What Amendment One would do to families

Right now in North Carolina, if a couple lives together and one beats up the other, the abused partner can be assured that the abuser will be jailed for 48 hours and an order of protection issued. This doesn’t happen with a non-domestic case of assault; it’s something the state has wisely done because domestic violence is different from non-domestic violence. Both partners are protected, even if they’re not married.

That will change if Amendment One passes next week. This get-out-the-conservative-vote tactic may be disguised as a ban on same-sex marriage (which is already illegal in North Carolina anyway), but it’s so poorly worded that it will have all kinds of additional consequences. “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state” is how it reads. That simple sentence blithely undoes dozens of laws and customs, and will arguably impact heterosexual couples as much or more than gay couples.

For instance, what happens to the domestic partner benefits already in place for employees of several municipal governments and private companies? Millions of North Carolinians are about to have everything from their health insurance to their veterans benefits stripped away, just because some genius in the Legislature doesn’t know how to write.

It gets worse. There’s a couple I know – they’re in a relationship after both got out of awful marriages, and they want to get married some day but they aren’t there yet. Each has children from the previous marriages, who all live with the couple; they’ve been a household for years. The woman, let’s call her Eve, her ex is a piece of work (being polite here). And the man, let’s call him Adam, his ex is a major flake, one of these people who can’t remember to put gas in the tank even when the fuel light’s been on half an hour. If Adam gets hit by a truck the day after Amendment One goes into effect, Eve has zero legal say in what happens to Adam’s kids. They get shipped off to another state, ripped out of their school and away from the only family they’ve known for most of their lives. The same thing would happen to Eve’s kids if it’s her who gets hit by that truck, only now her kids live with their good for nothing (again, being polite) bio-father. Why? Because marriage is the only legal domestic union recognized by the state.

Here’s another couple I know. They’re both in their 70s, both married to others before their current relationship. He’s divorced, she’s a widow. In fact, her late husband had an excellent pension, which she’ll lose if she ever remarries. They couldn’t live and take care of themselves if they legally married and lost Frankie’s pension benefits. So, Frankie and Johnny here (sorry, I’m terrible at coming up with names) have been living together for more than a decade, as husband and wife in every way but on paper. But, she’s not in the best health. Post-Amendment One, here’s what would happen if Frankie got seriously ill: Johnny wouldn’t have legal standing to make decisions about her care; her adult children would. If her adult children don’t like Johnny, they can keep him from even visiting her in the hospital. If Frankie dies before Johnny, he’s not legally entitled to inherit her estate. He wouldn’t even be able to stay in their house, because it’s in Frankie’s name. He’d lose access to bank accounts or credit cards that were in her name. Why? Because marriage is the only legal domestic union recognized by the state.

The thing is, both of the above situations are things that same-sex couples face every day in states that – like North Carolina – prohibit same-sex marriage. Amendment One would take things even further, barring civil unions for gays and stripping rights from heterosexual couples who’ve taken them for granted. Regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriage, you have to acknowledge that Amendment One is almost reckless in its impact on any number of existing statutes. If it passes, our state will be in court for years. More seriously, individuals and families all over North Carolina will suffer. And for what?

God doesn't plan to vote on this

I wanted to write something about Amendment One, and, while I’m up on all the arguments against writing discrimination into our state constitution (and endangering millions of families to boot), I’m not as familiar with the arguments its supporters are making. It’s always best to find out what your opponents are actually saying, not just to put words in their mouths. So I went to source – the website for Vote for Marriage NC. And that’s where I learned about this:

Tomorrow is Marriage Sunday, “an early voting awareness campaign focused on equipping churches and citizens to vote FOR the Marriage Protection Amendment during the 4/19-5/5 early voting window. Churches participating in Marriage Sunday are encouraged to preach a marriage themed sermon on April 29th, and encourage congregants to vote early on Monday April 30th.

Participants and churches are encouraged to raise awareness of the Marriage Protection Amendment by fulfilling five goals listed within the Marriage Sunday Kit. The five goals are:

• GOAL 1: Registering on our Grassroots Dashboard.
• GOAL 2: Preaching a Marriage Related Sermon (4/29).
• GOAL 3: Showcasing a Coalition Church Video (4/29).
• GOAL 4: Hosting a Phone Bank.
• GOAL 5: Encouraging and Securing Early Voting (4/29, 4/30).

That’s all directly from the website, and it seriously pissed me off. Churches are exempt from paying taxes, and in return they aren’t supposed to get involved in politics. There’s some gray area when it comes to advocating on legislative issues (as opposed to individual candidates), and it’s common for churches to push their members to the polls. But they don’t get to tell members how to vote… at least, they shouldn’t. 

What’s particularly galling here is that this group has at this moment on its homepage a press release demanding the resignation of a UNCG staff member who sent an anti-Amendment One email through his university email account. Its chair calls this “an outrageous use of taxpayer resources in violation of university policy and state law” and wants the staffer to “write a check to taxpayers.”

(Sidebar: what the frak? This lady does know that there’s not a checking account somewhere labeled “Taxpayers,” right? Or does she just want this provost to write 8 million checks for a tenth of one cent to everyone in North Carolina? Because I’m pretty sure that whatever “university resources” are involved in sending a single email don’t amount to a whole lot monetarily. Oh, right, I forgot – the Amendment One people are all about empty political gestures.)

So… an employee of a public university sending an email to his own contacts needs to be publicly called out and/or unemployed, but Vote for Marriage can provide religious groups with How to Violate Your Tax Status Kits, and that’s okay?

Another thing that jumped out at me from that press release: “These academics are so insulated and live in such an ivory tower that they think they can do and say anything they want at our expense,” Fitzgerald said. “This is an example of why the marriage amendment is so necessary. It puts voters in charge of our definition of marriage and protects marriage from being redefined by the elite in academia, and activist judges on our courts.”

Wow, it’s like Persecuted Conservative Bingo! Academics, Ivory Tower, Elites AND Activist Judges all on one card! Or, put another way, what do the people who’ve devoted their lives to studying law and practicing public policy know, anyway? Ms. Fitzgerald's complex aside, the fact is that same sex marriage is already illegal in North Carolina, and even same sex marriages performed in other states aren't valid here.

I’m not an expert on tax exemptions or whatever law Vote for Marriage is walking like a tightrope with their “Marriage Sunday.” But I do know this – anyone who genuinely wants to support families doesn’t support a law that carves millions of them out of existing legal protections. Anyone who claims to revere our constitution doesn’t support writing bigotry into it. And, as should go without saying, anyone who calls herself a Christian doesn’t act like God loves some of us less.

Some women's choices are ok, others not so much

Boy, do I wish I had more time to spend on this one. Because when Democratic strategist-for-hire Hilary Rosen said that Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life," she opened a can of worms that deserves a lot of virtual ink to parse. Let's break it down:

- Rosen does not work for the Obama administration or the president's re-election campaign. The president's actual staff have denounced what Rosen said.

- Rosen has apologized to Ann Romney and clarified that she didn't intend to insult Romney's work as a stay-at-home parent - she says she was only trying to point out that Ann Romney is hardly qualified to speak for women who run households on a hell of a lot less than $20 million+ a year.

- Sorry to burst the bubble of the conservatives who've been desperately scrapping for some talking point to refute the GOP's well-documented and successful war on women, but what Rosen said isn't equivalent in any way to introducing and enacting laws that actually restrict women's freedoms, as opposed to bruising their feelings.

It's important that, once this news cycle blows over, we remember what's really at stake here. It's important that we don't allow one stupid remark by one registered Democrat overshadow the actual record and policy statements of someone currently running to be the Republican party's nominee for president.

Ann Romney's choice to be a full-time stay-at-home parent is perfectly fine, and that's what was best for her family. But let's not forget that a) her family's income is what allowed her to do so, a luxury most American families can't afford, and b) her husband and his party are doing everything they can to make it harder for other families to survive on one income. If Ann Romney really wants stay-at-home parents to be valued and to have the support they need, maybe she should lay off some cable news talking head and have a chat with her husband.

“My career choice was to be a mother and I think all of us need to know we need to respect choices that women make," Ann Romney said today. I have some ideas on where we could start.