[Durham INC] language and consequences of marriage amendment

[chloe palenchar]

The marriage amendment, as passed, adds one sentence to the language originally introduced into the Senate (which was much more broadly reaching than the language originally introduced into the House). It now 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".
(You can see it here: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/state/nccapitol/2011/09/12/10119834/Defense_of_Marriage_Act_2_.pdf)

The good news is, this very likely means my private company can continue to offer domestic partner benefits to non-married couples. 

However, as compared to current law, this amendment still threatens many rights/protections for non-married couples including:
·        
The Amendment still has the potential to invalidate
domestic violence protections for members of unmarried couples, as an Ohio court did with even narrower language in its state’s marriage amendment. *
·        
The Amendment could still interfere with existing
child custody and visitation rights that seek to protect the best interests of children.
·        
The revision does not preclude courts from reading that language to invalidate
trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives – which are not “private contracts” – in favor of an unmarried partner. 
·        
Further, the revision would still invalidate
domestic partner benefits now offered by several municipalities. 

My source for this information is here: http://equalitync.org/news1/unc-law-professor-impact-of-revised-anti-gay-amendment

>From a personal standpoint, I am simply speechless at the thought of having my trust, will, or end-of-life directives overridden by a court. All of those decisions are some of *the* most personal and significant decisions one makes in their lifetime. And I would really like to know that what I want to happen is what will happen.

-chloe


*State v. McKinley, 2006 WL 1381635, 2006 Ohio LEXIS 2379
 at *6-10 (Ohio App. 2006).  This case was later reversed by the Ohio 
Supreme Court in In re Ohio Domestic-Violence Statute Cases, 114 Ohio 
St.3d 340, 872 N.E.2d 1212 (2007). However, the reversal was based on 
the limitation in the Ohio amendment barring the
 creation or recognition of a legal status for “relationships of 
unmarried individuals
that intend  to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”
Id. at 216, 871 at 554 (italics added). This language limiting 
recognition of non-marital relationships only to those legal statuses 
that approximate marriage does not appear in North Carolina’s proposed 
Amendment. The proposed language in our bill would
 not call for reversal of a similar broad interpretation. 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110915/be653788/attachment.html>