New ads in North Carolina are claiming NC's Marriage Amendment will somehow interfere with domestic violence prosecutions for unmarried women. They know this is a lie. They have claimed the same thing before about, for example, Virginia's similarly worded Marriage Amendment.
In Ohio a silly judge ruled that the marriage amendment had this effect, but he was swiftly overruled by Ohio courts. 30 states have marriage amendments. In none of them were women deprived of domestic violence protection.
More evidence that our opponents know they cannot win this vote on the main question: "should marriage remain a union of husband and wife?"
19 Comments
There's no such thing as "Amendment One." The opposition has made up this name to confuse voters.
According to the VoteForMarriageNC.com web site:
On Monday, the State Board of Elections stated that the May primary ballot will list the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman as “Constitutional Amendment,” not “Amendment One” as opponents of the amendment have falsely reported. Deputy Director Johnnie McLean informed a constituent on Monday that, “The constitutional amendment will appear exactly as it is on the sample ballot. It is unclear who has named it ‘Amendment One’ but it was not the General Assembly nor the Board of Elections.”
NOM itself oas lying in its representation of this ad, which says the amendment COULD have this effect, not that it WILL. Big difference. Judges will be the ones to resolve this, and from our experience with Ohio, it's clear different judges will come to different conclusions.
VERDICT: The is honest, but NOM's description of it is not.
The amendment looks sound to me. As to the issue of the domestic violence, it seems to be about the issue of judges going beyond the scope of the law. Everyone should be protected from domestic violence, married or not, and I don't think a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman should have any effect on that.
@David - Amendment 1 doesn't define marriage, it eliminates ALL OTHER domestic partnerships except marriage between one man and one woman. The problem is that the amendment severely over-reaches.
This is exactly what happened in Michigan when that state passed a marriage amendment.
Jim
What other domestic partnerships are "recognized" by the state of NC? The state doesn't have DP or CU. This amendment doesn't eliminate anything.
The marriage amendment reads:
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. 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."
@AM - Domestic violence is treated differently from "regular" violence because it occurs between two people in a domestic relationship. I don't know the legalese here--I know in Colorado, you are guilty of domestic violence if you hit someone whom you've had sex with in the past, which is an example of a "domestic legal union."
Lies? How about the lie that SSM will destroy and/or eliminate "traditional" marriage, even though "T"M is alive and well in the 10 countries and 6 or 7 states that allow SSM?
GZeus,
Changing the meaning of marriage from the joining of opposites into the joining of likes does, in fact, destroy traditional marriage rendering it nil and void.
Traditional marriage never included a reference to same gender partnerships.
Your logic is ridiculous, Randy E King. If the individual straight marriages collectively comprise the institution of marriage, and if those individual marriages are fine after SSM is legalized, then how is the institution itself harmed?
No, Bryce, your logic is ridiculous (in fact it is not logic, but illogic).
There is no such thing as a "straight marriage".
There is no such thing as a "same sex marriage".
Just as there is no such thing as a male mother, or a female father, or a male wife, or a female husband.
No law can change these truths, any more than a law can decree that henceforth fire shall be equally hot and cold wet, or ice equally liquid and solid.
There is no greater danger to the human race than the present assault on gender, on motherhood and fatherhood, since this evil and insane assault is directed at the heart of human civilization itself.
It deprives every child of his or her own right, to expect society to protect their own interest in being raised by their very own (male) father, and their very own (female) mother.
But it does something even worse than that.
It attempts to impose a lie and a falsehood, a grotesque, leering denial of biological reality itself, upon the minds and the conscience of humanity.
I think it is going to fail miserably, Bryce.
For all our sakes, I certainly hope so.
The consequences, were it to succeed......well.
You must understand, Bryce, that parents will, at a certain point, rise up against the attempts to indoctrinate the minds of their innocent children in such unprecedented and basic falsehoods.
The good news is, we are going to defeat you so resoundingly this year, in MN, in MD, and in NC, that the worst consequences of this insanity might yet be avoided.
Randy, all of the straight married couples in NY, MA, CT, NH, VT, etc are all still married. My marriage has not been made null and void, when my state legalized SSM. Just a fact.
@Scrounger - the question is not that traditional marriages will be made null and void, but that the entire meaning of marriage will not longer be valid. The whole purpose of marriage was to bring together people of the opposite sex to form a union capable of producing life and to provide a stable place to raise up future generations. It worked off the fact that men and women are different, each bringing something unique to the relationship. Once you take that away, what do you have? Just a business relationship between two people so they can share benefits with each other. Society recognized a long time ago that a man and woman coming together to raise up a family is something that needs to be protected and encouraged. It was never meant to be the means for any two people to collect benefits and tax breaks.
I think the ad point out a real flaw in the amendment as written. Whether or not it is intended to have the adverse consequences mentioned is immaterial. I think it is very telling that the "majority support" for this initiative disappears once voters understand what the amendment does! A majority may very well support the idea of reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples ... but the majority in NC ALSO favor legal protections for same-sex couples. This initiative would eliminiate those protections, and voters who understand this reality are more likely to oppose the initiative.
Daniel,
What protections will be eliminated for marriage corruption supporters?
Randy,
The problem is with the wording of the amendment - although it is being framed and presented as "marriage protection", it is hostile to any other family structure currently recognized by NC law. Goodbye domestic partnerships, goodbye civil unions, and goodbye to any legal protections that the families in these situations currently enjoy. It is hostile to any couple in any such family structure, and it is hostile to their children.
Keep up the word games, Randy E. King. It's narrowly true that no rights will be eliminated for GLBT people by this action, but that's only because North Carolina is already an extemely unfriendly place for GLBT people. If this is enacted, the discrimination which already exists will be enshrined in their state constitution.
This marriage battle is not about legal rights but moral acceptance. (legal unions) The liberal cry of the 80"s, you can legislate morality was levied against the moral majority.
This is exactly what is being attempted by the liberals today
The Ohio issue was not 'swift'. Case brought to court, 2001, final appeal and upholding of the DM conviction 2006.