I have a question about Amendment One

You're putting an awful lot of trust in your average Joe. Most people don't think about setting up any "Powers of attorney" before major events such as surgery, much less just living day to day. Most people simply presume they're good to go.

 

"strip(s) the domestic partner insurance benefits currently offered to employees by a number of local governments, including Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro, and Mecklenburg and Orange Counties."

well, i would think that anyone who is against the amendment for whatever reason would not want their tax dollars going to fund benefits for "life partners". it only follows logic that if the amendment passes, those benefits would necessarily be removed. nobody is forcing you to work for government. private companies can offer whatever benefits they like.


"In addition, courts could interpret the language of the Amendment to ban any rights to state’s hundreds of thousands of unmarried couples—both same and opposite-gender. This would:"

first of all, this is pure hype and speculation, while it is listed under the bolded heading "WHAT IT ACTUALLY DOES". misleading, to say the least.

"invalidate(s) domestic violence protections for all unmarried partners"

BS. you can't beat up your girlfriend just because she's not your wife. a protective order from a court is just as valid on someone you don't know, as it is on someone you live with.


"invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other"

BS again. your will can leave anything to anyone. you don't have to be "married" to them. you can have a power of attorney over anyone who grants you one. you don't have to be married to them. my mom wasn't married to my grandma. and you can state what your end of life directives are even if you are single, with no living kin. you don't have to be married to have your wishes considered.

 

The State Attorney General seems to indicate it was a pretty poorly written amendment.

The amendment's "lack of clarity will also result in a significant amount of litigation on many issues which will be decided by courts for years to come," Cooper, wrote in opposing the question on the May 8 primary ballot. "This should be avoided."

Cooper's brief statement did not go into detail but would seem to bolster the arguments of other lawyers and professionals who say the proposed change to the constitution could deny some children health insurance and weaken domestic violence laws and child custody rules
​

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/04/25/2024463/professionals-say-amendment-would.html

 

i don't understand how it could weaken domestic violence law. it's not more unlawful to beat up your wife than it is to beat up your girlfriend, is it? i don't see how the amendment affects that at all. what type of relationship you're in has no bearing on whether or not you can legally smack each other around.

 

There is a difference between domestic violence protection laws and basic assault laws and protection orders. It's not about the legality of physically abusing another person. It's about the protection from the abuse.

Here is an article with some quotes from both sides of the argument. It still doesn't give a whole lot of info, but there are definitely differences in laws regarding abuse protection in domestic partnerships versus two random people.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/ad-claims-amendment-one-could-hurt-victims-domesti/nMhmm/

 

Somebody on the WRAL forum posted an interesting thought...

If Amendment One is about morality (ie, it's wrong/sinful for same gender people to be married) then why isn't there an amendment against adultry?

In fact, NC recently removed a law on the books outlawing co-habitation.

 

Amendment One is about nothing other than discrimination by the Christian right who have hijacked the Republican party. It makes me angry that we are spending billions of dollars fighting the Afghani Taliban when we should be more concerned about the "talibanic" Christians in this country.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, and I paraphrase; "I like the idea of a god, but I have a fear of religion".

If the "church" wants to stick it's nose in a marriage issue, then it should be concerned about the 50% divorce rate. Apparently, it's OK to marry and divorce as much as you want.

This has become a political issue and the "church" should stay out of politics, otherwise it should lose it's tax-exempt status!

 

I can live with your sentiment save the idiotic comparison to fighting the wars. Homos aren't killing anyone....terrorists have and will again if given a chance.

 

While I can see the similarities from a morality point of view, adultery is a conscious decision while I think most people would say homosexuals are born gay. I don't know that anyone turned hetero from homo because they feared for their rights. As I said above, gay people are going to stay gay because it is what they are...gay.

It's a slippery slope because society punishes killers and thieves but not abortion. Technically adultery is punishable in the divorce courts so if deemed not consensual it is still punishable by other laws in other forms.

 

I didn't think tukasiya was comparing the Taliban to homosexuals. He/she was comparing the persecution of homosexuals to the Taliban. I think he/she was saying that there is enough persecution and violation of rights going on in our own country that we should be focused on eradicating that in the US instead of another country.

That's how I took it anyway.

 

That's not quite it either.

What s/he was saying is that the laws of the land are more and more being based on religious morality. That leads to a theocracy, which is what the Taliban is.

The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. That was al Qaeda. What the Taliban did that was bad is that it harboured, protected and supported al Qaeda.

 

That would be the perfect marriage. Taliban and homosexuals. Allah!!

 

I'm not talking about what the Taliban is and isn't. I know what the Taliban is and i realize that tukisiya's reasoning for why we are there is flawed. I am simply interpreting what tukisuya stated in the post, which was less about what al Qaeda did to our country and more about what the Taliban's oppressive laws do to citizens ruled by those laws.

 

I believe the poster in question was attempting to marginalize our efforts in the middle east in favor of something he/she deemed more important. If that is the case, I call BS.

Like most liberals or those lacking reasonable thoughts, it's not an either/or proposition.

 

A local voice of clarity and conviction AGAINST!

http://drwellslaw.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/party-of-no-so-vote-against-amendment-1/

Mr Wells is a local. A learned attorney from a well respected family. I heartily agree with his position on Amendment One.

We're voting AGAINST Amendment One.

 

I think gay folks should have the right to be just as miserable as straight folks.

 

Amen sister! My gay uncle is in a long-term relationship and trust me.......he's miserable! :lol:

Honestly, it's more of the gov't getting way too much in people's personal business.

Don't we have more important things to get all worked up about?

 

it's been a while, cuz we've been married for almost 20 years...

but the airline my wife was working for at the time began to extend "domestic partner" benefits to gay employees in the late 80's or early 90's. notice i specify "gay" employees? because we had been dating for 4 or 5 years, and living together for 2 or 3 by then...but guess what? no domestic partner benefits for me. the gay guy who lived near us who also worked there got to designate a "partner" once a year.

so will voting against this bill enable hetero folks to declare "domestic partner" designees as well? or is it only cool for the companies to do it for gay people because they know they will only ever have to extend it to a small number of people (stats say, what, 10% of the population?) while reaping the political benefits of being progressive and socially liberal? i say they couldn't afford to extend those same benefits to heterosexuals in an equal situation, so nobody brings it up. or they just say "get married"....what if they don't want to? should they be discriminated against just because they're breeders?

 

"Uhhh, wrong. Amendment One is a weak attempt by a lame legislature to protect a standard of morality within our society that is under attack by a special interest group looking for special consideration and protection for their chosen way of life."

Well, Buc, at what age did you CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite sex? Not a choice you say! Well, it must have been a natural attraction for you then. Why is it any different for homosexuals? Please explain it to all of us here. Please explain why anyone would CHOOSE to be homosexual.


"I believe the poster in question was attempting to marginalize our efforts in the middle east in favor of something he/she deemed more important. If that is the case, I call BS."

Well, Lupis, I am not attempting to marginalize our efforts in the Middle East. Tell me when the Taliban attacked the US on our soil. We did not go to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. We went to fight al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. We did not go there to democratize a bunch of religious fanatics. If you think that we should be there doing that, then why in the hell don't you volunteer to go over there and help with the effort.