Tweet
In its editorial, the New York Times places the fight to defeat the discriminatory Amendment One in the national spotlight it deserves. At its core, this is about the professional forces of craven bigotry so blinded by their hatred of gay and lesbian couples that they are willing to: 1) attempt to drive wedges between communities of color and the LGBT community, and 2) knowingly fight to pass a measure on the ballot that sweeps in its web of discrimination all sorts of families and children as collateral damage.
In their zeal, lawmakers got careless with the wording of the measure, known as Amendment One. It would constitutionally prohibit recognition not just of same-sex marriages, but of other legal arrangements like civil unions and domestic partnerships. That could harm all unmarried couples, imperiling some children’s health insurance benefits, along with child custody arrangements and safeguards against domestic violence.
The campaign against the amendment is being spearheaded by a coalition of civic, religious, business and civil rights leaders and groups. One of Amendment One’s most vocal opponents is the Rev. William Barber II, president of the state chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. Mr. Barber draws a strong link between the proposed amendment and struggles against racial unfairness, an appeal with special resonance following the publication in March of memos from the National Organization for Marriage, one the most prominent groups fighting same-sex marriage, about driving “a wedge between gays and blacks.”
Opponents of marriage equality have never been able to show any evidence that any harm is caused to heterosexual marriages by granting all American adults the right to marry as they choose — because there is no such evidence. With little more than a week to go before the May 8 contest, and early voting already under way, North Carolinians need to consider whether they really want to inflict this gratuitous bigotry on their fellow citizens and their children.
2 Comments
What the proponents of this amendment fear most is the possibility of courts and judges changing the definition of marriage and making same-sex marriage legal in NC. Passing this amendment may actually force the issue into the courts sooner than it would have gotten there otherwise.
There were no activists running around the state bringing court challenges against the current law that already makes same-sex marriage illegal. And, the courts in NC are not filled with liberal “activist” judges who would look kindly on those suits if they were brought. After all, judges in NC are elected, not appointed for life.
The Prop 8 amendment in CA was found to be unconstitutional. And, that finding was upheld on appeal in a federal district court. One of the reasons the finding of unconstitutionality was upheld was because Prop 8 took away rights from a class of people that they already had. And, those rights were taken away for no reason other than animus.
Because of the broad overreach of Amendment One, that same situation will occur in NC if it passes. Both same-sex and opposite- sex couples have legal domestic partnership benefits provided to them through their employment with many municipal governments like Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Passage of this amendment will eliminate those benefits. Rights once held by a group of people will be eliminated for no reason other than animus.
If the group defending Prop 8 in CA couldn’t come up with a valid reason for their amendment that would pass muster in court other than “for the Bible tells me so” (which wasn’t deemed valid), I don’t think they would be able to do it here in NC either.
So, passage of the amendment will likely result in a court challenge as soon as any couple loses their domestic partnership benefits.
The very court cases that the pro amendment forces have feared will ultimately be brought about by the over reach of their own amendment. And, they will lose. There is precedent now from the Prop 8 case.
Had they written an amendment that only outlawed marriage and left civil unions and domestic partnerships alone, they probably would have been safe from court challenges. But, as Tami Fitzgerald said, she didn’t want to leave open the possibility of civil unions ever coming to NC. She considers civil unions to be the gateway to eventual marriage rights. She wanted to stop it all in one fell swoop. That over reach is what will cause the downfall either by logical voters rejecting the amendment at the ballot box now or by the courts when the amendment is challenged if it passes.
Pam, thanks for keeping us informed about this very ugly Amendment One. IMO it’s one of the most important issues of the year. When we reach a point where bigotry can become a law, we’re in real trouble. As a grandmother I feel that the future is rather uncertain for our young people today and would like to know that for everyone “it gets better.” Thank you.