I was amazed to search through all the boards and could not find any topics with a headline containing amendment or marriage.

If you've not been paying attention to the news the past three days the NC General Assembly (NCGA) has spent $150,000 for a special session. The session was to vote on a proposed amendment to our state constitution.

The NCGA has approved a ballot measure for the Marriage Amendment (HB777 / SB106) during the PRIMARY election. The proposed amendment is very short but has VERY broad effects across domestic violence, healthcare, gay / lesbian / transgender / queer (GBLTQ) marriage, disability benefits, etc.

Voting NO on this amendment does NOT say you're in favor of gay marriage, in fact we already have a law that state's gay marriage is illegal. (NCGS 51.1-2 prohibits marriages between individuals of the same gender)

Voting NO says you're against writing discrimination into our state constitution.
Voting NO says you're agreeing with many of the large companies against this amendment. (http://equalitync.org/news1/it2019s-not-hard-work-to-see-bigotry-is-bad-for-n.c.-business/image/image_view_fullscreen)
Voting NO says you want couples of the opposite sex to retain their domestic partner benefits. (The amendment states that marriage is the only legal domestic union that can be recognized in the state)

The implications of this amendment are astounding, I ask, as an alumnus, that you please register to vote immediately, know the facts about this amendment, and when the time comes in May 2012 show your decision to keep discrimination out of our state constitution by voting NO.

More information is available at: http://equalitync.org/truth

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 8:35 PM. Reason : Added some hyperlinks]

9/14/2011 8:34:32 PM

\/\/

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 8:39 PM. Reason : im too nice]

9/14/2011 8:37:09 PM

Let me state this again, because I understand there are many conservative individuals who are against gay marriage.

Quote :

"VOTING NO ON THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT SAY YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE"

NCGS 51.1-2 prohibits marriages between individuals of the same gender

9/14/2011 8:37:26 PM

Novicane it'd be awesome if you'd post your image right below my follow-up, just so it isn't lost.

Probably the BEST use of that image in the history of my over ten years on TWW!

9/14/2011 8:39:03 PM

There are a lot of gay couples who live together. For a long time.

If one of them dies, their families can take over and pretty much lock their love one out of the picture because they are not married.

Allowing GBLTQ to marry, it guarantees them rights in such situations.

i see this is the lounge.

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 8:41 PM. Reason : ss]

9/14/2011 8:39:10 PM

Quote :

"Voting NO says you want couples of the opposite sex to retain their domestic partner benefits. (The amendment states that marriage is the only legal domestic union that can be recognized in the state)"

I'd be interested in hearing more about this as I haven't heard this angle yet.

Is this going to be up for a vote in May or November? I keep hearing different times.

9/14/2011 8:40:06 PM

Novicane voting NO on this doesn't even grant gays the ability to marry. Voting NO prevents them from losing their CURRENT rights.

This bill affects UNMARRIED straight couples as much as any gay couple.

Imagine living with your boyfriend / girlfriend for ten years, they enter the hospital, and even though you're healthcare denies to cover them because you're domestic partnership is NOT VALID due to the FIRST AMENDMENT to the NC Constitution.

9/14/2011 8:42:53 PM

wolfpackgrrr it is on the MAY 2012 BALLOT!

The NCGA felt this issue was so important (compared to our floundering education and escalating unemployment) that they had a special three day session costing tax payers a total of $150,000. This was necessary in order to rush this onto the MAY 2012 PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT.

* The real reason for the rush is because the more liberal (read Democrat) voters will have LOW numbers in the PRIMARY election due to Obama being the incumbent. Polls have shown that as a whole NC residents are against the amendment, however by not having this in the General Election they will have in essence skewed the sample set.

9/14/2011 8:47:17 PM

Information for Straight Couples:

Quote :

"Truth: The Anti-LGBT Amendment Threatens Unmarried Women’s and Men’s Protections Under NC’s Current Domestic-Violence Laws. • The anti-gay amendment will not only harm same-sex couples, but also domestic violence victims and others. If the anti-gay amendment is passed, the application of North Carolina’s domestic violence laws themselves will be left open for question — threatening our state’s victims of domestic violence. * Additionally, the work done by numerous state agencies relying upon current domestic violence laws will be thrown into flux, and the protections and resources afforded to North Carolinians in abusive relationships could be seriously and dangerously eroded.35 * In the past, North Carolina courts have extended N.C.G.S. 50B domestic violence protections to members of same-sex couples. If the proposed amendment passes, the protections to members of these unmarried couples may be rendered unconstitutional as witnessed in Ohio following passage of an amendment less restrictive than that being considered in North Carolina.36 * Ohio passed a marriage amendment in 2004. Its language is less restrictive than North Carolina’s proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment and it was passed for the same reason – to prohibit same sex marriage. But trial courts all over Ohio, as well as two appellate courts, have held that because of Ohio’s Marriage Amendment, the state domestic violence law is unconstitutional as applied to some unmarried domestic violence victims.37 This means that batterers have been able to walk free and that victims of domestic violence are living in fear because of an amendment even more narrow than the one proposed in North Carolina. • The anti-gay amendment will impact whether victims of domestic violence are protected. North Carolina has long recognized that domestic violence victims deserve protection whether or not they are married to their abusers and have made sure that domestic violence laws cover unmarried victims, but those protections may conflict with the proposed constitutional amendment’s prohibitions. * For example, Ohio’s domestic violence law protects victims in the instance where though unmarried, they are cohabiting – characterized in the statute as “living as spouses” – with their abuser. But the Ohio Marriage Amendment made it unconstitutional to create a legal status that “simulates marriage.” * Although the Ohio Marriage Amendment was probably intended only to affect same-sex couples, courts in Ohio found that the domestic violence law’s protections for victims who are cohabiting with their abusers are unconstitutional. • North Carolina’s amendment-related domestic violence protection problems could be worse than those experienced in Ohio. Although Ohio’s is the first amendment to be litigated extensively, it is just a harbinger of problems that would be created in North Carolina. Because the language of North Carolina’s proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment is more restrictive than the amendment in the Ohio situation, the same set of unintended consequences are likely to imperil the safety of thousands of victims of intimate partner violence if Senate Bill 106 is enacted. * North Carolina clearly did not intend to treat victims of domestic violence differently on the basis of their marital status. However, if passed, our state’s anti-gay constitutional amendment could have the same impact as the Ohio Marriage Amendment: It could undo much of the progress that the state legislature has made in giving prosecutors the tools needed to hold batterers fully accountable. • A conflict between the anti-gay amendment and domestic violence laws would mean that some batterers get out of jail free. In Ohio, a state with a marriage amendment less restrictive than that proposed in North Carolina meant that some batterers were set free. * Dallas McKinley was convicted of a felony because he had hit, pushed, and thrown things at his girlfriend while he was on a drinking binge, but he got the conviction overturned because they weren’t married.38 * Donald Steineman was originally convicted of two felony counts after abusing his live-in girlfriend and three-year-old adopted son. The court ultimately upheld his conviction for abusing his son but had to overturn the conviction for abusing his girlfriend.39 * David McIntosh had been sentenced to a year in prison after violating a protective order and beating his girlfriend. He successfully got the conviction and sentence overturned.40 • Batterers can still be charged with other crimes, such as assault. But in many cases, rather than being convicted of a felony under the domestic violence law — and being sent to jail — they will just be convicted of a misdemeanor. Thus, under the anti-gay amendment, they get away with only a slap on the wrist. • The anti-gay amendment could mean that unmarried domestic violence victims could have their protective orders be deemed unenforceable. Under Ohio’s constitutional amendment, some courts have held that convicting an abuser for violating a civil protective order is also unconstitutional.41 * In Virginia, where a similar amendment was considered (and eventually passed), domestic violence programs were frantically trying to come up with ways to get more victims into shelters because they wouldn’t have the same access to protective orders as they did before the amendment. This means more money spent on sheltering victims while their abusers are allowed to stay in their homes.42 • Courts cannot apply marriage amendments without the unintended repeal of domestic violence laws and impact to domestic violence cases. North Carolina Courts will not be able to make a choice as to whether to apply the anti-gay constitutional amendment to domestic violence scenarios. A constitution, whether federal or state, is supreme law. If a court thinks that there is a conflict with a law, the Constitution controls and the court will limit the reach of statutes accordingly.43 * The anti-gay constitutional amendment, as proposed, would create a conflict between domestic violence laws, and the state constitution. Since the amendment would rewrite the Constitution, it would trump statutory protections, potentially undoing all the work that the General Assembly have done to protect domestic violence victims. • The General Assembly could not simply pass a law to fix the Amendment. State legislatures cannot fix a constitutional amendment by themselves. Constitutional provisions are not like statutes – they cannot be addressed by legislatures acting alone. Instead, a legislature must follow extensive rules, costing time, effort and resources. * Enshrining discrimination in the Constitution is not only wrong, it is incredibly difficult to fix. The anti-gay amendment would be the first time that the General Assembly has amended the constitution in order to discriminate against specific individuals, flying in the face of the state’s tradition of amending the constitution to increase equality. * Whatever position one takes on same-sex marriage, the Ohio story shows the very real danger that comes from using constitutional amendments to limit rights. • Every new attempt to pass the anti-gay amendment puts more domestic violence victims at risk. In Ohio, the marriage amendment let batterers out of jail. In other states, the same arguments have been used to do the same. Passing the anti-gay amendment would multiply exponentially the number of domestic violence survivors whose rights and safety are jeopardized. * In North Carolina, the potential unconstitutionality of current domestic violence laws as a result of the anti-gay amendment will mean uneven application and uncertainty among numerous judicial districts and state agencies and fewer protections to those already vulnerable as well as an enormous waste of state resources."

There's more, but that's just the quick snippet from http://equalitync.org/truth

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM. Reason : Closing tags are your friend]

9/14/2011 8:54:41 PM

It was my understanding that it goes on the May ballot to decide if it will go on the general ballot in November. Shit is confusing and they should have been wasting their time on the economy, not this

9/14/2011 8:59:41 PM

The May Ballot determines whether it goes on the NC Constitution.

9/14/2011 9:11:34 PM

I wonder what sophomore Eric Dobbins thinks about this issue

9/14/2011 9:28:46 PM

Quote :

"I was amazed to search through all the boards and could not find any topics with a headline containing amendment or marriage."

Haha, you're not as alone as you think. I made this thread on 11/3/2010 4:24:57 PM, the day after the election, seeing this coming (in fact I think that was my 2nd time making it, with the first time being back in May 2010). In fact even before the election I was telling people to consider this outcome in their votes for many months before the 2010 elections.

Going back a little further, I found an example in my pm from where me and pinkandblack were talking politics. On Tuesday October 5, 2010 at 9:35 PM a month before the election I said:

Quote :

"And for the first time the NC General Assembly might be republican controlled which can end things I care about like gay rights (the constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality will easily pass w/out the dems burying it in 4 committees, comprehensive sex ed & the anti-bully bill were completely opposed by GOP), they'll stop the pilot testing of campaign finance reform efforts like Voter Owned Elections, and they aren't great on animal welfare stuff either."

I don't think he, or much of anyone who heard me yelling the sky is falling actually believed me.

And as predicted this amendment is here, the campaign finance reform stuff I liked is not going to be renewed at the municipal level and probably gutted at the state level, the anti-puppy mill bill* wont be seeing the light of day any time soon as far as I've heard, and of course this amendment easily passed the General Assembly and is not subject to the Governor's veto.

Unfortunately I think the battle over this constitutional amendment was fought and lost by those who were paying attention a year ago. The only chance we have now is if the GOP presidential primary is very much over by the time NC gets to vote, because the Dems have no reason to come out without any real primaries going on. This has to be a crazy low primary election turnout, and we have to do absolutely everything right from outreach, to organizing, to fundraising, to ad buys, to phonebanking, to canvassing, and so much more.

If the GOP primary is unofficially over, if its a super low turnout primary election, and if we do everything right, then we have a very slim chance. But there is going to be so much NOM money (National Organization for Marriage... they've been busing into Raleigh from out of state pushing for this amendment for a while) just pouring into this state. As May comes we're going to start watching TV ads and hearing radio ads saying why gay people are bad. This is going to get ugly.

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM. Reason : .]

9/14/2011 9:55:46 PM

*The anti-puppy mill bill failed in 2010 because the Dems didn't want to get into anything controversial during a short session right before an election. Then the pork industry put a lot of money into it and made it controversial, because if you can't abuse puppies now, next thing you know what if someone tries to make you treat pigs humanely. So instead, this bill was going to be passed in the 2011 long session that wasn't right before an election. But of course, all the people who were going to pass this lost their seats and now I don't see it coming back and passing for the foreseeable future. Big money in politics does some terrible things sometimes like supporting puppy abuse. /sidetrack rant

9/14/2011 10:04:16 PM

Just a little more information, BUSINESSES are against this amendment as well. What a great way to create jobs NCGA.

If you want to figure out a way to push Bank of America from its headquarters in Charlotte to New York, pass this amendment," said Martin Eakes
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/09/14/1486494/amendment-divides-business-leaders.html#ixzz1Y1hxk23K

9/15/2011 9:17:46 AM

Is it true that if you aren't registered as republican you can't vote for this because of the primary election?

9/15/2011 9:45:55 AM

As someone that many of you typically call a conservative... I am wholly against this amendment. I won't go into a diatribe, but I'm sure some of you have seen my previous rants on the issue. Secondly, I don't support the current NC marriage law, but that's another battle.

In the end, I consider myself a true conservative; not some right-wing, christian conservative nutjob. I believe in personal freedoms - including whatever other adult you'd like to marry. I don't believe in forcing others to live by someone else's religious or moral beliefs.

I find it quite hypocritical that the christian-conservatives are pushing their religion into law, when last year the rampant rumors of Muslims trying to instill Sharia Law in the U.S. caused a huge uproar about separation of church and state from the very same people. I think it's simple. Religion doesn't belong in government and government doesn't belong in religion. Any government. Any religion.

9/15/2011 9:53:57 AM

This amendment will never pass. There are too many Southern Baptists in NC.

I think a vote on a Constitutional Amendment is one of the best possible outcomes. It gives the people an opportunity to VOTE on an issue.

Most of the laws that are passed are only voted on by elected representatives. This give North Carolinians an opportunity to give the Capitol some feedback.

I, too, will be voting NO on this amendment. I find my views to be close to wdprice3's. I don't think it is government's job to legislate on these types of social issues. I am also pro-choice, but I don't think government should fund abortions.

9/15/2011 10:13:10 AM

^^This.

9/15/2011 10:15:59 AM

quite frankly, the fact that this is even up for vote is an embarrassment to the state of NC. makes me sad as a typically-proud North Carolinian

I live in Georgia now, but please everyone, vote against this crap. Thanks!

9/15/2011 10:22:16 AM

Minkagrl01 you need to be a registered NC voter to vote in the primary election. You DO NOT have to be registered to ANY political party. (Being associated to a party allows you to vote for the party candidate for the general election)

wdprice3 this is more than just pushing their religion into law (we've already got that, NCGS 51.1-2). This is modifying the NC Constitution in such a way so that a judge can't state that the law is discriminatory. In essence they are removing the checks and balances of the system by radically changing our state's constitution. What's worse is they are doing it with a vote that will grossly misrepresent the opinion of the state as a whole.

mdozer73 I hope the amendment doesn't pass, but the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is very powerful. They will confuse many people into voting yes, through any means possible. Also, to my knowledge the Southern Baptist Church would be for the amendment. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_sbc3.htm

spooner even though you no longer live in NC you can still help. Most people don't even know about the special session that occurred this week, let alone that this will be on the MAY 2012 ballot. Please spread the word, get people out to vote!

9/15/2011 10:47:30 AM

How different is this amendment from the one in every other state in the south and midwest?

9/15/2011 10:59:05 AM

Nighthawk one of the bigger issues is that based on the language of Senate Bill 106 (The Marriage Amendment), defines “marriage” as the only “legal domestic union” that can be “valid or recognized in this state,”

Additionally, we already have a law (NCGS 51.1-2) that already states marriage must be between individuals of different genders.

This amendment REMOVES existing rights of gay AND straight couples.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 11:12 AM. Reason : Spelling Error]

9/15/2011 11:11:21 AM

Quote :

"I don't think it is government's job to legislate on these types of social issues."

It was nice to see a bunch of libertarian/ron paul types at the anti-amendment rally.

9/15/2011 11:42:42 AM

too bad Tdub can't poll skew this

Like spooner said: I think this is pretty embarrassing for our state

9/15/2011 11:59:10 AM

Supplanter I'm all about ANYBODY there showing support.

TerdFerguson I'm hoping to try and get this to the front page in May for the ballot.

9/15/2011 1:02:44 PM

This amendment aggravates me to no end- we possibly have nothing else to worry about in this state (drought, failing education, lack of jobs, etc.) and they're spending our money on this BS?

I'm also mad on a personal level, because I'm in an unmarried het domestic partnership and we already can't get on each other's insurance, and had to go out of our way to get me put on his living will. Part of why I refuse to get married atm is because I want the same rights of marriage for my gay and queer friends, and I also want my relationship to have full legal rights without resorting to marriage.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

9/15/2011 1:19:51 PM

Quote :

"The NCGA felt this issue was so important (compared to our floundering education and escalating unemployment) that they had a special three day session costing tax payers a total of $150,000. "

just for the sake of it, would it have been a waste of money if the amendment were instead legalizing gay unions?

also, can I get a reference to how the pertinent sections of the amendment that supposedly fuck over victims of domestic violence? All i see in this thread is "OMG WIMMENS WILL ALLOWED TO BE BEAT UP!!! OMFG!!!" and you'll forgive me if I don't take a liberal at his word when he is being hysterical

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2011 1:28:59 PM

Quote :

"In the end, I consider myself a true conservative; not some right-wing, christian conservative nutjob. I believe in personal freedoms - including whatever other adult you'd like to marry. I don't believe in forcing others to live by someone else's religious or moral beliefs. I find it quite hypocritical that the christian-conservatives are pushing their religion into law, when last year the rampant rumors of Muslims trying to instill Sharia Law in the U.S. caused a huge uproar about separation of church and state from the very same people. I think it's simple. Religion doesn't belong in government and government doesn't belong in religion. Any government. Any religion."

sums my thoughts up nicely...current mainstream "republicans" are hypocrites of the highest order

9/15/2011 1:29:12 PM

<----will be voting "yes." I'm glad you reminded me.

9/15/2011 1:32:44 PM

what are people afraid of?

9/15/2011 1:34:50 PM

oh, and for the record, I'd probably vote against this

9/15/2011 1:42:11 PM

I rest my case (regarding theists fucking it up for the rest of us). Also, this is some dirty shit rushing this through to the primaries.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 2:42 PM. Reason : for clarification]

9/15/2011 2:38:50 PM

what, you rest your case because I'd vote against it? sweet!

9/15/2011 2:39:29 PM

I was responding to the OP and not you. Get over yourself.

9/15/2011 2:41:39 PM

Gay marriage, civil unions, etc. has never won in a public vote. Any time the issue comes before voters, it loses. Public opinion polls consistently show high support for gay rights, civil unions, and even marriage. But it loses at the ballot box.

And this time will be no exception. For no other reason, it will be on the ballot the same day as the Republican Primary. The odds are already stacked.

Why is this in the lounge? If the OP had been against gay marriage, it would have been moved immediately.

9/15/2011 3:04:38 PM

Quote :

"In the end, I consider myself a true conservative; not some right-wing, christian conservative nutjob. I believe in personal freedoms - including whatever other adult you'd like to marry. I don't believe in forcing others to live by someone else's religious or moral beliefs. "

a true conservative would never vote for something that blatantly forces a government infringement on someone's personal life for no good reason.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2011 4:21:07 PM

^fucking truth.

9/15/2011 4:31:24 PM

http://www.facebook.com/groups/165812220168585/

9/15/2011 4:33:41 PM

^^,^^^ is that not what I'm essentially saying?

9/15/2011 4:56:46 PM

^ lol, I thought so

9/15/2011 5:00:15 PM

^

9/15/2011 5:33:34 PM

Quote :

"a true conservative would never vote for something that blatantly forces a government infringement on someone's personal life for no good reason."

that might carry weight if only we considered "not getting gov't freebies" to be in the category of "government infringement on someone's personal life". but whatever

9/15/2011 5:37:16 PM

fiscal conservative != social conservative. Social conservatives are fucking busybodies that want to tell other people how to live. Doesn't mean all conservatives are like this.

9/15/2011 5:40:24 PM

9/15/2011 5:43:45 PM

I didnt read the thread, just tell me, which day do I get to go vote YES?

9/15/2011 11:09:45 PM

obvious troll is obvious. good work!

9/15/2011 11:17:21 PM

aaronburro Yes, it would have been a WASTE to spend the money for a special session to legalize gay marriage. There are TONS of other issues in this state that would benefit from a special session such as a jobs bill (I believe they said over 40% of Vance County children go to bed hungry).
Additionally, it isn't JUST domestic violence, it is the BROAD reaching impact of dissolving ANY type of domestic partnership. This affects healthcare benefits, hospital visitation, etc. Domestic violence is just one that I chose to high light in response to a question.
So I'm curious as to how I'm showing "unmanageable emotional excesses" (the definition of hysterical) when all of my points have facts behind them. (By the way, glad you'll be voting NO)

maximus may I ask, what is your justification for voting yes?

thegoodlife3 the "reason" behind the amendment is that some "crazy liberal" judge could overturn NCGS 51.1-2 due to it being against the NC Constitution. However instead of just stating "Marriage is defined as one man joined with one woman" they will dissolve all forms of domestic partnerships due to the poor wording of this amendment.

disco_stu I'm furious with my representatives for not speaking against this running in the primaries as well. The voter turnout for the primaries never reflects the general population, a very sneaky and dirty trick by the GOP if you ask me. Please make sure to tell as many people you know to go and vote TWICE next year, primaries and general election.

TULIPlovr I will agree, PASSING gay marriage has failed at the ballot box AND it would fail in NC. However, when polled about specifically writing a law or amendment to prevent gay marriage most individuals in NC are against it as well. I believe the last two years the majority has been against adding anything to the constitution preventing gay marriage (I don't remember the specifics but the numbers were 55% against an amendment, 44% pro-amendment, 1% undecided). Also, I didn't know where else to post this than the Lounge.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/nc-opposes-marriage-amendment.html
Actual numbers can be found here

Smath74 true words, that's why honestly I think Ron Paul is one of the "truest" republicans out there. He's also the only one that doesn't have a corporate sponsor to my knowledge!

God if they're so PRO-Amendment why must they close their group (which might explain their low numbers, 21 members)? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-NO-on-Amendment-One/282058175138590 Also, this amendment is more than preventing gay marriage (once again we've got that law already). It dissolves any DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS in the state, what is the benefit of this?

disco_stu unfortunately most republicans have been screaming the fiscal conservative rhetoric while promoting the social conservative agenda (all for the name of votes).

Ernie I have that printed an posted on my cube, best statement EVER!

NCSUStinger you and others voting YES go vote on this in November.
Everybody else voting NO votes in May.

[Edited on September 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM. Reason : Link for TULIPlovr]

9/16/2011 10:31:32 AM

<-- voting NO

9/16/2011 10:36:43 AM

Quote :

"I believe they said over 40% of Vance County children go to bed hungry"

I couldn't help but imagine you looking like Sally Struthers when you said that

9/16/2011 10:37:53 AM