Dangerous Aspect of Amendment One
- Print print this page
- Discuss 16 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Over the past several weeks there has been a lot of discussion regarding the passage of Amendment One to the constitution of North Carolina. I would like to share another aspect of this amendment for everyone to consider.
Amendment One discriminates against all single people, male and female. That is a very dangerous situation.
I have two grown sons. Neither of them is married, so I am the first person to be contacted if they are involved in a serious accident or need medical attention. Under Amendment One, I could not help them. I am their mother, not their spouse.
Unfortunately for these young men, their father died several years ago at a young age. During his illness and medical care, as his wife, I was his advocate. I could speak for him in determining his care, and most important, make the difficult decisions regarding the life support issues we faced. I was the eyes and ears of my husband because he could not speak for himself.
If Amendment One passes, I could not provide this same advocacy, care and attention to my sons that I provided for my husband.
My sons, and all other single people, will lose their rights to this advocacy. There will be no one to “watch out” for their care, no one to discuss their care with the medical staff, no one to make the serious decisions that are sometimes necessary. The government will make these decisions, not the one person in this world whom they could count on and trust.
If you have a single adult in your family, please keep this in mind when you consider how you will vote on Amendment One.
Mary Lou Bernett
Southern Pines
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
native 1 year, 1 month ago
Good point....
dogboy 1 year, 1 month ago
...good letter Mary Lou.
visigrad 1 year, 1 month ago
That is simply NOT true.....anyone can can obtain a durable health care poer of attorney....and that hpoa can be whomever you choose. And actually everyont regardless of their state in life should have one.
MikeNC 1 year, 1 month ago
Here is what you will see on the ballot.....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.
There are many interpretations from all sides of what will become if Ammendment1 passes. And all sorts of interpretations of what to expect if the ammendment fails to pass. The words on the ballot are very easy to understand. You are either for a marriage to be between one man and a woman...or you support homosexual marriage. It's that simple. Vote YES if you want marriage to remain being strictly between one man and one woman. Vote NO if you support other types of marriage arrangements....Mike
Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago
Another liberal who's obviously never even bothered to read the Amendment before commenting, People stupidity is not a virtue.
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
visigrad, anyone could before this amendment. If the state is not allowed to recognize any relationship but a marriage between one man and one woman, how can it enforce the durable health care contract. According to every law school in the state, the courts will have to sort those things out.
Do you really want that?
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
Mike, read the rest of the amendment and the legal analyses from Duke Law and UNC Law, and then tell me how good this measure is.
visigrad 1 year, 1 month ago
Jim.....it states in the amendment...'legal domestic union"..... my hpoa has never lived in my home...there is not domestic union with my hpoa
MikeNC 1 year, 1 month ago
Jim....Please post up the entire ammendment for which we are directly voting for; for ALL to read here. I'm into exact word content of what I'm voting on....not analyses. How about we do analyses on the affordable health care act and see where that can go....Mike
Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago
Here you are Mike Amendment 1 in its' entirety;
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.
The funny thing is I went to (4) Amendment 1 sites (all against ) and none of them had the verbadum amendment only interpretations, as usual liberals are trying feed us horse manure and calling it brain food.
MikeNC 1 year, 1 month ago
Thanks Bentpan as heim would have never posted that bit up. It's available for everyone to see; but political spin is always in the forefront. Like I mentioned earlier....It is very simple and striaghtforward language. Politicians as usual muck it up to decieve....Mike
FightFireWithFire 1 year ago
§ 99D-1. Interference with Civil Rights. (a) It is a violation of this Chapter if: (1) Two or more persons, motivated by race, religion, ethnicity, or gender, but whether or not acting under color of law, conspire to interfere with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person or persons of a right secured by the Constitutions of the United States or North Carolina, or of a right secured by a law of the United States or North Carolina that enforces, interprets, or impacts on a constitutional right;....
Here's my question. If we are prohibiting gay marriage based on our religious beliefs, isn't that interferring with the civil rights of gays? We let people that are not even born in this country have more rights, freedoms and liberties than people that are born here. How backwards we are.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It's time to get back to this. How much tyranny must we suffer at the hands of our own government?
DoubleHeroides 1 year ago
Well said FightFireWithFire, there is no better way to put it.
MikeNC 1 year ago
FightFireWithFire 2 hours, 2 minutes ago...Here's my question. If we are prohibiting gay marriage based on our religious beliefs, isn't that interferring with the civil rights of gays?
It's on the ballot for a vote from the general public. Voters will vote their mind. It's not going to pass or fail because of our religious beliefs or lack of them...Mike
JD 1 year ago
This amendment will have more negative consequences for single heterosexuals and homosexuals in committed relationships. The Duke Law and UNC Law write up and summary gives a good layout for how this is nothing more than bigoted religion infringing on the rights of free thinking people.
FightFireWithFire 1 year ago
MikeNC, this is where you and I are going to disagree. The whole thing IS steeped in religion, or it wouldn't be an issue. Like I've said before, if you take religion out of a lot of things, those things that had so much meaning and were "bad" no longer have those meanings.
Marriage has become bastardized in this country. The churches are losing money and they are losing their grasp on people every day. The loss of that money and power is causing a rise in discrimination towards people who don't follow their religious precepts. The only way to get that back is to infringe in the rights of the non-believers by making it a law that no one can get narried unless it's in a church. What a crock. So you are going to tell my husband and I, who were married in a civi union at the courthouse, that we are no longer married because we didn't get married in the church? This amendment will set a dangerous precedent here in this state. Where does it stop from there? How far are the people willing to let the government intrude into their lives before they have no life left?