

Many of those against the amendment point out that there’s been no great push to legalize gay marriage — only an effort to stop further institutionalization of the ban.

Page wonders what the fuss is about.

“The question I would ask, on the issue of gay marriage — why would it harm anyone else here in the state of North Carolina if my partner and I could get married and that our two sons could legally have two parents? I don’t see that it would hurt anybody,” he said.

Tami Fitzgerald, who leads the N.C. Values Coalition, said North Carolinians risk losing their right to define marriage as between one man and one woman by leaving the definition out of the constitution.

“The population of North Carolina support marriage as defined as between one man and one woman,” she said, pointing to polling.
In fact, the polling tends to be mixed, particularly in national surveys.

An April poll from the conservative Civitas Institute in Raleigh found that 7 in 10 North Carolina voters supported a constitutional amendment.

A February Elon University Poll found that only 35 percent of respondents opposed “any legal recognition for same sex couples,” and 29 percent favored civil unions or legal partnerships but not full marriage rights. When asked if they would support or oppose a constitutional amendment, nearly 56 percent of respondents said they “opposed” or “strongly opposed” such an amendment.

Fitzgerald and other backers of the amendment dismiss the Elon Poll’s questions as leading. But Mileah Kromer, an Elon University political science professor who oversees the poll, said the findings track with national data that suggest that fervor in favor of constitutional bans of gay marriage is waning while acceptance of civil unions is spreading.

Andrew Spainhour, Replacements Ltd.’s general counsel, said public sentiment, whatever it is, shouldn’t govern state law.

“We in our country do not put the rights of a minority up for referendum, up for a vote,” he said.

Fitzgerald bristles at the idea that the marriage amendment is a civil rights issue.

“It’s not about civil rights, and it’s an insult to the civil rights movement to say so,” Fitzgerald said.

Amendment opponents recently opened another front in the battle, saying it could hurt North Carolina’s economic prospects. Legislation seen as anti-gay could drive away gay entrepreneurs or gay-friendly companies that might want to offer domestic partner benefits, they say.

Spainhour said Replacements could be forced to drop its domestic partnership coverage under at least one version of the marriage amendment.

Page estimates that between 75 and 100 of his roughly 460 employees are gay.

Pointing to Replacements’ recent $10 million, 200,000-square-foot renovation, Spainhour said it would be hard to imagine another company with Replacement’s emphasis on equal treatment of workers coming to North Carolina during a campaign over a marriage amendment.

“Ask yourself if another Bob Page would plan a building like that here in this environment,” he said.

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com