North Carolina Amendment 1----Your thoughts?

As some of you may or may not know, tomorrow, May 8th, the NC population will vote on a referendum put out to amend the state constitution. This would define marriage as existing only between a man and a woman, and an amendment would be much harder to repeal than a law. Gay marriage is already illegal here, so creating an amendment would not only kick the LGBT community while it is down, but harm single parents claiming child support or victims of domestic violence. This amendment is completely unjust and poorly written, I implore you to look up this ridiculous bill and give me your opinions. I realize this is the eleventh hour (and as I type this i see it literally is) But I really would like to hear the opinions of you fellow ZUers, and if there is something similar going on in your state/province/prefecture etc. thank you for your time.

but harm single parents claiming child support or victims of domestic violence.

I don't see how defining marriage as heterosexual would do this.

This is the amendment being discussed:

“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

It's worth noting that this bill isn't just defining marriage to be strictly between a man and a woman; it actually eliminates all legal recognition of other relationships, including same sex civil unions, entirely. Many people who are in favour of same sex civil unions (but not necessarily marriage) don't actually realise this - this amendment would probably have more dissenters otherwise.

If this passes, it will be a colossal step backwards for social justice. It's frightening, really.

Originally Posted by Great Conservative Cock

I don't see how defining marriage as heterosexual would do this.

It means that domestic violence protections will only apply to married couples, for starters. It will also have numerous significant consequences for health care benefits, adoptions, child custody, etc.

It means that domestic violence protections will only apply to married couples, for starters. It will also have numerous significant consequences for health care benefits, adoptions, child custody, etc.

Source?

Again, I don't see how reiterating the current form of the law will do this.

Originally Posted by Great Conservative Cock

Source?

Again, I don't see how reiterating the current form of the law will do this.

A quick summary:

RIGHTS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED
•Bar NC from passing same-sex marriage.
•Bar NC from passing civil unions.
•Invalidate existing domestic partnership benefits by municipalities.
•Bar NC from passing limited status for unmarried couples like domestic partnerships.

RIGHTS THAT COULD BE AFFECTED: (for ALL unmarried couples)
•Domestic violence protections for unmarried couples.
•Child custody rights of domestic partners that further the best interests of the child.
•Could prevent state from passing in the future:
–Right to family hospital visitation privileges.
–Right to make medical decisions if partner is incapacitated.
–Right for domestic partners to make funeral and burial arrangements for one another.
–Right to inherit from one another if they die without a will.
–Right to be named guardian or conservator if one partner becomes incapacitated.

Here's another analysis.

It isn't merely a reiteration of what is already in effect - it introduces a new legal term ("domestic legal union"). This term is vague, and could thus have far reaching consequences for couples in general, in addition to entrenching discrimination against same sex partnerships.

I can see how most of those would be affected, but I still can't see how it changes domestic violence or child custody.

Originally Posted by Great Conservative Cock

I can see how most of those would be affected, but I still can't see how it changes domestic violence or child custody.

Because the laws concerning domestic violence and child custody hinge largely on the nature of the relationship of the people involved. This amendment throws into question the legal validity of any kind of relationship that doesn't fall under marriage.

I voted against the amendment. Not only is there a growing LGBT population as a whole, but there's also a sizable LGBT population employed by tech firms, medical firms, and universities in the Research Triangle. LGBT couples living in places like Chapel Hill currently enjoy domestic partner benefits, and this amendment will erase that.

I suspect the main reason this amendment is on the ballot is to rally Republican voters in a swing state for the Presidential elections in November.

I was hanging with some of my LGBT friends in Winston Salem this afternoon and it disgusts me how intollerant people seem to be about this issue. Back in the 60's with the civil rights movements, even with the lynchings and violence (Which still go on btw) states amending their constitutions against a minority group was still radical. The way the bill is worded this thing would give the state a blank check to yank the priveleges of any domestic union they dont like.

It's looking like the amendment will pass, sadly.

Election Results: North Carolina Amendment 1 - Ballotpedia

Yeah, it's been passed. :/

Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Votes for Marriage NC, the main group behind the amendment, said: "We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage. The whole point is you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

...words fail me.

This is deplorable.

Well, a backwards law for backwards people.

The whole point is you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults.

The passing of the amendment was based on the demands of a group of adults, and if a majority were against it, the rejection of the amendment would have been the demands of a group of adults.

Does this mean she's in favor of democratic vote only when it works for her?

Give it about 15-20 more years, and the majority will probably be in favor of LGBT marriage.

Originally Posted by Viajero de la Galaxia

The passing of the amendment was based on the demands of a group of adults, and if a majority were against it, the rejection of the amendment would have been the demands of a group of adults.

Does this mean she's in favor of democratic vote only when it works for her?

I think that's precisely what it means. how much do you want to bet that if the amendment had been rejected, all of the wingnuts would have started shrieking about voter fraud and dubious out of state influences? It's rather sad that this has become standard fare in politics today.

Originally Posted by Bromion

I think that's precisely what it means. how much do you want to bet that if the amendment had been rejected, all of the wingnuts would have started shrieking about voter fraud and dubious out of state influences? It's rather sad that this has become standard fare in politics today.

There was suspected voter fraud in some districts. Some voters got the Under-18 ballots, which allows a 17 year old who will be 18 for the general election in Nov to vote for governor, lt. gov, board of education nominees, etc. The Under-18 ballots, however, don't allow one to vote on the amendment, so there was concern that the ballots were handed out intentionally.

In 20-30 years this will be viewed in the same light as segregation is now. Hell, its even worse because at least black people got schools, this is the equivalent of there only being white schools and telling black people that its immoral for them to be educated.

The gay rights movement has been gaining victories exponentially, its only a matter of time before its legal nationwide.

Yo. I support a homosexual's right to marry and all. But I don't think anyone can say that the gay rights movement has been gaining victories exponentially. Every single state that has voted on DOMA has passed it. Its nearly 1/2 the US now. When it comes up in the next state its probably going to pass too.

Regardless, I think that once people start seeing how this backfires on their own lives in certain areas, they will be for repealing it, and it may get a majoroty against it if there ever comes a time to fight against it.

Originally Posted by Great Conservative Cock

I can see how most of those would be affected, but I still can't see how it changes domestic violence or child custody.

To add onto the point by Astarael, it could/would also affects common-law spousal relationships.