8/4/2019 NC Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam's Marriage Lesson
2/4
.,\et Cuncerning Mlarriages {1669}North Carolina History
ProiectIn 1663, when the Lords Proprietors obtained Carolina from
King Charles II, theyencouraged settlement and extended the Laws of
England to their North Americanpossession. During the late 1660s
and early 1670s, most newcomers settled thenortheastern corner of
Carolina--the Albemarle region. Settlers wishing to marrysoon
experienced a problem: only ministers of the Church of England were
entitledto perform the rite of marriage and few visited or settled
in Carolina.As a result, the Assembly of Albemarle in 1669
discussed the need to authorize civilofficers to perform marriage
ceremonies. Opponents thought such provisionsfostered immorality.
Proponents of the new law were in the majority, however, andon
January 20, L67O, the Lords Proprietors ratified and confirmed the
new law. Forthe first time, civil authorities performed marriages,
but they did so only if thecounty had no minister.Although An Act
Concerning Marriages (1669) made it easier for North Caroliniansto
marry and thereby alleviated colonists' fears of spreading
immorality andillegitimate births, the law created another problem
by not providing a provision fordivorce.Below is a transcription of
An Act Concerning Marriages (1669):Forasmuch as there may be divers
people that are minded to be joined together inthe holy state of
Wedlock and for that there is noe minister as yet in this County
bywhom the said Partyes may be joyned in Wedlock according to the
rites andcustoms of our native Country the Kingdome of England that
none may be hindredfrom this soe necessary a worke for the
preservation of Mankind and setlement ofthis County it is enacted
And be it enacted by the Pallatine and the LordsProprietors of
Carolina by and with the advice and consent of the Present
GrandAssembly and authority thereof that any two persons desring to
be joyned togetherin the holy state of matrimony takeng three or
fower of their Neghbours along withthem and repairing to the
Governor or any one of the Councell before him declaringthat they
doe joyne together in the holy state of Wedlock And doe accept one
theother for man and wife; and the said Governor or Councellor
before whom such actis performed giveing Certificate thereof and
the said Ceftificate being registered inthe Secrytary's Office or
by the Register of the Precinct or in such other Office asshall
hereafter for that use be provided It shall be deemed a Lawfull
Marriage andthe parties violating this Marriage shall be punishable
as if they had binn marryedby a minister according to the rtes and
Customs of England.
'i"r>.. -;1.. 1 r-1"i , . ,-:','. .: Ji i;,]t f/| .'PAUL
STAMI lOtisE lvlAJORITY LE;\DER\,(]. }-IOL]SE OF
REPRESENT.\TIVES
t)ts'IRtcl'.\l)t)l{F.SS:I r l HLj\]t-.R S'rRI-_F.. i\t)l-\. !(-
r--,
8/4/2019 NC Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam's Marriage Lesson
3/4
Chapter 51, - Marriage,Article I .General Provisions.$ 51-1.
Requisites of marriage; solemnization.
A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a
male and female person whomay lawfully marry, presently to take
each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously airdplainly
expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:(l) a. In
the presence of a ordained minister of any religious denomintion,
aminister authorizedby a church, or a magistrate; andb. With the
consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that
thepersons are husband and wife; or(2) In accordance with any mode
of solemnization recognized by any religious
denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or
Tribe.Marriages solemnized before March 9, lg0g, by ministers of
the gospel licensed, but notordained, are validated from their
consummation. (1871-2, c. 193, s. 3; Code, s. 1812; Rev., s.
2081;1908, c. 47; 1909, c.704, s.2; c.897; C.5., s.2493; 1945, c.
839; 1965, c. 152;1971, c. 1185, s.26;1977,c. 592, s. l; 2000-58,
ss. 1,2;2001-14, ss. 1,2;2001-62, ss. I, l7; 2002-115, ss. 5, 6;
2002-159, s. 13(a);20034, s. l;2005-56, s. 1;2007-61, s. 1;
2009-13, s. l.)$ 51-1.2, Marriages between persons of the same
gender not valid.
Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or
performed outside of NorthCarolina, between individuals of the same
gender are not valid in North Carolina. (1995 (Reg.Sess., 1996), c.
588, s. 1.)
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINAsEssroN LAw 2011409SENATE BILL
514AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE TIIAT MARRIAGE
BETWEENONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL I.JNION
THAT SHALL BEVALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE.SECTION 1. Aficle 14
of the North Caolina Constitution is amended by adding the
following newsection:"Sec. 6. Marriage.Marriage between one man and
one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid
orecognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private
party fiom entering into contractswith another private party; nor
does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights
ofprivateparties pusuant to such contacts."
8/4/2019 NC Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam's Marriage Lesson
4/4
PRESS RELEASEFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 6,2011Democratic
Legislative Leader Accuses Governor Bev PerdueAnd Attorney General
Roy cooper of a form of "Hate speech"
Rateigh - Former Speaker of the House (and now Minority Leader)
Joe Hackney (D-Orange)continues to accuse the membership and
leadership of both the Democratic and Republican partiesof engaging
in a "form of hate speech."On August 30,z}IL,Speaker Hackney
responded to a press conference held by Republicanlegislaiive
leaders on ih" proposed constitutional amendment to define
marriage. He stated, 'Thisproposea constitutionat amendment runs
against the tide of history, and has become a form ofhate
speech."while there are major procedural differences between the
"No same sex Marriage" statute of 1996(SB 1437) and the proposed
constitutional amendment, the policy is exactly the same:
Northcarolina will not recognize same sex marriages - whether
performed in-state or out of state' onthis point the ,,marriale
amendment" is identical with the law that Gov. Bev Perdue and
AttorneyGeneral Roy Coopervoted for as Senators in 1996'But if
speaker Hackney claims that only a constitutional amendment (but
not a statute) can beconsidered a "form of hate speech," it would
be well for him to remember the ten currentDemocratic members of
the House who have sponsored this constitutionalamendment' which
wasfirst proposed jointly by Democrats and Republicans during the
2003-2004 legislative sessions'
since speaker Hackney voted for the same policy in 1996, should
he apologize now to everyone forhaving engaged in a "form hate
speech" himself?
