[Durham INC] language and consequences of marriage amendment

[Joshua Allen]

Any idea how this will affect the ability for two people of the same sex to
own property in joint tenancy?  If this affects deeds, then non just
same-sex partners, but a mother/daughter, father/son, brothers, sisters,
friends, etc. could not own a house together.  You can't get much more of
domestic legal union than owning a house in joint tenancy...  I think my
grandmother would be pretty pissed off to know that she couldn't have my
Mom's name on the deed.

Hopefully, I'm wrong, but I'm no lawyer...  I guess it all depends on how
"domestic legal union" is interpreted by the courts.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:33 PM, chloe palenchar <cpalenchar at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  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. *<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=ohhl4rw8mbn4#13259d503cac9b86_13259ce57c172824_13259bc4a8ffb4ca__ftn5>
> ·         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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>


-- 
Joshua
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110915/5c0a4a1b/attachment.html>