Amendment One would ban civil contracts between gay citizens

Ed Cone is beating the right drum.

The big story is that the group does not want to acknowledge the full meaning of the issue it advocates: The proposed marriage amendment would make civil unions unconstitutional in North Carolina.


Government over-reaching

Republicans could have crafted this amendment in a way that would not have violated equal rights for all citizens. In this case, the right in question is the right to enter into a contract with another human being, otherwise known as a civil union.

If Amendment One were to pass, it would instantly challenged in court and would be struck down by the United States Supreme Court.

Loving Families Against Amendment One

On May 8, 2012, North Carolinians will go to the polls to vote on an effort by the General Assembly to write discrimination into the North Carolina Constitution. Amendment One declares that the only recognized legal union is a marriage between one man and one woman. This amendment has far reaching implications beyond simply trying to ban gay marriage, but its passage could impact civil unions, domestic violence protections, private contracts and benefits already being offered by many companies in North Carolina.

We have formed a referendum committee, Loving Families Against Amendment One. You can help by voting against Amendment One on May 8 and encouraging all your family and friends to VOTE NO as well. You can also help us educate North Carolinians on this harmful measure by making a donation by going to our facebook page. Please no corporate or business donations. Donations are not tax deductible but are GREATLY appreciated!

Amendment One and NC's domestic violence statutes

NC General Statute Chapter 50B (bold mine):

§ 50B‑1. Domestic violence; definition.

(a) Domestic violence means the commission of one or more of the following acts upon an aggrieved party or upon a minor child residing with or in the custody of the aggrieved party by a person with whom the aggrieved party has or has had a personal relationship, but does not include acts of self‑defense:

(1) Attempting to cause bodily injury, or intentionally causing bodily injury; or

(2) Placing the aggrieved party or a member of the aggrieved party's family or household in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or continued harassment, as defined in G.S. 14‑277.3A, that rises to such a level as to inflict substantial emotional distress; or

(3) Committing any act defined in G.S. 14‑27.2 through G.S. 14‑27.7.

(b) For purposes of this section, the term "personal relationship" means a relationship wherein the parties involved:

(1) Are current or former spouses;

(2) Are persons of opposite sex who live together or have lived together;

(3) Are related as parents and children, including others acting in loco parentis to a minor child, or as grandparents and grandchildren. For purposes of this subdivision, an aggrieved party may not obtain an order of protection against a child or grandchild under the age of 16;

(4) Have a child in common;

(5) Are current or former household members;

(6) Are persons of the opposite sex who are in a dating relationship or have been in a dating relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, a dating relationship is one wherein the parties are romantically involved over time and on a continuous basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary fraternization between persons in a business or social context is not a dating relationship.

(c) As used in this Chapter, the term "protective order" includes any order entered pursuant to this Chapter upon hearing by the court or consent of the parties. (1979, c. 561, s. 1; 1985, c. 113, s. 1; 1987, c. 828; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 893, ss. 1, 3; 1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 591, s. 1; 1997‑471, s. 1; 2001‑518, s. 3; 2003‑107, s. 1; 2009‑58, s. 5.)

Amendment One endangers anyone -- straight or gay -- in categories (b) 2-6 above.


Heterosexual rights under attack!

The point you're making needs to be made louder, and more often.

Amendment One ends all domestic partnerships for straight couples. Amendment one could end domestic violence protections and other rights for unmarried straight couples.

The only time one of these amendments was ever defeated, in Arizona, it was in large part I believe because people realized it was all the people under attack, not just an LGBT issue.

UNC Law weighs in on Amendment One

And it ain't pretty

Given how courts have interpreted amendments in other states, it is very possible, however, that courts would interpret the Amendment to bar the state from giving any protections to unmarried couples – straight or same-sex – based on their relationships. This would:

  • invalidate domestic violence protections for all unmarried partners;
  • undercut existing child custody and visitation law that is designed to protect the best interests of children;
  • prevent the state from giving committed couples protections that help them order their relationships, including the right to determine the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains; to visit their partner in the hospital in the event of a medical emergency; to make emergency medical decisions for their partner if their partner is incapacitated; and to make financial decisions for their partner if their partner is incapacitated.

Furthermore, if courts interpreted it in a far-reaching manner, the Amendment could even invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other.



February 10, 2012 - The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh today announced it is holding a benefit concert on Saturday, February 18th at 8PM, to inform and entertain people in the Raleigh area about why to vote against Amendment One on May 8th. The event called "Protect NC Families Benefit Concert"
is in support a coalition to oppose the May 8th, 2012 amendment regarding North Carolina’s unmarried couples, their families, and their status before the law.

"Out of respect for all families in North Carolina, and in the United States, we think it's imperative to inform people about the harms of this discriminatory Constitutional Amendment if it's passed," say Don Rollins, Interim Head Minister. "We are a fellowship who believes in equal rights for all human beings. This proposed amendment would enshrine discrimination in our state constitution, and that is unacceptable", Rollins said. Don will also be performing on acoustic guitar as well as emceeing the evening.

Guests are guaranteed two hours of quality, live music and thoughtful discussions with friends of the cause for equality and dignity. Musicians include Someone's Sister, Rhythmicity, Triangle Gay Men's Chorus. Speakers include Reverend Jimmy Creech and others. The suggested donation is $7 or what you can afford – nobody turned away, everybody welcome! About the event:

Jen Jones, representing the Protect NC Families organization, (and is also running 322 miles across the state of NC to raise awareness about the harms of the amendment), will be speaking at the benefit concert.

The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh is an open-minded and liberal religious congregation that values the inherent worth and dignity of each person, regardless of who you are or whom you love. It encourages all to seek their own spiritual path. This concert supports the Coalition to Protect NC Families:

For more information, visit: - or - - or -

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
3313 Wade Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 781-7635

Saturday, February 18, 2012
8PM - 10PM

Suggested donation $7.00