Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte
Apparently the original text of the bill did hint at banning other types of unions besides marriage and I think a lot of people are still quoting what they heard out of that. The current version is only about what the state recognizes.
Text of the bill: SL2011-0409
Some discussion including what the old text had in it that is spooking people more than just the marriage ban: Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment FAQ — Equality North Carolina (http://equalitync.org/amendment - broken link) |
The text of the CURRENT bill as you linked it is as follows:
"marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.""
You have to read the text carefully. The above text does not mean that among marriages, the state will only recognize heterosexual marriages, but instead that a
heterosexual marriage is the only type of domestic union,
marriage or otherwise, that the state will recognize. In other words, the state will not recognize other types of domestic unions, such as civil unions or other unions affording similar benefits, unless it falls under some very narrow exceptions involving private contracts between parties. They will only recognize MARRIAGE, and only between a man and a woman. So yes, it is more than just a marriage restriction. It's a "heterosexual marriage and nothing else" ban.
Indeed, many important rights may still be curtailed even under the revised definition, such as:
* domestic violence protections for members of unmarried couples
* existing child custody and visitation rights that seek to protect the best interests of children
* invalidating trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives
* invalidating domestic partner benefits offered by various municipalities
The amended language was just a token concession. They can't blame sloppiness because we already have tangible examples of amendments that have been enacted into law already in other states that ban marriage but still carve out an unquestionable exception for various partnership benefits that are still in question in NC's proposed amendment. No one should be in favor of equivocation in this regard - just make it clear one way or the other. The last thing we need is to tie up the court system with statutory interpretation for years to come when other states' language has been clear and crystal.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
