Amendment Won't Protect Families
- Print print this page
- Discuss 19 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
For all those who can vote May 8, vote against Amendment One.
Supporters argue that this amendment will protect North Carolinian families. It will do the opposite if passed. The amendment will force single or widowed senior couples to marry to keep their legal protection, causing them to possibly lose important benefits. Seniors across the state could lose the benefits they rely on.
Amendment One will threaten unmarried couples’ visitation rights in hospitals and their ability to make emergency medical and financial decisions if their partner is incapacitated. Thousands of families across the state could be stripped of important rights.
The amendment could deny unmarried women domestic violence protections, as Amendment One will grant only married couples domestic violence protections. Thousands of women across the state could be left without domestic violence protections.
Children of unmarried parents could lose health care coverage; children could be separated from a loving parent if something happened to the other parent; and child custody and visitation rights which protect children’s best interests could be affected. Thousands of children across the state could suffer due to the poor decisions of adults.
Amendment One won’t protect North Carolinian families. Amendment One will only facilitate the disintegration of North Carolinian families. At its best, the amendment is a redundant measure which bans same-sex marriage, which is not recognized by the state anyway. At its worst, it’s a harmful piece of legislation whose only concrete effects would damage the rights and protections of both gay and straight families.
Ian Maynor
Pinehurst
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
Thanks, Ian, for highlighting this critical issue. This poorly written amendment is a time-bomb for families all over the state.
kiki 1 year, 1 month ago
Amen! NO on One!
nothingspecial 1 year, 1 month ago
Trying to stir up some extra hysteria in hopes of swaying voters with bogus claims is my opinion of the piece.
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that nothingspecial hasn't actually read the entire amendment.
jimt 1 year, 1 month ago
Here's the text:
"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."
Here is a non-partisan review of the Amendment's legal implications prepared by "FindLaw Knowledge Base":
"According to the 2010 Census, almost nine out of ten unmarried cohabitant households in North Carolina are comprised of three types of heterosexual couples: young couples who are putting off marriage, middle-aged couples who have decided against marriage and older couples who have been married previously and do not wish to remarry later in life. Gay or straight, all unmarried couples would be affected by the Marriage Amendment: it would preclude the state from offering any type of civil union or domestic partnership status that would afford some lesser array of protections compared to marriage; and, the amendment would also eliminate the domestic partner insurance benefits currently offered by many North Carolina municipal governments.
The aforementioned impacts on all unmarried couples are just the tip of the iceberg; legal experts take them as a given should the amendment pass. However, the Marriage Amendment’s ultimate, and most far-reaching effects, could be felt through subsequent interpretations by courts.
Problematically, no one can say for sure just how deep the amendment will cut for unmarried couples after it is filtered through the courts. Among other things, the Marriage Amendment could:
•Undermine current standards for child custody and child visitation rights •Preclude unmarried partners from taking advantage of certain domestic violence protective measures •Prevent the state from affording unmarried partners any protections in terms of visiting each other in the hospital, making emergency or financial decisions on each other’s behalf in the event of incapacitation, or arranging for the disposition of a deceased partner’s remains •Invalidate trusts, wills and end-of-life directives by one unmarried partner in favor of the other
"http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2012/Feb/509221.html"
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
Jimt, that's the text of the amendment, or a "non-partisan" outide critique of the amendment?
JustThinking 1 year, 1 month ago
PROPAGANDA . PROPAGANDA. PROPAGANDA.
Dory2012 1 year, 1 month ago
Thank you for bringing out the scope of Amendment One. It is about so much more than same-sex marriage. Focusing only on the same-sex marriage component is like making a recipe and leaving 3/4 of the ingredients out. You would have an epic failure.
truthiswelcome 1 year, 1 month ago
Just looked at the amendment 1 text. Simple. Marriage is between 1 man, 1 woman. Vote FOR AMENDMENT 1 ! All the folks that are against, get a legal power of attorney, a child custody agreement, will, etc. What is the problem??? Stop trying to scare people into thinking this will change everyones life. Yes Propaganda junk!
visigrad 1 year, 1 month ago
THANK YOU TRUTH !!!! EVERYONE VOTE FOR MARRIAGE... if anyone out there is wondering what the possible ramifications of not having this ammendment mean....vist massresistance.org
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
Although the UNC law school is not as learned as such legal scholars as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, here's a link to their one-page paper on possible legal ramifications of Amendment 1:
http://tinyurl.com/86vpjd4
It does far more damage than its proponents would like us to know about. Are you willing to risk learning about it?
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
I would be interested in a legal opinion on whether a power of attorney could override amendment 1, should it be approved. Might such an arrangement run afoul of the new law?
If only a marriage between a man and a woman can be legally recognized, how would you get around it with a simple power of attorney?
jimt 1 year, 1 month ago
Geoff,
My intent was to find a site that was not associated with any pro or con Amendment One grop in order to bring some groundtruth to the matter. To the best of my knowledge FindLaw is nonpartisan. But judge for yourself by going to website and read any number of the short analytical pieces that have appeared on it.
Mark106 1 year, 1 month ago
People, If you press CTRL F and search the word "COULD", It comes up 11 times so far. Now who is crying the sky is falling???????? Vote your concience, not what your politically correct neighbors think!
buskwon 1 year, 1 month ago
?
MikeNC 1 year, 1 month ago
jimt 1 day ago ....Here's the text:
They also provide a simple solution...The couples get married. Now how simple was that to solve? Vote for Ammendment One....Mike
ipm 1 year, 1 month ago
What about gay couples, though, who can't marry? How will their children be protected? And I know what you'll say, "Gay people shouldn't have children anyways." But they do. Are you still going to make children suffer because of their parents?
jimt 1 year, 1 month ago
Mike, I have no idea where you saw the "simple solution" language. It's not in the short paper that FindLaw provided. So where did you get it from. Are you too dense to understand that Amendment One also bans civil unions, so couples who do not wish to marry are precluded from civil unions as well. Where did you get the right to decide for them that it's "marriage" or nada when it comes to the benefits, legal and financial, a civil union would grant such couples.
MikeNC 1 year, 1 month ago
jimt 21 minutes ago ... I have no idea where you saw the "simple solution" language. It's not in the short paper that FindLaw provided. So where did you get it from.
jimt 1 day, 7 hours ago Here's the text:....."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."
Here is a non-partisan review of the Amendment's legal implications prepared by "FindLaw Knowledge Base":
"According to the 2010 Census, almost nine out of ten unmarried cohabitant households in North Carolina are comprised of three types of heterosexual couples: young couples who are putting off marriage, middle-aged couples who have decided against marriage and older couples who have been married previously and do not wish to remarry later in life. Gay or straight, all unmarried couples would be affected by the Marriage Amendment: it would preclude the state from offering any type of civil union or domestic partnership status that would afford some lesser array of protections compared to marriage; and, the amendment would also eliminate the domestic partner insurance benefits currently offered by many North Carolina municipal governments.
From what I read here jimt...If all these various sorts of couples who do not want to marry, out of whatever convenience that affords them, did get married....they would have the benefits of marriage as defined by law. Others can still have their civil unions, they just are not authorized certain benefits afforded to those who are actually married according to the law. So those who are eligible by law to marry and do marry...the benefits immediately begin. Is that not a simple solution? Those who do not choose to marry, do not get these benefits...by law. Those who are not eligible to marry in the first place are not authorized to recieve such benefits; by law. What is so hard to understand that? Do the right and lawful thing and support ammendment 1. If the ammendment fails, then everything is back on the drawing board. ....Mike