U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Amendment 1
Yes, I support it 27 18.49%
No, I do not support it 119 81.51%
Voters: 146. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2012, 10:56 AM
 
Location: NC
10,009 posts, read 5,030,458 times
Reputation: 2999

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad View Post
My understanding of this amendment is that it clarifies the definition of marriage in the NC State Constitution. Since marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships are not rights, nothing is lost.
Your wrong, it also makes any form of civil unions unconstitutional, it prohibits state government entities like towns and counties from providing partnership benefits and it also has the potential to wreak havoc on the general statutes, including possibly invalidating a fair amount of the 50B domestic violence statute.

 
Old 02-22-2012, 11:11 AM
 
731 posts, read 501,126 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Okay, but what is gained? Why does the definition need to be "clarified"?
In my opinion, it is to prevent years of costly court battles from a progressive minority trying to change a 2,500 year old definition and force acceptance of a lifestyle many do not approve of.

Quote:
Your wrong, it also makes any form of civil unions unconstitutional, it prohibits state government entities like towns and counties from providing partnership benefits and it also has the potential to wreak havoc on the general statutes, including possibly invalidating a fair amount of the 50B domestic violence statute.
Let's see what the amendment ACTUALLY says:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONEMAN AND ONE WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL UNION THAT SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section:

"Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

SECTION 2. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the State at a statewide election to be held on November 6, 2012, which election shall be conducted under the laws then governing elections in the State. Ballots, voting systems, or both may be used in accordance with Chapter 163 of the General Statutes. The question to be used in the voting systems and ballots shall be:

[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

SECTION 3. If a majority of votes cast on the question are in favor of the amendment set out in Section 1 of this act, the State Board of Elections shall certify the amendment to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall enroll the amendment so certified among the permanent records of that office. The amendment is effective upon (blanked out).
 
Old 02-22-2012, 11:16 AM
 
Location: The 12th State
22,077 posts, read 40,127,160 times
Reputation: 13305
Children being raised by unmarried parents will lose health insurance coverage offered by municipalities that provide domestic partner benefits. The amendment will jeopardize other laws that recognize legal relationships between unmarried couples.

U.S. Census Bureau survey estimates that there are more than 198,000 households in North Carolina where partners are unmarried. More than 91 percent of those households are heterosexual couples living together.


I wish the Amendment title would describe everything it is against.



 
Old 02-22-2012, 12:15 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 3,275,468 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad View Post
In my opinion, it is to prevent years of costly court battles from a progressive minority trying to change a 2,500 year old definition and force acceptance of a lifestyle many do not approve of.
Not likely. If anything, it will result in even more costly court battles. For example, state courts in California have been at it since a gay marriage ban was passed in 2008. Just a couple of weeks ago an appeals court ruled that the ban is unconstitutional. The fight is a long way from being over.
 
Old 02-22-2012, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Sherrills Ford, NC
72 posts, read 90,278 times
Reputation: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by NativeNCBoy View Post
I'm a firm believer in traditional marriage. I'm against any type of recognition of homosexuals. I'm thankful that the majority of folks in NC feel the same way.
I too firmly believe in your right to your beliefs. However, I certainly hope for the future of our state and nation people open their eyes and address the real issues facing our society in terms of families rather than wasting resources on "definitions" that seek to disenfranchise and relegate certain individuals to 2nd class status.

By the way, the so defined "traditional marriage" that you feel so strongly about has left us in 2012 with both these statistics.

1) Over 50% of "traditional marriages" end in divorce within 7 years. That's not news to most people.

2) But wait, now statistics show that over 50% of babies being born to mothers under 25 are to mothers that are "unwed."

Now there's not moral judgement on my part concerning any of these statistics except this- anyone who believes in the sanctity of "traditional marriage" must admit something about it isn't working.

This amendment smacks to me of politicians trying to divert the attention from real issues North Carolinians should care about (high unemployment, high tutition costs, high health care cost, high energy cost) that the politicians seem to have no plan or concern to try to fix.

Women are still having babies, but for 50% of them, there is some reason they are not getting married before they are having them. I could speculate about the reasons (economy, etc.) but I'll leave that for another discussion.

Regardless, studies have proven again and again that children are better off being raised in a 2 parent home. That's not what is happening now!

And yet, your solution and what you feel the majority solution in NC, is to exclude committed couples from having the benefits of a committed relationship and also having the opportunity to provide children with loving 2 parent homes?
 
Old 02-22-2012, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
8,197 posts, read 10,841,360 times
Reputation: 7789
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad View Post
My understanding of this amendment is that it clarifies the definition of marriage in the NC State Constitution. Since marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships are not rights, nothing is lost.
Marriage is already "defined" in state law. Why amend the state constitution (at great expense) for something that is redundant? Are we going to put every single law in NC on a ballot for a constitutional amendment? Other than Prohibition (which was later overturned), constitutional amendments historically have expanded individual liberties, not curtailed them. What do the Republicans in nc government have against freedom to form contracts (not "marriage"--this affect all legal domestic union contracts) with someone if one wants? No existing marriage will be affected in the least.

And BTW, as for what rights to gay people lack?" How about the right not to be fired from your job except for just (work-related) cause? In NC, it is perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason than that they are gay, no matter how well-performing.
 
Old 02-22-2012, 03:55 PM
 
731 posts, read 501,126 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Just a couple of weeks ago an appeals court ruled that the ban is unconstitutional.
The 9th circuit is the most liberal court in the land, it was pre-ordained what their ruling was going to be. I find it interesting that progressives consistently talk about listening to "the will of the people" unless things don't go their way, then they try remedies through the courts.

Quote:
The fight is a long way from being over.
Yep, and it will be ugly as the pro-gay marriage crowd continues to harass, threaten and demean those who disagree with them. I thought progressives were supposed to be tolerant of others' beliefs?


Quote:
How about the right not to be fired from your job except for just (work-related) cause?
And therein lies the problem, you are claiming a right that does not exist just like the pro-gay marriage activists. You can be fired from your job in NC at any time for any reason.

Quote:
In NC, it is perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason than that they are gay, no matter how well-performing.
See above, and which statute is this?
 
Old 02-22-2012, 04:36 PM
 
Location: NC
10,009 posts, read 5,030,458 times
Reputation: 2999
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad View Post
In my opinion, it is to prevent years of costly court battles from a progressive minority trying to change a 2,500 year old definition and force acceptance of a lifestyle many do not approve of.



Let's see what the amendment ACTUALLY says:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONEMAN AND ONE WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL UNION THAT SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section:

"Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

SECTION 2. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the State at a statewide election to be held on November 6, 2012, which election shall be conducted under the laws then governing elections in the State. Ballots, voting systems, or both may be used in accordance with Chapter 163 of the General Statutes. The question to be used in the voting systems and ballots shall be:

[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

SECTION 3. If a majority of votes cast on the question are in favor of the amendment set out in Section 1 of this act, the State Board of Elections shall certify the amendment to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall enroll the amendment so certified among the permanent records of that office. The amendment is effective upon (blanked out).
Ok I have a few minutes so I can try and answer I will highlight certain sections of your post to make reference. Lets start with the Red part. Basically this is what causes the biggest problems. Since towns and counties are state entities they cannot recognize other domestic partnerships under this amendment. This would in effect prohibit cities like Carrboro from recognizing domestic partnerships for the purposes of assignment of benefits to employees. The town of Carrboro and other local municipalities and counties are not a private parties so the yellow part would not protect them from the rule about recognizing domestic partnerships.

Now lets look at the domestic violence statute under chapter 50B and again compare it to the red highlighted part.

GS_50B-1

Basically you are inviting someone to come and challenge (b)(2)-(6) under this amendment by arguing that the state in this piece of legislation is giving legal recognition to certain "personal relationships" beyond marriage such as unmarried opposite sex cohabitants, this becomes really problematic with the language of the amendment and could potentially be unconstitutional. If that argument is accepted you have pretty much invalidated most of the domestic violence protections in the state...Yay for traditional marriage right.

Why are they doing this? Simply because either they want to single out gay people for public rebuke, or don't trust the very conservative state supreme court which has given not the slightest indication that it would grant legitimacy to same sex marriage. I wonder which one it could be? If anything a challenge to this will be fought in federal courts and in the newly liberal 4th circuit in particular, which was just recently packed with Obama appointees and this amendment will have no binding power over them.

Basically this is just a bad idea it doesn't change anything when it comes to marriage, but it has all sorts of bad side effects.

Last edited by Randomstudent; 02-22-2012 at 05:12 PM..
 
Old 02-22-2012, 05:35 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 3,275,468 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad View Post
The 9th circuit is the most liberal court in the land, it was pre-ordained what their ruling was going to be. I find it interesting that progressives consistently talk about listening to "the will of the people" unless things don't go their way, then they try remedies through the courts.


Yep, and it will be ugly as the pro-gay marriage crowd continues to harass, threaten and demean those who disagree with them. I thought progressives were supposed to be tolerant of others' beliefs?
Your comments aren't really relevant to the point. You said the amendment would prevent "years of costly court battles". I pointed out that they've likely just begun. Just because you don't agree with the rulings of the California courts doesn't change the fact that the litigation has occurred (and will continue). And besides, the "will of the people" should always take a back seat to the rights granted by the Constitution to all Americans. That's what it's there for.

And think for a second--who is really being harrassed, threatened, and demeaned here? Someone who discriminates against others based on their personal religious convictions, or those who aren't afforded basic rights because of their sexual persuasion? I think you know the answer.
 
Old 02-22-2012, 05:55 PM
 
731 posts, read 501,126 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
And think for a second--who is really being harrassed, threatened, and demeaned here?
I was referring to Ms. America, business owners and churches in CA that supported proposition 8, and the 14-year old girl in Maryland who is receiving death threats for speaking about her marriage beliefs just to name a few.

Quote:
Someone who discriminates against others based on their personal religious convictions, or those who aren't afforded basic rights because of their sexual persuasion? I think you know the answer.
Just because someone does not agree with your lifestyle does not mean you are being discriminated against. And again, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top