Why I am Against Amendment OneMay 2nd, 2012 | By Avalon Kenny | Category: Feature, News
May 8th is less than a week away, and the streets of Greensboro are lined by blue “Vote against the Amendment” signs. Although there is still the occasional “For Amendment One” sign at the side of the road, I find it hard to believe the “supporters” of the amendment actually understand what it is truly about. I have many reasons to be opposed to it, and it’s not just because I believe marriage should be open to people of all orientations.
This amendment isn’t just about gay marriage, but supporters of the amendment seem to think so. I drive past signs all the time that say “Marriage is between one man and one woman,” but as AG contributor Cynamon Frierson put it, “I don’t mind that people believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, that is their opinion, but is so much more than that and could affect heterosexual couples as well.” This is true – this amendment would consider all homosexual and heterosexual civil unions and domestic partnerships null. It would extend so that unmarried couples cannot see each other in the hospital and have no say about emergency medical/financial decisions regarding their significant other. As Charles Wood so well put the issue of gay marriage, “I’ve never understood why people care so much about what other people do with their genitals. Nobody has the right to tell consenting adults what they can or can’t do with each other. The only arguments against gay marriage I hear are based on the bible, which also forbids people from seating in the same seat as a woman on her period or eating shell fish, and thus should have no bearing on the policies of a government that has a separation of church and state.”
Unfortunately, children of unmarried couples are also affected. They could lose their health care. Child custody and visitation rights would also be limited by the amendment. If something happens to one parent, a child could even be taken away from the other parent.
As a woman, I do not want to have to marry my abuser to get domestic violence protection. The amendment would limit domestic violence protection strictly to married couples. That means no relationships excluding marriage, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions, gain domestic violence protection. This extends to straight couples – this is well past gay marriage at this point.
Y’all, this amendment isn’t even about gay marriage. In the words of our blog mamma and chief boss lady, Julie Joyce, “If this actually passes, I will be embarrassed to be a North Carolinian.”
There are so many more people and scenarios this amendment would harm – check out Protect NC Families’ website and pledge to vote AGAINST the amendment.
As an added bonus, here’s what our editor Rae has to say:
This amendment is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. It’s cloaked as a gay marriage debate, and as a preservative measure of families; in reality, the contents of the bill will actually injure family units – heterosexual family units. In fact, gay rights are actually a miniscule, microscopic part of the debate, and an unnecessary talking point: homosexual marriage is already illegal in the state of North Carolina.
It’s important to know the intellectual homebase of amendments like these. The wife of a bill sponsor, NC Senator Peter Brunstetter, came out of the closet as a white supremacist when she noted that the bill was written in a spirit to “protect the caucasian race” (read their racist statement here if you can stomach it) and another proponent openly encouraged child abuse (read their statement here.) Family values?
At the heart of it, Amendment One is hate literature that certainly has no place in law books or anywhere but a post-apocalyptic Margaret Atwood book. Let’s not just look at Amendment One as taking away rights – let’s look at the rights we’re giving: the right to bully and the right to legalize hate.