The Facts: The North Carolina Senate passed a bill allowing for an amendment to the North Carolina State Constitution to be put on a ballot   in May. The amendment, if passed, would establish that the only type of marriage recognized by the state is between a man and a woman.

The Opinion: To make a constitutional amendment is to make a stance that is practically immovable. With the issue of same-sex marriage still strongly debated, it is premature to engrain a stance either way into our constitution.

This Saturday is Constitution Day throughout our nation. The awareness this day will bring could not come at a better time. In North Carolina we find ourselves at the beginning of an 8-month long debate on whether our own constitution should be amended to specify that only heterosexual marriage will be recognized by the state.

On Sept. 13, the North Carolina Senate passed a bill that would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on a ballot to be voted on by North Carolinians in May. The bill was passed by the House with a vote of 75-42 in favor of the bill and passed the Senate with a vote of 30-16.

Same-sex marriage is currently illegal in North Carolina. The amendment, whether it is passed or killed by voters in May, will not impact the legal status of same-sex marriage in North Carolina. What the constitutional amendment does do is make it more difficult for the legal status of same-sex marriage to be altered in the future.

It is difficult for something to be taken out of the North Carolina Constitution once it finds a place there. Since the constitution’s inception 235 years ago, there have only been 28 amendments to it.

There are some surprising parts of the North Carolina Constitution that have survived despite changing times and perspectives. Article 6 Section 8 makes public office unavailable to “any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” Article 6 Section 4 makes literacy a requirement for voter registration, a tactic of the Jim Crowe era. Although these sections should have been amended long ago, attempts to do so have failed as that which is in the constitution has tremendous staying power.

The attempt to ratify an amendment on an issue that is still being heavenly debated is perplexing. The illegal status of same-sex marriage does not find itself in flux while it remains outside of our constitution. Until a firm stance is established on the issue, a stance that cannot accurately polled 8 months from now, there should not even be the opportunity for a position, either way, to find its way into our constitution.