Barry 1
Jacqueline L. Barry
Mortensen
WRI 101
April 30, 2012
Angels and Amendments: The Truth Behind Amendment One
Tony Kushner’s critically acclaimed yet highly controversial play, Angels in
America, is famous for its intelligent plotline and well-developed characters, but also
for the social and political upheaval it created. In Charlotte, North Carolina, the
designated cultural center of the so-called “New South,” backlash from the play was
especially apparent. A 1996 production of Angels in America offered the notorious
Gang of Five, a group of conservative commissioners for Mecklenburg County,
glimpses into homosexual themes that they believed were not only distasteful, but
also immoral and disruptive to the public. As a result, the group pulled the two and a
half million dollar funding for the county’s Arts and Science Council, a loss to the
Charlotte Repertory Theater, which was responsible for the play, as well as to other
theaters and museums.1 Similar fears have been at work behind the recent creation
of Amendment One in North Carolina, a vague legal document that prohibits samesex marriage in the state while denying residents a startling multitude of rights and
protections. With wisdom gained from the Angels in America controversy in the
1
Nunns, Stephen. "Is Charlotte burning? (Charlotte Repertory Theatre in North
Carolina; elimination of Mecklenburg County's funding to the Arts and
Science Council)." American Theatre. Theatre Communications Group. 1999.
Barry 2
nineties, and the impending vote for Amendment One virtually at our doorsteps, it is
time to let the curtain fall and expose the faults of the amendment where they lie.
To understand why Amendment One is so threatening to North Carolina
civilians, it is first necessary to examine the exact terms of the document. In full, it
states that, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal
union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.2" Although it may appear that
this statement is, first and foremost, an issue for homosexuals seeking to marry
their partners, in actuality this amendment affects a much broader range of
individuals and their families, homosexual or not. Indeed, I contend that civil
marriage is a legal contract - in the same vein as a rental agreement with one’s
landlord, for instance – between two consenting adults that creates a domestic or
family unit. While some people may get married for social or cultural reasons, such
as being in love, others may get married for practical reasons, either due to the fact
that there are more protections for their children, or perhaps because there are tax
benefits in doing so. But whether there is “love” in a marriage or not, everyone
receives the same legal protections and benefits. Religious marriage, on the other
hand, is completely different. If I jump over a broom with Andrew, my boyfriend,
without first going to the courthouse, I might be married in my culture but certainly
not by the law’s standards. Thus, adding a gender requirement in the constitution
related to marriage adds a component of a religious idea to a legal construct. But
what ever happened to the separation of church and state? Amendment One is
undoubtedly blurring this line.
"Vote For Marriage NC | VoteForMarriageNC.com." Vote For Marriage NC. Web. 30
April 2012. <http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/>.
2
Barry 3
In addition, the terms of the amendment, such as its use of the phrase
“domestic legal union,” have never been used in North Carolina law before.3 Thus, it
is impossible to know exactly how courts will choose to interpret this phrase and
extend upon it, which turns certain extreme prohibitions, like taking children away
from parents in domestic partnerships as well as nullifying stalking and domestic
violence protections, into possibilities. It could also prevent North Carolina from
being able to give other important rights to unmarried individuals, such as visiting
one’s partner in the hospital or being able to make an emergency medical decision
should one arise. Even further, the amendment would immediately take away health
benefits from unmarried people who receive coverage through their partners,
including those with severe pre-existing illnesses or conditions4. What is immoral
about these issues is not the freedoms that homosexuals and those wishing to obtain
civil unions should be receiving, but the fact that such a vague legal transcript, with
enormous consequences affecting those even beyond the targeted homosexual
audience, is threatening to destroy the livelihoods of so many North Carolinians.
After the decision of the Gang of Five disrupted the arts community and
furthered the anti-homosexual agenda they were so committed to, one might
assume that North Carolina politics had been altered enough to prevent the passing,
or even the proposed passing, of these types of legislation. This radical group of
Mecklenburg County commissioners was responsible for stripping the Arts and
"NC Amendment One Truth." NC Amendment One Truth. Web. 30 April 2012.
<http://ncamendmentonetruth.wordpress.com/page/2/>.
4 "Amendment One: 10 Facts You Need to Know." Progress NC. Web. 30 April 2012.
<http://www.progressnc.org/2012/03/amendment-one-10-facts-you-need-toknow-before-you-vote.html>.
3
Barry 4
Science Council entirely of its yearly county budget in response to the Charlotte
Repertory’s Theater production of Angels in America simply because of its
homosexual content. These five individuals became the biggest threat against the
arts and garnered national attention for a city whose image was valued as a symbol
of progressivism in the south. But as Charlotte reached for this reputation, the Gang
of Five stood with formidable reserve in its path. The truth is that the arts
controversy of the nineties and the modern-day controversy of Amendment One are
relatable in several fashions, but perhaps most importantly, they are grounded by a
common irrational fear. One commissioner, a Democrat named Hoyle Martin, even
went so far as to say in an interview on his beliefs about homosexuality that “… their
clear objective is to seduce and have sex with young children" to keep the gay
population from dwindling. He later remarked that, "If I had my way, we'd shove
these people off the face of the earth.5" Such unbelievably powerful hatred for a
single group of people is, nonetheless, still apparent in Charlotte, and obviously still
at work crafting ineffective and intolerant pieces of legislation. The creation of
Amendment One indicates that there is still much work to be done in the fight
against homosexual discrimination. Indeed, if this “New South” idea is to be
achieved in the near future, shutting down progressive arts performances and
advocating for an anti-gay amendment will only set Charlotte further back from
whence it’s came.
5
"Southern Discomfort." Barry Yeoman, Journalist. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/discomfort.html>.
Barry 5
Another important fact to bear in mind is that Amendment One is a
constitutional amendment, not a law, which means it makes permanent in the North
Carolina Constitution an idea that is highly controversial, an idea that cannot ever be
repealed or not enforced. Given how much the Gang of Five was criticized by the
national media as well as by Charlotteans, it should be clear by now that any
decision that is founded by discrimination towards a minority will not be well
received. Today, not all of the states are in agreement about what civil marriage
should look like, but a state’s constitution is definitely the wrong place to test out a
new idea – particularly one that completely bars any legal domestic arrangement
other than the narrowly defined version of marriage proposed by Amendment One.
Supporters of Amendment One will often argue religious reasons for their decisions;
Billy Graham, the famous evangelical Christian responsible for preaching to over 2.2
billion people, has expressed his unflagging support for the Amendment, stating that
the Bible is clear in its definition of marriage6. Still, this is not, and should not, be an
issue of religious ‘correctness.’ The Gang of Five also stated religious reasons
following their decision to pull the county’s funding for the arts on the grounds that
the arts were becoming too “vulgar” due to their honest portrayal of homosexuals.
While I myself affiliate with the Christian religion (as well as the conservative
political viewpoint), I still don’t believe that the government should affiliate with
any single faith, nor make decisions about whom we can legally marry or commit to
a civil union with, nor make any other decisions that influence our private lives. To
Billy Graham Urges North Carolinians to Support Amendment Banning Gay
Marriage." « Alan Colmes' Liberaland. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.alan.com/2012/05/02/billy-graham-urges-north-carolinians-tosupport-amendment-one-banning-gay-marriage/>.
6
Barry 6
me, this is ‘immoral;’ this is ‘distasteful’ and ‘damaging’ to the public. If we allowed
the government to make those decisions for us, we would become blind and helpless
pawns to the at times destructive power of the legal system. The passing of
Amendment One is one such hazard. Discrimination against homosexuals and other
minorities, after all, is almost always a product of a society’s ignorance (and fear) of
other ways of life.
The production of Angels in America in Charlotte and its subsequent success
both as a work of art and as a vessel of the gay rights movement seemed to defy the
political controversy that was created to silence it. And yet, discrimination abounds
still in this city that I grew up in. Although coined the cosmopolitan center of the
“New South” and an icon of progress for other, more traditional southern cities,
Charlotte is hardly homosexual-friendly. Many still look down upon those who
appear homosexual in public, and still call strange things “queer” and “gay” and
people we dislike “faggots.” We bully those who openly declare their homosexuality
until it becomes a trait they, too despise. It is of no surprise, then, that Amendment
One has surfaced and become the modern-day controversy that it is. My only hope is
that this Tuesday, May 8th, 2012, North Carolinians consider the hard facts about
Amendment One and evaluate the futures of their children and friends in an
intolerant world before they cast their ballot.
Barry 7
Works Cited
"Amendment One: 10 Facts You Need to Know." Progress NC. Web. 03 May 2012.
<http://www.progressnc.org/2012/03/amendment-one-10-facts-you-needto-know-before-you-vote.html>.
"Billy Graham Urges North Carolinians to Support Amendment Banning Gay
Marriage." « Alan Colmes' Liberaland. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.alan.com/2012/05/02/billy-graham-urges-north-caroliniansto-support-amendment-one-banning-gay-marriage/>.
"NC Amendment One Truth." NC Amendment One Truth. Web. 03 May 2012.
<http://ncamendmentonetruth.wordpress.com/page/2/>.
Nunns, Stephen. "Is Charlotte burning? (Charlotte Repertory Theatre in North
Carolina; elimination of Mecklenburg County's funding to the Arts and
Science Council)." American Theatre. Theatre Communications Group. 1999.
"Southern Discomfort." Barry Yeoman, Journalist. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/discomfort.html>.
"The Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families." Get Informed. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.protectncfamilies.org/content/get-informed>.
"Vote For Marriage NC | VoteForMarriageNC.com." Vote For Marriage NC. Web. 03
May 2012. <http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/>.
Barry 8