Saturday, March 10, 2012

Amendment One Endangers NC Families

Disguised as a referendum on gay marriage, the Domestic Legal Union Amendment threatens to take away legal and financial protections from every “non-traditional” family and unmarried person in NC.  It is guaranteed to generate much work for attorneys, as well as heartache and expense for the rest of us.
 A documented study by UNC law professors, available at http://tinyurl.com/6qpastw, shows that children, single women, and unmarried couples (straight and gay) have all suffered from the effects of similar amendments in other states. 
NC children involved in custody disputes could have their ‘best interests’ superseded by Amendment One if their parents’ relationships are not ‘valid or recognized’ in family court.  This might cause loving parents to lose custody or visitation rights.  The threat of such action would undermine the security of every child with divorced or unmarried parents.
Women are the majority of the victims of domestic violence.  NC laws against domestic violence and stalking require legal recognition of a relationship (such as dating) between victim and abuser.  As Amendment One would only allow ‘traditional marriage’ relationships to be recognized by our legal system, unmarried persons would probably lose protections provided by these laws.  In Ohio, convicted abusers were even released from prison after passage of an amendment like ours.
Modern couples have many reasons why they do not choose traditional marriage.  Amendment One is designed to punish all unmarried couples and their families by destabilizing their finances, obstructing legal agreements, and barring them from supporting one another through major illness. 
Wherever there is a possibility of legally recognizing or validating a couple’s relationship, the Domestic Legal Union Amendment will encourage government agencies to interfere in our private lives. 
Please join me in voting against Amendment One on May 8.

1 comment:

  1. The News & Record published this as a letter to the editor today. They had to cut a couple of points to make it fit, so I have published it here in its entirety.

    ReplyDelete