NP Rank:
Amendment 1: Check Here for Live Results (North Carolina Primary)
Check Here for Results on Amendment 1: North Carolina Marriage Referendum
North Carolina votes in the Primaries on May 8, 2012. However, with Mitt Romney a virtual lock for the GOP nomination, the only aspect of the North Carolina Primary truly worthy of national attention is Amendment 1.
Live Results from North Carolina Primary: Amendment One:
Amendment One is also the subject of potential voter fraud in several NC districts.
What Does Amendment 1 Do?
Amendment One, erroneously described as a referendum on same-sex marriage, would change the North Carolina state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and also render civil unions and domestic partnerships ineligible for legal protection.
In other words, the state of North Carolina could interpret Amendment 1 to strip hetero or gay couples of their rights to manage their relationships. This would mean that, if you are in a relationship other than a heterosexual marriage, you could be banned from:
- Domestic partnership insurance could be eliminated
- Domestic violence protection would evaporate
- Unmarried partners could be barred from visiting loved ones in hospital
- You could be prevented from making medical decisions for your partner should the need arise
Amendment 1 is so fundamentally vague and broad as to place your relationship in the hands of whomever happens to be in office. Think for a moment of what this will do to the legal system as well: civil suits will stack up like firewood.
So far, though, North Carolina voters are in favor of Amendment One... even though they don't properly understand what Amendment 1 does. We won't tell you how to vote, but, if you think you're voting against same-sex marriage, be sure that you realize that you are also voting against your own rights.
UPDATE: It looks like Amendment 1 has been passed.
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
-
NowPublic Staff
Vancouver, Canada
Recommendations (3)

Anonymous users (3)




Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (27)
- Sign In or Join to post comments
lol"facts" (not verified)at 11:49 on May 8th, 2012
Actually, this page is completely fraudulent in regards to Amendment 1. The rest of the amendment reads. "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." So there, lgbt folks can still have insurance/benefits/etc. It just won't be called marriage.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Time to Evolve (not verified)at 13:41 on May 8th, 2012
1) The NC ballot reads "...marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." If the point on "private contracts" is to make allowance for domestic partnerships and civil unions, then what does the clause "only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized" mean?2) And if, as you've implied, the "rest of the amendment" assures that other domestic legal unions--so long as they're not called marriage--afford the same rights, then what entity recognizes them if the State won't? (And why isn't the "rest of the amendment" on the ballot?)3) There is no "private contract" which offers all the rights afforded by marriage or other "domestic legal union."
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Austinhatesthisamendment (not verified)at 16:23 on May 8th, 2012
The fact that it won't be called "marriage" is discriminatory in and of itself. That is like saying gay and lesbian people can have technically the same rights, you just can't call it the same thing. All amendment one is is seperate but equal. It's unconstitutional and ignorant.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
facts (not verified)at 16:27 on May 8th, 2012
The full text of the amendment: " Constitutional amendment 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."i.e. There is no "other part of the amendment." That's it.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Aerin (not verified)at 17:00 on May 8th, 2012
Actually, that sentence was in the original draft of the amendment but was removed.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Aerin (not verified)at 17:01 on May 8th, 2012
Actually, that sentence was in the original draft of the amendment but was removed.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Christopher Morris (not verified)at 17:27 on May 8th, 2012
I don't want "marriage". I want my rights as a US Citizen, and as a human being. I, personally, don't care what it's called. I want to be treated as an equal member of society. This amendment only serves to further remove/restrict the rights of "non-traditional" families.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
dummies (not verified)at 17:31 on May 8th, 2012
"It just won't be called marriage"?LBGT folks have never had the right to call their partnerships "marriage" in NC and if you really believe that this law isn't taking away rights from non-marriage partnerships, this law would be redundant.Unfortunately it is taking away rights from thousands of NC residents. And you my friend...are delusional.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
What? (not verified)at 12:31 on May 8th, 2012
I don't think YOU understand. You and your partner can enter into as many private contracts as you'd like with each other. It won't grant you the same rights the state grants under marriage. Those rights are granted by a relationship with THE STATE, not between you and your partner.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
harvinator (not verified)at 17:02 on May 8th, 2012
It's very odd (and very telling) that supporters of the amendment try to justify it on the basis of its own irrelevance. "It won't grant you the same rights the state grants under marriage." Guess what, those rights already aren't granted. In fact there's a very clear existing law prohibiting the state from granting such rights, a law that would not be affected one bit if the amendment were to fail. So what the (*&^@$$ is the point of this amendment? It only has any relevance if it's taking away or prohibiting existing civil rights -- from same sex partners, and from heterosexual couples who've chosen not to get married. The amendment WILL do this and that IS the point.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
hdpaxt123 (not verified)at 18:02 on May 8th, 2012
What? What makes you think that lgbt should not have the same rights as you and I. Also do you really think that heterosexuals don't have partners, too. They are just choosing not to get married, but since they are heterosexual they can call it a common law marraige or domestic partnership. If they are married what happens to them with this law. LGBT are NOT second class citizens and do NOT deserve any less than anyone else. The Bible should not dictate our laws and if I remember correctly God says we should not judge that he is the only one that will pass judgement. What would you call what this amendment is doing?? It's fueled by hate and it's disgusting!!
- Sign In or Join to post comments
ThankingGodForAmendmentOne (not verified)at 20:25 on May 8th, 2012
" if I remember correctly God says we should not judge that he is the only one that will pass judgement. What would you call what this amendment is doing??"Well you see, the problem is that there are more verses in the Bible other than just Matthew 7:1 ("Judge not, that ye be not judged"), which political and religious liberals are so often quoting. Maybe it's the only one they know? (since most of them probably haven't read the Bible through). The Bible also instructs to, "Judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24); or in other words, to discern what is right from wrong according to God's revelation and act accordingly in obedience. The point is, in order to understand what God is saying, the reader must take each chapter and verse *in context* with the entire message conveyed in both the Old and New Testaments. The fact that God created the institution of marriage and family, and thus He is the only One who can define them; that He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah partly on account of homosexuality; that homosexual and lesbian sexual acts were punishable by death as revealed in Leviticus; that Jesus Christ never once mentioned or sanctioned homosexual unions, or referred to marriage as being other than a man and a woman; that the Apostle Paul reiterated the same principle in Romans 1 -- all this and more indicates that erotic expression between two people of the same gender is outside of God's original design and intention for His creation.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Don'tThanksGod,ThankNCCongress (not verified)at 09:11 on May 9th, 2012
By not passing judgement, as per God's will, wouldn't that mean one should not get involved in a movement pursuant to the removal of another's civil liberties due to moral differences? By acting according to a just God's will, wouldn't doing the right thing mean that each man strives to live righteously in his own life? At what point does this give one man the right to impose righteousness on another? Isn't that by your own opinion God's role? I believe we are all aware with the Church's opinion on the sanctity of marriage and the suggested immorality of homosexual unions. The fact of the matter is that marriage as defined in Amendment 1 is a State-issued contract, and as such, should the state have the power to define marriage in a similar manner to the way it is defined by the Church? Sadly, the population of NC has voted "yes" to this question. However, I personally find it appalling that the NC State legislature would even consider passing an amendment in which the voting majority limits the civil rights of a minority group. Is this in itself not in grave opposition to the very struggle that spurred the American Revolution: "Taxation Without Representation??" I don't blame the voting population of NC, who simply exercised their constitutional right to vote for a constitutional amendment (an amendment which ironically limits the rights of their fellow NC residents). I blame the politically-minded congress which found it more important to polarize the voting population in favor of their own job security during a an election year at economic crisis. Shame.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
ron l (not verified)at 16:29 on May 8th, 2012
admendment 1 ,is great if passes. liberals, have lied to people about what it does. nothing changes except homosexuals ,lesbians cant get married in nc .which was true anyway. what they do with each other is a crime against nature.its their business, just keep it away from normal god fearing familys.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Believes in the Constitution of the USA (not verified)at 16:53 on May 8th, 2012
That's ridiculous. We should not be able pass an amendment that makes it impossible for citizens to have equal rights. The bible should not figure into legal decisions. It's funny that many of the people FOR this amendment don't know how to spell or punctuate. Like I've seen written, this segment of the population is undereducated, unsophisticated, and takes the easy path to making decisions... not thinking. It's sad.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
dummies (not verified)at 17:37 on May 8th, 2012
You are the reason the rest of the country is looking at NC residents like we are all ignorant and oppressive a** holes.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
hdpaxt123 (not verified)at 18:13 on May 8th, 2012
This is ignorant! I had hoped that in 2012 the minds of people would be more open than it was 100 years ago, but NOPE! Your thought process is disgusting. Why should anyone regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, etc be given LESS rights than everyone else. Also you want to talk about what they do being a crime against nature....how about the animals that have homosexual tendencies?? HMMM??? God asks us not to judge, and what are you and everyone else who is for this doing....oh, your judging!! Also I'd like to point out that divorce rates are HIGH, how is that for a sacred union. Because if it doesn't work out, divorce is an easy out! I've known lgbt couples that have been together longer than "Normal God Fearing" ones. If what they do is their business, then why the heck are you getting into it by supporting this amendment? No one is asking you to attend the wedding, no one is asking you to allow it in your church, and no one is asking anyone to officiate who is against it...all they want is to be able to get married and have the same rights. This Amendment is teaching hate and unacceptance to our children..it's ridiculous.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
justice prevails (not verified)at 17:10 on May 8th, 2012
the ignorance of some people is truly disturbing, this bill is nothing short of a civil rights violation. It is equally disturbing that the Bible is consistently referenced in what is purely a discriminatory ammendment. Sorry, i thought we had grown beyond this type of disrimination and am saddened to see that people are still manipulated by fear and hatred.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
madashell (not verified)at 17:37 on May 8th, 2012
this country was founded because people in england were tired of the church dictating what kind of lives they should and would have to lead, by passing this amendment, we are no longer seperating church and state. this will just fuel the fire for their "my way or no way" crap. watch, soon, they will try to pass a law to have sex out of marriage illegal. the only people not in jail will be their hipocrital selves.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
EveryDude (not verified)at 17:42 on May 8th, 2012
I believe what people are failing to realize is that this amendment is so broadly worded that they don't understand what it means. The problem is that this issue has been circulated in the churches as 'oh no, homosexuals, god wants us to stop them. It is immoral and unethical.' However, in actuality homosexuals (I could care less what you want to do with your life, I'm a live and let live kinda guy) are merely a scapegoat in this issue. The fact of the matter is that same-sex couples already can't get married in the state of NC, this is NOT news. So, one might ask 'why even bother with ammendment one in the first place? Nothing's going to change.' WRONG. The fact is that this will change a LOT. This is part of the government taking your freedoms in order to perform a self-correction of the pitiful hole they, themselves have dug. A lot of people don't realize is that this has NOTHING to do with same-sex couples (as being previously mentioned that it's already a no-no in the eyes of NC). This ammendment is the begining of the end of robbing us of our freedoms one by one, supported by the ignorant and underinformed. For example:My in-laws are VERY religious, however, like many others in the state of NC, VERY misinformed. As I stated earlier, the selling point of this ammendment and the sole reason it's gained so much steam is by using homosexuality as a 'hot button' issue. I went to their house the other day and they had a 'Vote FOR ammendment one' sign in their yard... One of my wife's cousins has down syndrome, her parents are split and the husband married my wife's Aunt, hence making the child her cousin. Although her lazy, drug addicted Mom has primary custody, she can't afford any of her medical expenses (but can go through a 4 pack of Starbucks Frappaccinos every day). Therefore, the child is on her father's insurance (my wife's uncle). If ammendment one passes, undoubtably unbenounced to my inlaws, the child will LOSE the right of her father's insurance benefits simply because her parents are not legaly married at this juncture. This is the problem with extremely broad laws being passed. People draw attention to it on the 'main' issue, but don't realize the possible ramifications that it bring, take scenario 2 for example:Let's say said child with down syndrom's mother falls deathly ill, or is in a car accident. The father therefore (due to them being not legally married at that juncture) would have NO say in the medical process and NO decision making when it came to the child, who in turn would be turned over to the state.Way to go NC. Way to push hate as one of our state's cornerstones, you all deserve a round of applause. If you voted 'Yes' on this ammendment, you are a pitiful, ignorant sad little speck of existance on this earth... I hope you're satisfied.-D
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Guy perkins (not verified)at 17:49 on May 8th, 2012
A lot of relationships are not legally recognized by the state, like most of my friendships. Further, civil unions are not legally recognized by the state currently. I'm certainly not afraid that if one of my friends were to hit me the state would not intervene and punish the offender. Just because the state doesn't legally recognize a relationship doesn't mean it doesn't recognize the rights of those persons making up that relationship. So, as far as pointing out that the statute - if passed - has no bearing on what is already illegal (i.e. gay marriage) it should also be pointed out that even if the statute is passed the homosexual civil unions which are currently in existence, which aren't legally recognized by the state currently, will remain unrecognized. How is this a violation of rights? There are no current rights for same-sex civil unions in NC, since those unions are not even reconized by the state as of yesterday and any day previously.The marriage amendment constitutionalizes the current understanding of marriage, as between one man and one women. The end...that's it. An authoritative report authored by law professors at Campbell University refutes the erroneous claims espoused by radical liberals that would have us believe that the amendment is about anything other than the meaning of marriage. It can be found here:
- Sign In or Join to post comments
inNC (not verified)at 06:21 on May 9th, 2012
You could be prevented from making medical decisions for your partner should the need ariseThis is untrue! It would depend on how has medical power of attorney, also know as HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY, legal document that you can sign at anytime naming anyone you trust. And yes this person dose not have to be your spouse or significant other, but it could be.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Katlyn (not verified)at 07:25 on May 9th, 2012
The private contracts part is for businesses. If businesses decide to insure the partners of individuals then they can be insured. This has nothing to do with civil unions or anything. Civil unions don't exist anymore. They put that in there to cover their asses with the few businesses that will allow the coverage of partners, but in all reality what business is going to voluntarily cover someone if they don't have to?
- Sign In or Join to post comments
jellybeans (not verified)at 14:34 on May 9th, 2012
I would like too say,If these gay people want to be together going against GOD,go move some where else.Why are you here trying to change our belief in GOD? It is so hard for you to respect how we believe and yet you look for our understanding.The simple fact is,GOD did not change for his son and he is not going to change for no one else.One day all will be over,trust us,that day is close and it is going to be too late.Have you not seen how the scriptures are for filling fast? Look. how about reading the book of REVEALATIONS?
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 15:33 on May 9th, 2012
If gays can have gay rights then the religious should have religious rights and proprietary right of control of everything they invented. Marriage being one social construct among many that came from religion. Gays need to find another name for being recognized in their society and a procedure that doesn't infringe on the territory of the religious. What we need is more special interest rights that further separate society into neat boxes. We have LGTB rights, women's rights, children's rights, no men's rights yet, have to fix that in the name of equality, no religious rights, no prostitutes rights yet, shame on society for that's the oldest profession. No fetal rights the killing season is open 365. I could keep going but, as you all can plainly see we have a long way to go before all of us have our rights before the courts.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
sally brown (not verified)at 16:19 on May 10th, 2012
To talk about judging; Don't want to hear it.Some people get judged on how they look.Why can't I go to a job interview in ragged clothes besides dressing up?Why are black males target for how they dress?The list goes on.We don't hate people, WE HATE SIN.And we also get onto our kids for sin.Yes we all are born in sin and shaped in eniquitity[BUT] when GOD open your eye's to sin,you try to reframe from it. Strive to do the right things.So why are christians hated.?You judge one you've judged us all.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
collegegradlawkid (not verified)at 20:01 on May 11th, 2012
I would like to say to everyone that yes this can be a very touchy subject but everyone must understand there is no evidence stating that insurance will be lost for children, no protection for the abused will be lost. In fact those are opinions stating that it "could" change not that it will. Many people are being misled with the ads and personal opinions. The facts show that this amendment is exactly what it reads and no more.This amendment is a spiritual preference. Like christians the homosexuals have their opinion and no one should be called ignorant based from their spiritual belief. Everyone has to live with their choices in this life. It is a given right for this country's citizens to vote how they see fit based upon their belief. No one is ever going to see the same on any issue. Though I agree everyone wants everyone to understand their point of veiw, I would disagree that everyone does. It's human nature. I would like to say that I am a very proud christian and have been taught to love everyone despite who they are and no matter what they have done that I may feel is wrong. I don't judge anyone. In fact I have many close friends who are homosexuals and they understand my vote which is for the amendment. They never judged me because they know my belief and and support my decision. I never judged my friends because I love them dearly. My friends and I have researched the facts on the amendment and found NO FACTS to show the changes or any to come as stated above. They were OPINIONS and mostly from ads, libral voices, and statements from individuals like you and I. If I am wrong I will be honored for someone to state the facts of changes coming or ones that have taken place from official resourses not opinions. Once I check out the resourses, I will retract my statement that this amendment doesn't change insurance or protection. Let me know for those of you who have resourses about the facts only please.