#
1 – Question: What would be some implications for NC same sex couples if the Obergefell decision is dumped by the Supreme Court?
Answer: not certain, but by future court rulings they could be profound:
Background: the NC constitution still includes a ban.
On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved what was called ”Amendment 1”, by a statewide vote of 61% to 39%, with a low turnout of 35%. On May 23, 2012, the amendment took effect. (State law had already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman prior to its passage.) Here’s the official text:
North Carolina Amendment 1
ARTICLE XIV
MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 6. Marriage
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. (2011-409, s. 1)
Background: amended the Constitution of North Carolina to prohibit the state from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The amendment did not prohibit domestic partnership agreements, but defined male–female marriage as “the only domestic legal union” considered valid or recognized in the state.
Amendment 1 was the last state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to be passed in the United States via voter referendum, as well as the shortest-lived: it was found unconstitutional in federal court in October 2014 after then-Attorney General Roy Cooper declined to further defend it. . . .
Campaign spending:
The [amendment] campaigns were fueled by more than $1,000,000 in spending by the pro-amendment coalition Vote For Marriage NC and $2,000,000 in spending by the anti-amendment group Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families. Big donors, making more than $10,000 contributions, were the main source of funds. The Human Rights Campaign, a pro-gay rights group, gave more than $256,000 to the Coalition to Protect NC Families while the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) contributed more than $427,000 to Vote For Marriage NC. . . .
Of the 100 counties of North Carolina, only Buncombe (home to Asheville), Orange (home to Chapel Hill), Durham (home to the city of Durham), Wake (home to Raleigh), Mecklenburg (home to Charlotte), Chatham, Watauga (home to Boone and Appalachian State University), and Dare [on the coast] voted against Amendment 1. Of the eight counties that voted against Amendment 1, six of them would vote for Barack Obama in the 2012 election, while Watauga County and Dare County voted for Mitt Romney.
Legislative notes [excerpts]
. . . The long title of Senate Bill 514 is: “An Act to Amend the Constitution to Provide That Marriage Between One Man and One Woman is the Only Domestic Legal Union That Shall Be Valid or Recognized in This State.”
Adoption and child-visitation protections were also in question. While North Carolina only allows adoption by one unmarried adult, there are cases where children are adopted by two unmarried adults (including same-sex couples) in other states and are now living in North Carolina. Since those relationships would not have been recognized under Amendment One, were it to come back into force post-Obergefell, there could be potentially serious consequences.
In Potential Legal Impacts of the Proposed Same Sex Marriage Amendment, the authors concluded that in child-custody disputes “judges may interpret [amendment one] as an expression of public policy against all non-marital relationships. This interpretation may have caused judges to view such relationships as having a per se negative impact on a child, and fashion custody orders accordingly. They also said that in custody disputes between a parent and non-parent, the courts could decide that one parent’s relationship is impermissible since it would validate a domestic legal union other than heterosexual marriage. As with the other protections in question it seemed that the courts would have to decide what the actual interpretation and implementation will be in this area.
. . . Other areas of protection that were under question included hospital visitation, emergency medicals decisions, and disposition of deceased partner’s remains. Although there are legal documents that can help protect medical and financial security (power of attorney, living will, medical power of attorney), these could [be] contested in court based on the argument that they recognize a domestic legal union between the two parties.Issues in estate planning could . . . [arise] through increased litigation contesting wills of unmarried individuals, particularly those in same-sex relationships. Again, the courts could . . . [rule] that any recognition of a domestic legal union between unmarried partners would be unconstitutional and therefore rule those wills and trusts invalid.[Adapted from Wikipedia.]
#2 – Amy Grant and a family welcome — Washington Post — December 1, 2022
The word “welcome” comes up frequently when talking to [megastar singer Amy] Grant. In recent years, she has voiced support for the LGBTQ community, where she has had a large fan base for decades. Now, she talks about her and [husband, country star Vince] Gill’s plans to host her niece’s wedding at their farm, which is her family’s “first bride and bride” nuptials.
Grant recalls her reaction when she learned her niece had come out: What a gift to our whole family to just widen the experience of our whole family. “Honestly, from a faith perspective, I do always say, ‘Jesus, you just narrowed it down to two things: love God and love each other,’ ” Grant said. “I mean, hey — that’s pretty simple.”
#3 – “Pretty simple.” But not always pretty easy.
New York Times, December 1, 2022
“The [national Christmas] tree, it’s 27 feet tall. They did not chop it down. It is a live white fir tree, it was planted last October, after the previous National Christmas Tree was removed in May of 2021 because it had a fungal disease — the second time that year that a fungus had to be removed from the White House.” — JIMMY KIMMEL
If/when Obergefell is felled the law of unintended (by the dividers) may well apply. Or so national polling on acceptance of same-sex marriage indicates. One can hope.
That, SCOTUS going full scrotal, would be a much more favorable result (for humanity) that SCOTUS doing nothing and leaving the door open. People coming together are more powerful than SCOTUS, and the pressure on the dividers to change their position in order to remain in office would be intense. That’s a good thing, however it plays out.
Well – some people just had to have it with the ‘marriage’ for the title. I have no doubt that this need for the word marriage may well end same sex union contracts. And be not foolish – marriage (outside of religion) has always been an aspect of contract law. And this despite all the noise going on now from both camps.
I am glad I have no need to use the word marriage for my relationship as I have no need to be used for the usual left purposes. And, for the right’s as well.