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.
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.
The "only legal domestic union" part is the wolf in sheep's clothing that many people aren't aware of, which would ban domestic partnerships, civil unions, and common-law marriages. Even many who oppose same-sex marriage are voting against this vaguely-worded amendment.
The term “domestic legal union” used in the amendment is not defined in North Carolina law. There is debate among legal experts about how this proposed constitutional amendment may impact North Carolina law as it relates to unmarried couples of same or opposite sex and same sex couples legally married in another state, particularly in regard to employment-related benefits for domestic partners; domestic violence laws; child custody and visitation rights; and end-of-life arrangements. The courts will ultimately make those decisions.
The amendment also says that private parties may still enter into contracts creating rights enforceable against each other. This means that unmarried persons, businesses and other private parties may be able to enter into agreements establishing personal rights, responsibilities, or benefits as to each other. The courts will decide the extent to which such contracts can be enforced.
The Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission
The term “domestic legal union” used in the amendment is not defined in North Carolina law. There is debate among legal experts about how this proposed constitutional amendment may impact North Carolina law as it relates to unmarried couples of same or opposite sex and same sex couples legally married in another state, particularly in regard to employment-related benefits for domestic partners; domestic violence laws; child custody and visitation rights; and end-of-life arrangements. The courts will ultimately make those decisions.
The amendment also says that private parties may still enter into contracts creating rights enforceable against each other. This means that unmarried persons, businesses and other private parties may be able to enter into agreements establishing personal rights, responsibilities, or benefits as to each other. The courts will decide the extent to which such contracts can be enforced.
The Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission
And this alone is reason to reject it AS WRITTEN. Even if you agree with every point of it, amending the constitution is serious business, and should be done the right way (as opposed to a bill that was whisked through in a couple of hours, with no public discussion allowed, back in September). Reject the current one, and write another one if it is something that is so important to the state--one that is clear in its language and doesn't cause untold legal headaches and expenses. I thought the Tea Partiers (who won the Leg majority) were supposedly against extra government regulations and spending?
From Texas to Virginia, the South has spoken with almost one voice on same-sex marriage, amending state constitutions to ban the practice in hopes of blocking court decisions that would allow gays and lesbians to marry.
It's "almost" one voice because there's a discordant note in the Southern choir.
North Carolina, which likes to distinguish itself as a "vale of humility" surrounded by more bombastic neighbors, is the last state in the region without such an amendment. That fact is repeated constantly in the debate over a May 8 referendum when voters will have a chance to change the situation. But while it's bandied about by both sides, it's less clear what the distinction means.
Is it simply because the North Carolina Democrats who controlled the Legislature until 2010 had no interest in putting the amendment up for a vote? Or does it reflect the history and outlook of a state where leaders shepherded desegregation into law during the 1960s with little of the violence that broke out elsewhere?
Both explanations have merit in a state where Republicans waited nearly 140 years to take full control of the General Assembly and in which the political careers of moderate Democrat Jim Hunt and conservative Republican stalwart Jesse Helms could flourish at the same time, thanks to some of the same voters.
"North Carolina is an ambivalent state," said Harry Watson, director of the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. "It's got very strong conservative instincts, and it's got very strong liberal instincts. It's one of the things that's peculiar about Tar Heel politics that voters can go either way depending on the issue or the politician."
OfficialWire: USA: What Makes NC Different In Gay Marriage Debate? (http://news.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=267398 - broken link)
Former Republican nominee for Governor, Vinroot, comes out against the amendment. Also U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers of Dunn has also announced her opposition. So has John Hood, president of the conservative John Locke Foundation.
Richard Vinroot, a former Charlotte mayor and one-time GOP nominee for governor, said he opposes the May amendment that would ban gay marriage in the North Carolina constitution. Vinroot said comments by state House Speaker Thom Tillis this week that he believed the ban would be overturned in 20 years cemented his opposition. Former governor nominee opposes gay marriage ban
A constitutional gay marriage ban also would eliminate benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Mecklenburg County employees and other municipalities with similar policies.
The PPP poll showed 28 percent think it only bans gay marriage. But when told that the amendment also prohibits civil unions, support dropped significantly: 41 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed.
Seven percent of the respondents think the amendment would legalize gay marriage. Thirty-four percent say they honestly don’t know what it means.
Sliced along party lines, Republicans strongly support the ban, 76 percent to 20 percent. Democrats are divided, 48 percent for and 47 percent against, with more support among black Democrats.
Independents say they will vote against the amendment by a 55-42 percent margin.
U.S. Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (via her spokesman, Tom Doheny):
"As a voter, she would vote against a piece of legislation that would add a ban on civil unions to the protection of marriage since they are two different issues and should be dealt with separately." (October 2, 2011)
Grandson of Constitutional Drafter, Russell Robinson:
“I think the amendment is very bad, and I devoutly hope this state will reject that amendment when they vote on May 8.” (March 20, 2012)
John Locke Foundation’s John Hood
“I think amending North Carolina’s constitution to forbid gay and lesbian couples from receiving any future legal recognition, including civil unions, is unwise and unfair. In my opinion the real threat to marriage is not the prospectof gay people getting hitched. It is the reality of straight people too quickly resorting to divorce, or never getting hitched in the first place.” (March 26, 2012)
Former Charlotte Mayor, Richard Vinroot:
“My reaction, was, ‘My gosh, the legislature wants us to put something in the Constitution that the leader of our party – the speaker of the House – doesn’t think will stand the test of time for more than a decade,’ ” Vinroot told the Observer. “I can’t imagine amending the Constitution for something he believes is that tenuous.” (March 28, 2012)
Former N.C. Supreme Court Justice, Robert Orr:
“Any provision that has to be put into the ‘miscellaneous’ section of the constitution immediately raises questions about whether it should be in the state constitution,” he said. “It’s probably not a provision that ought to be in.” (March 28, 2012)
Even Amendment One proponent Republican Speaker Thom Tillis recently questioned the longevity of the constitutional amendment:
House Speaker Thom Tillis
“It’s a generational issue. The data shows right now that you are a generation away from that issue …. If it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years.” (March 26, 2012)
I would like to vote for a ban on gay MARRIAGE. But as usual the numb-nuts have gone "a bridge to far" and put all domestic relationships in the amendment. I can understand preserving marriage as the historically accepted union between male and female, but that is about it. If same sex folks want to live in some sort of union, why should I care. And why should they be denied.
Like the ol' joke about the guy living next to the lesbian couple, "I wanna watch. And I don't mean no Rolex!"
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.
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.
