[Durham INC] [INC Gay Marriage Resolutions

Wed Jul 13 13:53:48 EDT 2011

When Darius first brought this up yesterday, I thought, wow, good point-- INC should be careful about which issues it takes up. There isn't time and energy to take up every issue, and sometimes having a narrow focus can help keep an organization together and make it more effective on the issues is does take up. Additionally, Tom Miller has mentioned before that INC is a little gun shy about taking up issues that neighborhoods might disagree on-- the context for those comments was road projects. In an organization that is trying to organize across many neighborhoods, I would think that much like roads, some political issues are going to be divisive.

However, I would like to offer some thoughts on why this *is* a neighborhood issue. And it *is* a local issue.

First, I'll agree with Stacey Poston-- we as municipalities and neighborhoods are in competition with other municipalities and neighborhoods (and countries for that matter) to attract the "best and brightest" of all the people in the world. And I do think that being open to and supportive of a diverse group of people attracts the best and the brightest of people.

Second, neighborhoods are nothing more than a collection of people and built infrastructure (roads and houses). Denying domestic partner benefits to the people in your neighborhoods who are in same-sex relationship absolutely has a negative impact on them, and more and more often now, their children. Of course, many laws impact people, so this argument may be too broad to really help determine when an issue is a "neighborhood" issue or not.

Finally, the City of Durham offers Domestic Partnership benefits. I can *guarantee* you that if this amendment passes, Durham will be sued, and the City will lose its ability to offer those benefits. The reason is that the amendment is written *very* broadly, it bans recognition of any "legal domestic union" (an undefined term) "in" North Carolina. (Not "by" NC). Idaho has passed the exact same amendment as NC is proposing, and the State Attorney General penned a letter explaining that the city of Moscow could not, legally, offer health benefits to same-sex partners: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/UserDocs/IdahoAGOpinion.pdf. In past searches I was also able to find a case in Michigan (which has different statute) where the University of Michigan was sued and found to no longer be allowed to offer benefits to same-sex couples- i.e. UNC will probably be sued. There are people who fear that the broadness of the language ("in NC"), may allow people to sue and win against private companies (e.g. Duke University).

Currently, "marriage" in the state of North Carolina is defined as being between one man and one woman. "Gay marriage" is not allowed here now. The very real, and very immediate impact of this amendment is to take away the possibility of any State institution, and possibly private companies, from offering domestic partner benefits.

-chloe
Old East Durham resident

> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:12:39 -0400
> From: staceyrobinposton at gmail.com
> To: inc-list at rtpnet.org; banalistserve at yahoogroups.com; janie.long at duke.edu
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] [banalistserve] INC Gay Marriage Resolutions [1	Attachment]
> 
> reposting, I got stuck in "not subscribed under this e-mail" INC filter.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Stacey Poston
> <staceyrobinposton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Bill et al:
> 
> I’m not sure we can quantify “marriage” as solely a federal, state or
> local issue at this point.  (The Defense of Marriage Act is a federal
> law, New York and other states now allow gays to marry, Carrboro has a
> local domestic partnership registry.)  Hence, I’m not sure limiting
> the discussion to “should INC consider federal issues” is exactly the
> right question.
> 
> As Darius indicates, the INC mission is to promote the “quality,
> stability and vitality of Durham's residential neighborhoods”.  As
> such, I think it’s relevant to share what urbanist Richard Florida’s
> studies revealed in his book, The Rise of the Creative Class.  Richard
> Florida quantatively demonstrates through various indices that
> municipalities and metropolitan regions with high diversity rates
> (including gays) are positively impacted by increased housing prices
> and greater economic development.
> 
> If gays can get married in one state but not another, then migration
> to the more tolerant state will occur.  This will reduce the pool of
> available applicants who want to purchase housing or compete for jobs
> in the intolerant locations which is a net drain on those communities.
> 
> Discussing a resolution that supports diversity to create better
> neighborhoods and spur economic development is definitely within the
> charter and mission of the InterNeighborhood Council.
> 
> As a point of reference and to be forthright, I anxiously await the
> day when my domestic partner of 14 years and I can go to the Durham
> County Courthouse and secure a valid North Carolina marriage license.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Stacey Poston
> BANA resident
> 
> 
> > From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
> > On Behalf Of TheOcean1 at aol.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:13 PM
> > To: duke1law at netscape.net; allen.joshua at gmail.com
> > Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> > Subject: Re: [Durham INC] **INC War Funding & Gay Marriage Resolutions**
> >
> >
> >
> > As I see it, the question is: Should INC only take up local issues, or
> > are national issues also INC territory?
> >
> > While historically INC has kept its focus on local only issues, there
> > really isn't anything in the by-laws that says we can't take on
> > national or global issues, too.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's a good question.... for purposes of discussion, we should talk
> > about that without the specific resolution on the table on top of it.
> > Let's separate the discussion to the generally, should INC be involved
> > in national issues, so that our thoughts on these two resolutions
> > aren't mixed in.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just an idea,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill Anderson
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 7/12/2011 12:36:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > duke1law at netscape.net writes:
> >
> > Dear Fellow  INC'ers:
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope all is well and that everyone is enjoying this weather.
> >
> >
> >
> > The purpose of this communication is to highlight my previously
> > expressed concern as it relates to the resolution on "War Funding"
> > dollars; which was presented to us at the last INC Meeting.
> > Furthermore, I'd like to add that the new proposal which has been
> > brought before us, from Duke Park --relating to a "Gay Marriage
> > Resolution"-- lends more support to my original position that INC is
> > not the appropriate venue for which to address a lot of these, social
> > issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > First of all, let me begin by stating that my strong opposition to
> > both of these resolutions is procedural.  While I personally do not
> > endorse gay marriage, as a Christian who has his own areas that need
> > constant improving, I don't cast stones, or stand in judgment of
> > others. I leave the judgment as to the behavior of others, to God as
> > my bible says all have fallen short and in life, we typically judge
> > others rather firmly: based upon "what" they did (without looking at
> > "why" they did it). Yet, when we, or someone we like, or care about,
> > stands in judgment, we want others to understand "why" something
> > happened, not to look at the act alone.  We're all inconsistent!  So,
> > as a human, my job is to do my best, each day and be a blessing to
> > others in the ways in which I am gifted.  Now, to the War dollars:  I,
> > along with everyone else on earth, realize that the dollars going to
> > support the War, could be utilized in our State Governments and
> > trickled down to our local governments.  So, I'll firmly say I support
> > ending the war and bringing our dollars home.
> >
> >
> >
> > Having said all of that, my opposition to both of these resolutions
> > stems upon the fact that, as stated in my initial email:  I do not
> > believe, based upon the Mission Statement of INC, as well as the
> > Precedent which has been established by leadership, that we can remain
> > consistent and fair in policy, by allowing eithr of these resolutions
> > to be presented, and approved by our General Body.
> >
> >
> >
> > Some have expressed the accurate belief that 'War Dollars' (public tax
> > dollars), as well as 'Gay Marriage' (Social Justice: I'm not going to
> > say Civil Rights b/c I don't feel the framers of our Constitution were
> > thinking of Gay Marriage when they were creating such tenants; but
> > that's a discussion for dinner) are issues which affect
> > "neighborhoods" due to the fact that they are popular stances, about
> > which all individuals have an opinion.  I agree, they are issues
> > worthy of discussion in any public, communal capacity.  However, the
> > INC Mission Statement specifically expresses the following:  "Our
> > mission is to promote the quality, stability and vitality of Durham's
> > residential neighborhoods."
> >
> >
> >
> > Neither of these resolutions' passages will directly result in the
> > specific addressing of matters which adversely affect the "quality,
> > stability and vitality" of the Durham Neighborhoods we represent, nor
> > the Durham Community at-large.
> >
> >
> >
> > I feel emotions ar high, at a time when a lot of National Issues are
> > receiving limelight and that peole --with good intention-- are
> > reaching for any, and every, avenue by which to have "their" most
> > important issue, supported.  That is god.  It's called lobbying.
> > However, what seperates INC from every other social and political
> > entity is the fact that we have not, historically, just jumped into
> > every catfight.  We have addressed issues, successfully and
> > aggressively, that directly, and in dramatic fashion, affect
> > Neighborhoods in Durham.  Neither the War, nor Gay Marriage, are
> > issues which are the bedrock of the sustainability of our Durham
> > Neighborhoods.  They are good discussion material and teach us a lot,
> > however, they are not consistent with what INV addresses.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, before anyone feels I am belittling their efforts (I am not), let
> > me add the fact that I have brought issues to INC which I felt were
> > important, and have been told that they were more social issues, than
> > Neighborhood Issues and as such, INC was not the avenue to address
> > them.  These were issues related to Fayetteville Street, the
> > African-American Community and needs, which I felt were important.
> > But INC did not address them.  I was not offended, and did not
> > interpret these matters as a slight to my concern.  I realized that
> > INC's effectiveness would dwindle, if it became viewed as an
> > organization that entangled itself in every fist fight.  We've been
> > effective because we are unique in our battle selection.  And our
> > successes carry weight, in my opinion, only because we choose battles
> > that are close to home, which we can have our collective hands on and
> > fight, directly.  We leave the larger issues to our City Council,
> > County Commissioners, School Board and Durham Legislative Delegation,
> > to lobby; the Matricular Consular, for example.  Everything that
> > occurs in Duham affects its Citizens, which in-turn, affects every
> > neighborhood.  If we entertain and allow the passage of these
> > resolutions, we will open a pandora's box and will not, be able to
> > fairly, reject anything that comes before us hereafter.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, if people are hellbent on addressing these issues through INC,
> > I'd submit there must be a change in ByLaws and Mission Statement.
> > So, as I originally stated: this discussion, again, is procedural.  Is
> > INC equipped to address these issues from a standpoint of being
> > "effective" (because remember, we are seeking quality, stability and
> > vitality in our battles for "Durham Neighborhoods")?  If so, then the
> > Mission Statement needs to be changed, to be more broad.  And
> > furthermore, we need to create a policy for which issues we entertain,
> > and which we do not.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lastly, we need to address participation.  According to the Secretary
> > and Treasurer, only seven (7) neighborhoods have paid their dues.  So,
> > are we going to open the floodgates of issues we address to anything
> > across the State and Globe, yet not enforce participation
> > requirements?  I ask this because though I've been attending for quite
> > a while now, consistently, until I paid dues, and got on the books
> > officially, my participation was restricted.
> >
> >
> >
> > So these are my thoughts and I'd love feedback.  I thoroughly enjoy
> > INC and the time we've all gotten to actually get to know one another.
> >  I care about each of you, and consider you friends.  These are my
> > opinions and they are heartfelt, so I hope that no individual was
> > offended.  If so, I apologize.  I am simply addressing what I feel are
> > legitimate concerns.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> >
> >
> > Darius Little
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------
> > Darius M. Little
> > Executive Business Consultant  and
> > Strategic Marketing Analyst
> > (c) 919-641-4124
> > (web) www.linkedin.com/in/dariuslittle
> >
> >
> >
> > Manta Business Profile/Report:
> >
> > http://www.manta.com/c/mtlwj1m/little-s-business-consulting
> >
> >
> >
> > "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye
> > shall receive." [Matt 21:22]
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua Allen <allen.joshua at gmail.com>
> > To: TheOcean1 at aol.com
> > Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> > Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 11:35 am
> > Subject: Re: [Durham INC] [dukepark] Duke park--requesting feedback on
> > gay marriage resolution
> >
> > I'm glad someone is spearheading this!  I think the resolution is
> > great.  It's so important to have many diverse voices heard on this
> > issue.  It's awesome to have neighborhoods supporting the gay and
> > lesbian community.   When lawmakers hear only from the gays and
> > lesbians, it just doesn't have the same effect as having neighborhoods
> > and business owners rally with support as well. In NY, Republican
> > business owners lobbied the state legislator in support of gay
> > marriage, which recently passed there.   That made a big difference.
> >
> >
> >
> > We will take this up at our next Watts Hillandale board meeting.  Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > --Joshua Allen
> >
> > WHHNA President
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM, <TheOcean1 at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > At the bottom is a resolution that is being test marketed on the Duke
> > Park listserv with unanimous results so far.
> >
> > Please forward to your neighborhoods
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill Anderson
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 7/11/2011 10:44:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > dorseymt at mindspring.com writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Support the resolution.
> >
> > Mary on Hollywood
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: dukepark at yahoogroups.com [mailto:dukepark at yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of readlaw at aol.com
> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:41 AM
> > To: dukepark at yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [dukepark] Duke park--requesting feedback on gay marriage resolution
> >
> >
> >
> > We will take this up at the August board meeting (Tuesday, August 9).
> > If you do not plan to attend and would like to express your position
> > please reply to board at dukepark.org.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Daniel F. Read
> > President, Duke Park Neighborhood Association
> > 1424 Acadia St., Durham NC 27701
> > readlaw at aol.com 919-688-0535 FAX 919-682-4955
> >
> > In a message dated 7/11/2011 11:12:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > gary_jddurham at yahoo.com writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello neighbors,
> >
> > I, along with the help of some other neighbors, have drafted a
> > resolution to present to the INC regarding pending legislation that
> > would put an anti-marriage equality amendment to the state
> > constitution on the ballot in 2012.  The legislature will meet in
> > September to consider this, and it is important to show any of our
> > state representitives or senators who may be on the fence on this
> > issue that Durham's neighborhoods support its gay and lesbian
> > residents.  As this resolution would have to be approved by Duke Park
> > as well as the other neighborhood associations, I am presenting it to
> > the listserv for approval or suggestions for alterations.  It is
> > important to indicate if you do or do not support the resolution so
> > that our representative can determine how to vote on our behalf.  If
> > anyone wishes to forward it to other neighborhood lists, that would be
> > great as I only subscribe to this one.  Hopefully if the resolution
> > has a favorable reception, we can bring it up for a vote at the next
> > INC meeting at the end of the month.  I'll attach and copy the
> > resolution below.  Thanks for your time and support.
> >
> > Gary Rosche, W Knox
> >
> > Whereas Durham has a tradition of being a progressive beacon in the
> > state of North Carolina,
> >
> > And whereas the neighborhood associations of Durham have always served
> > as incubators for the grassroots activism that has fueled that
> > progressive reputation,
> >
> > And whereas our own elected officials have shown their commitment to
> > making Durham a welcoming community for gays and lesbians by passing
> > resolutions supporting marriage equality and providing  domestic
> > partner benefits to the employees of the City and the County of
> > Durham,
> >
> > And whereas Durham is rightfully proud of its ability to embrace
> > diversity and champion equality for all,
> >
> > It is therefore resolved that the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
> > (INC) supports the civil rights of its gay and lesbian neighbors,
> > including the right to marry, and opposes SB 106 and HB 777 which
> > would place on the ballot in 2012 a referendum to amend the North
> > Carolina Constitution to prohibit marriage, and prohibit the
> > recognition of any other form of domestic legal union, between people
> > of the same gender.
> >
> > SB 106: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S106v0.pdf
> >
> > HB 777: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H777v0.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Durham INC Mailing List
> > list at durham-inc.org
> > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Durham INC Mailing List
> >
> > list at durham-inc.org
> >
> > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Durham INC Mailing List
> > list at durham-inc.org
> > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> >
> >
> > <*>Attachment(s) from Stacey Poston:
> >
> >
> > <*> 1 of 1 File(s) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/banalistserve/attachments/folder/1115506803/item/list
> >  <*> ATT3762244.txt
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/banalistserve/
> >
> > <*> Your email settings:
> >    Individual Email | Traditional
> >
> > <*> To change settings online go to:
> >    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/banalistserve/join
> >    (Yahoo! ID required)
> >
> > <*> To change settings via email:
> >    banalistserve-digest at yahoogroups.com
> >    banalistserve-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
> >
> > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >    banalistserve-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> >
> > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> >    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110713/da069424/attachment.html>