Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Facts You Should Know About Amendment 1

Hattip: ProgressNC

1.      This amendment is not needed to prevent gay marriage: there is already an NC law forbidding gay marriage.
2.      This amendment bars the state from recognizing any legal domestic union other than marriage, including partnerships between unmarried men and women.   
3.      Similar laws in other states have been struck down by the courts - meaning NC will face substantial legal costs to defend the amendment if it passes.
4.      This amendment would take away legal protections for the children of unmarried people, including healthcare and prescription drug coverage provided though an unmarried parent  and child custody, child support and visitation rights.
5.      A child could even be taken away from a parent who has taken care of them their entire life if something happens to the other parent.
6.      This amendment would take away domestic violence protections for all unmarried people and could lead to the convictions of their abusers being overturned. This has already happened in another state.
7.      The amendment would automatically strip health benefits from unmarried people who receive coverage through their partners, including people with severe pre-existing conditions.
8.      The amendment would interfere with the right of unmarried couples to visit one another in the hospital and to make emergency medical and financial decisions if one partner is incapacitated. It would also invalidate certain trusts, wills and end-of-life directives.
9.      Seniors wanting to keep these legal protections would be forced to marry, which could cause them to lose their pension, health care and Social Security benefits.  
10.  If passed, it would be one of a handful of times our state constitution has been used to take away rights rather than grant them. You have to go back over a hundred years to find similar instances (notably forbidding interracial marriage and taking away the right to vote from African-Americans.) 


Roanld Tharp said...

since this resolution does not end discrimination against the GLBT communities, One should be introduced to repeal the diciminatory laws and recognize all NC citizens as equal under the law.

Anonymous said...

Your points 1 and 10 contradict each other. Tis makes you wonder about the truth of the others.

Anonymous said...

This is a good review of this amendment giving more clarity to what this vote is about.

I appreciate that clarity.

I have always had and guess I always will have problems with insurance benefits provided to domestic partnerships. It seems to me that this would increase cost of insurance and benefits in a company (i.e. more people to insure with more pre-existing conditions,etc). I am not saying I am against benefits being offered to partnerships, but more concerned with it raising insurance premiums.

Now I really do take issue with this: The extremist that try to make this an all out war. I am talking both sides here now. A picture shopped up on facebook of a local female looking angry and quiet honestly "war-like" reminding people to vote against this amendment. On the other hand, I take issue with those who are telling me it is morally wrong and un-Christian to vote against this amendment.

Finally, I appreciate the facts being published in this blog with solid information of what would happen if this amendment is passed. One thing I learned from my father was that you can talk with, work with, be friends with, hang out with, and actually do some good with folks on the other side of the fence.

JW, thank you for the good information and the opportunity to respond.

splord said...

Anonymous said...

Your points 1 and 10 contradict each other. Tis makes you wonder about the truth of the others.

Only a lack of reading comprehension could lead one to make that statement.

Other laws (referred to in #1) are not constitutional amendments, hence this one currently under consideration being called "Amendment ONE.

Meatcamp said...

Anonymous 1- There is a difference between laws and constitutions. JW's point 1 referred to a law. Point 10 referred to constructional amendments.

meatcamp said...

Has anyone been keeping up with the shooting of the black teen in Florida. A very tragic turn of events. Race seems to be an issue in this case - a "white hispanic" did the shooting. What is a white hispanic? Is this a new term of some kind? I was a bit confused over that one and was wondering if it was a millenial term that I hadn't heard of yet.

Mike Hamburg said...

No, it appears a rush to judgement was made on Zimmerman by all parties involved. Zimmerman was apparently the person heard yelling in the 911 tape. It also appears a witness to the event was talking with police all along which explains why Zimmerman wasn't arrested. The media needs to back off stories such as these as various groups get pretty angry based on the facts they have at hand. Often when the facts change or are untrue as in this case, it's too late.

bettywhite said...

"Hispanic" is an ethnic term, not a racial one. Some Hispanics are as white as Norwegians. Some are black. Some are of Native American ancestry. Most are multi-racial.

Anonymous said...

Bettywhite has never filled out an application for a state job. Hispanic is listed as a race on the application.

Anonagain said...

That's funny...I'm looking at an application for employment at the community college, and it says "Ethnic Background" on it!