I have a question about Amendment One

I asked this on facebook, and not one of my friends responded, so I am going to ask it here.

I AM NOT trying to get into a political argument, I just don't understand something and I am hoping someone can shed light on it for me.

I have been seeing all of these ads stating that passing this amendment could hurt unmarried couples/people who have kids and aren't married/divorced couples etc. Something about them losing their rights because they aren't married. I wanted to truly understand, so I looked up the actual amendment, and read it. It clearly states...

"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."


So someone please help me understand how this amendment would negate the rights of custody agreements or powers of attorney, etc....

 

You posted the second half of the amendment, but the important part is the first part:

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

The issue is that the "Marriage ... is the only domestic legal union" phrase. Basically lawyers and the courts could translate that to mean that a man and woman living together and having a child through that union, but not wanting to get married, legally won't be recognized in North Carolina. So, in the event the woman dies, it's possible that the man would have no legal claim to his child. Or if one partner dies, the other would have no legal right to survivor benefits.

Basically, if you aren't legally married, you're screwed. By the (proposed) law, you and your partner, whether same gender or opposite gender, are no better than strangers to each other.

 

Recognized as what? Two people who had a baby out of wedlock? Help me understand what you mean here.

Now, I don't see how this is true. If both parents are listed on the birth certificate, then if one parent dies, and there is not a formal custody agreement, by default, the other parent takes custody of the child.

As far as survivor benefits... Do you mean like social security? Why would you be able to collect those benefits if you weren't married?

But that's what power of attorney, and living wills, and custody agreements are for, right?

And Clif, honestly, I am trying to be stubborn, I truly am just trying to wrap my mind around this...

 

I thought I was clear. Recognized by the state of North Carolina as a legal union. Yes, you could technically enter into a contract with an insurance company that would accept two people as being a partnership, but that's only part of the issue. The other, more important, part is what the state recognizes.

Perhaps this was not the best example. Maybe a better example is custody if both parents split up.

No, I mean like common law. According to current NC laws, Common Law unions cannot be formed in NC, but are recognized from other states (such as California). With the amendment, they would/could no longer be recognized.

Again, that's fine for extra governmental agreements. The issue is with agreements with the state of North Carolina, as well as grey agreements (ie, not formally agreed to but generally accepted) in which one partner may lose on this amendment's technicality.

It's a huge can o' worms that is not needed and not wanted except by a few who are afraid of catching homosexuality.

 

I think you missed a word.... *NOT* trying to be stubborn. :mrgreen:

You're welcome. :lol:

 

:iagree:

 

Hey! Put this crap in the Political thread before Harvey, Hught and BobF come over here and expound on the virtues of homosexuality! :lol:

 

Too late. Once you're here, the rest are sure to follow.

 

this part, imho, speaks to the autonomy of the state. as of now, it has been decided that constitutionally, whether or not to allow/recognize civil unions is up to the states, not the fed. if State A allows them, why should State B be forced to recognize them if they disagree? isn't that what having different states is all about? i thought we went over this 145 years ago....

 

There are certain aspects where all states must agree to accept other states' laws. Marriage laws are a good example. If NC did not recognize other states' marriage laws then all people would have to do is move to NC and their marriage would automatically be dissolved. This would create a massive legal headaches for everything from survivor benefits to custody battles.

On the one hand, states' autonomy is a good thing (you don't like our laws on gambling, move to Nevada), but there has to be some limits on it to be able to function as one of fifty equal members of our unified country.

 

I couldn't agree with you more...

Here's an example: A couple is in a domestic partnership. (I am NOT in any way referring to the couple being homosexual or heterosexual. That's a non-issue.) One person has an accident and is in ICU or the hospital. If the union or partnership is not recognized, then the other partner wouldn't be allowed to visit the partner in the hospital. No making decisions, etc. But more importantly- no visits.

I'm not trying to be argumentative either. I'm a plain-ol' straight female who is traditionally married. I have no axe to grind... But I find it incredibly intrusive that the state of NC (or other government for that matter) wants to tell citizens that they HAVE to be legally married (one man and one woman only) to have a partnership that is legally recognized. That's heading toward more restrictions and more government involvement.

Maybe it's a fundamental difference of opinions. I think the government ought to be minimal, as the writers of the Constitution laid it out... and that we should make smart decisions for ourselves. Bear in mind that "smart decisions" aren't always what society thinks is popular right now. It's not my business who loves whom or who is allowed to be legally partnered with whom. That's between two other people.

 

very well said. :hurray:

and furthermore. Keep homosexuality out of it. It has nothing to do with this.

 

You can't keep it out, and it does have something to do with this. It's the reason the amendment was proposed in the first place.

 

Being gay is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord....but it's not up to the government to tell someone how they can live. Let God sort it out.

Too many Christian conservatives, of which I'm one, view this bill as an indictment of homosexuality. It isn't. It's a decision based on your belief on whether the government can treat some people differently than others.

We went through this with women and blacks....why got gays? Nobody is going to turn gay if gays are allowed to be viewed differently. They are going to be gay anyway.

 

Wow... You really went there, huh? It was a matter of time before someone had to say that... even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the original post.

 

Wow! I had you pegged completely differently. I sincerely apologize.

 

Did you continue reading my post? Apparently not.

 

I've tried telling you ....

 

Kind of hard to continue reading your post, when you were ignorant enough to even put that statement in writing. An abomination? Seriously? Which century are you in?

The issue of "unions" between ANY two people should be considered that - a union. Marriage is a term that denotes religion, and the last I checked, there is a separation of church and state. The government has no business stepping in, thinking it has to be "defined". In the eyes of the law. perhaps everyone who wants to "get married" needs to have it defined as a civil union, for all legal purposes. "Chris and Leslie" can therefore be legally bound, no matter what gender.

 

I did read it and I agreed with the latter part. I just think that passing judgment is harsh. As in "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I respect your opinion and won't argue with you about it. It was just a statement that was really blunt and could be hurtful to some...

I also identify myself as a "Christian conservative" but I don't have an opinion about someone's relationship or sexual preference because that's not my business to judge. Maybe I'm more moderate, I guess?