Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

Amendment One: A lesson in exclusion

Posted on April 19, 2012April 18, 2012 by Staff

By Christopher J. Heaney

I came to law school because I thought the law could make North Carolina a more inclusive community. If Amendment One passes, it will turn our state constitution into a message of exclusion. Amendment One would amend the state constitution to make heterosexual marriage “the only domestic legal union” in North Carolina. For anyone who thinks the state should only recognize marriage between heterosexual partners, the amendment is superfluous. By statute, North Carolina already prevents gay marriage. So does that make Amendment One some harmless reinforcement of the current statute?

Not at all. The Amendment would hurt N.C. families, especially children and victims of domestic violence.
N.C. families depend on courts to enforce decisions about who can raise children, have visitation rights if someone is hospitalized, receive protection from domestic violence and make medical decisions. These legal arrangements are crucial for families who want to care for their children, spouses and partners.

If Amendment One passes, North Carolina families of all sorts can’t be sure courts will meet their needs. What if an unmarried person seeks a protection order from an abusive partner? What if an unmarried couple wants to guarantee the survivor would have custody of their children if one of the partners passes away? These people might not receive protection from the courts if Amendment One passes because it would prevent courts from recognizing domestic legal unions other than heterosexual marriage. In order for courts to enforce laws and private arrangements such as wills and powers of attorney, and thus carry out families’ wishes, there frequently has to be a domestic union of some kind. But if courts follow the amendment’s plain meaning, protection orders, custody arrangements and a myriad of other legal tools for arranging private lives will become inaccessible to thousands of North Carolinians of all sexual orientations and ages.

Such a narrowing of rights sends a clear signal: North Carolina does not welcome everyone. And that is exactly the wrong direction for the law to move in. As a law student, I have admired the gains of past civil rights activists. My constitutional law courses painted an inspiring picture. After the Civil War, the guarantee of equal protection under the law was written into the U.S. Constitution through the 14th Amendment. In the 20th century, the Supreme Court rejected racial discrimination in public schools, bans on interracial marriage and laws silencing protected speech. Congress and the president made voting, housing and employment more accessible. Despite the many difficulties that civil rights activists confront today, the broad trend of American law has been to allow more and more people to participate fully in the political, economic and social community.

If Amendment One passes, it will be directly contrary to that inclusive trend. Some North Carolina citizens will not be able to participate fully in family life because they will not be able to rely on courts to uphold their choices about raising children and dealing with illness, death and divorce. Without a stable family life, participation in economic life is more difficult. Everyone would experience a diminished social life because the law would mark out some people as less deserving of protection. And if the law can degrade some of us, then it could degrade any of us.

The fundamental lesson for me and other students would be that the law is still a way to stigmatize people. Who isn’t learning from what happens in our state? If Amendment One passes, we will teach ourselves the law is a hostage to our intolerance, rather than our generosity. Don’t let that happen – vote against Amendment One.


Christopher J. Heaney is a second year law student at the UNC School of Law and treasurer of the law school’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

3 thoughts on “Amendment One: A lesson in exclusion”

  1. stanley Sandler says:
    April 19, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Mr. Haney,

    Are you aware of any defacing of anti-amendment front-lawn signs by (presumably) apro-amendment partisans? And for that matter, any violence by Tea Partiers? The two Tea Parties I attended in Fayetteville, NC, left the place cleaner than we found it. Compare THAT to your Occupy buddies actics. (And why did these Occupy types never harass Freddie Mae or Fanny Mac? Or Chris Dodd or Barney Frank?

    Just what this country needs, another ACLU lawyer!(Or another lawyer, period).

    Stanley Sandler

  2. David Waller says:
    April 21, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides that “no state would be allowed to abridge the “privileges and immunities” of citizens, and that no citizen could be denied “equal protection of the laws.”

    The irony is that the poorly written NC Amendment One, if passed, is so clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that a Federal judge would be forced to overturn it, effectively opening the door for marriage equality in NC.

    I will vote against, but if it does pass it could be the domino that brings down all the state amendments banning gay marriage by virtue of the fact that it just goes too far, with language that’s too broad. Which would be richly entertaining, to see an attempt to codify bigotry become the means to defeat bigotry. http://VoteAgainstOne.com – stickers

  3. Anita Tieman says:
    April 24, 2012 at 8:33 am

    It is not same sex marriage that threatens the institution of marriage; it is the behavior of the two people within the marriage. Most often it is adultery and fornication. If state lawmakers and citizens insist on using the Bible as the basis for discrimination of same sex couples, then it must also include those people that divorce (for other reasons than adultery) and seek to remarry as that is clearly a form of adultery. Homosexuality is not named in the Bible though the act is referenced 8 times. Adultery and fornication are both mentioned dozens of times and adultery made the 10 Commandments. So Amendment One does not go far enough. The following should be added: No person having divorced for any reason other than adultery and no person found guilty of adultery within a previous marriage shall be issued a marriage license by the State of North Carolina, Be it known that those persons would be living a day to day lifestyle of adultery and such will not be condoned by the State. You cannot use the Bible to take away the civil liberties of one set of people while condoning acts that clearly go against that same Bible.

Comments are closed.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme