North Carolina Amendment 1

==Potential effects==
In a study by Maxine Eichner, Barbara Fedders, Holning Lau, and Rachel Blunk of the [[University of North Carolina School of Law]], the authors discussed how the wording in the proposed amendment could have legal implications beyond banning marriage between same-sex couples.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact">{{cite web | url=http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/dlureportnov8.pdf |title= Potential Legal Impact of the Proposed Domestic Legal Union Amendment to the North Carolina Constitution| format = [[Portable Document Format|PDF format]] | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120424184212/http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/dlureportnov8.pdf | archive-date= April 24, 2012}}</ref> A white paper authored by Lynn Buzzard, William A. Woodruff, and Gregory Wallace of [[Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law|Campbell Law School]] disagreed with many of those claims.<ref>April 2012. [http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Campbell-White-Paper.pdf Campbell White Paper] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120519041710/http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Campbell-White-Paper.pdf |date=2012-05-19 }} ''voteformarriagenc.com'' Retrieved May 10, 2012.</ref>

===Employee benefits===
Some said that all unmarried couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex, and their children that are receiving domestic-partner benefits as public employees would no longer be eligible for those benefits under this amendment.<ref name="amendment one">{{cite web|title=Marriage Amendment Would Affect Many People, Panel Says|url=http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/apr/16/wsmet01-marriage-amendment-would-affect-many-peopl-ar-2166456/|work=[[Winston-Salem Journal]]|access-date=April 23, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120420004132/http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/apr/16/wsmet01-marriage-amendment-would-affect-many-peopl-ar-2166456/|archive-date=April 20, 2012|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="Legal Effects">{{cite web | url=http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/updatedamendentpointsfinal.pdf|title= What You Should Know About the Legal Effects of Amendment One| format = [[Portable Document Format|PDF format]] | date= February 3, 2012 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120329110429/http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/updatedamendentpointsfinal.pdf| url-status=live| archive-date= March 29, 2012}}</ref> The second sentence in the amendment sought to address this issue by continuing to allow private-party contracts between employees and employers. For example, a private company could agree to extend health benefits to employees and their partners.<ref name="Catholic Voice">{{cite web | url=http://www.catholicvoicenc.org/Assets/NCMarriageProtectionAmendment-FactSheetFINALon12.1.11.pdf| format = [[Portable Document Format|PDF format]] | title= North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment Fact Sheet | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141015225548/http://www.catholicvoicenc.org/Assets/NCMarriageProtectionAmendment-FactSheetFINALon12.1.11.pdf| url-status=dead| archive-date= October 15, 2014}}</ref> However, since "domestic legal union" was untested language in the courts, the issue was considered likely to face litigation to determine what the actual meaning would be and how it would be implemented.<ref name="Understanding">{{cite web| url= http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=225626| title= Understanding North Carolina's Proposed Amendment One| date= April 18, 2012| author= Geary, Mark| archive-url= https://archive.today/20130121145624/http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=225626| archive-date= January 21, 2013| url-status= dead}}</ref>

===Legal protections===
In addition to restricting benefits to couples in domestic partnerships, the amendment could have also stripped protections for unmarried couples such as domestic violence and stalking protections.<ref name="amendment one" /><ref name="Legal Effects"/> If the courts had determined that the language used in the amendment invalidates protections for unmarried couples it could have harmed domestic-violence protections for that population.<ref name="Same-Sex Marriage">{{cite web | url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/-same-sex-marriage-north-carolina-amendment-1_n_1408756.html|title= Same-Sex Marriage: North Carolina's Proposed Ban, Amendment One, Could Create 'Legal Chaos'| date= April 9, 2012| author= Shapiro, Lila | work = [[The Huffington Post]] | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120410230217/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/-same-sex-marriage-north-carolina-amendment-1_n_1408756.html| url-status=live| archive-date= April 10, 2012}}</ref> After passing a similar constitutional amendment in Ohio, several courts ruled that domestic violence protections did not apply to unmarried couples and cases were dismissed or told not to press charges.<ref name="Same-Sex Marriage"/> The courts could have determined that validation of unmarried couples domestic legal union status would violate the amendment.<ref name= "Potential Legal Impact"/> However, the counter argument was that North Carolina's domestic-violence statutes were better defined and included protections for unmarried couples.<ref name="Fact and Fiction">{{cite web |url=http://crdaily.com/2012/04/amendment-one-fact-and-fiction/|title=Amendment One – Fact and Fiction |date= April 20, 2012|author= Darst, Brittany | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160202161443/http://crdaily.com/2012/04/amendment-one-fact-and-fiction/|url-status=dead| archive-date=February 2, 2016}}</ref>

North Carolina Statute 50B-1, Domestic Violence, states:

{{blockquote|(b)        For purposes of this section, the term "personal relationship" means a relationship wherein the parties involved

::(1)        Are current or former spouses;

::(2)        Are persons of opposite sex who live together or have lived together;

::(3)        Are related as parents and children, including others acting in loco parentis to a minor child, or as grandparents and grandchildren. For purposes of this subdivision, an aggrieved party may not obtain an order of protection against a child or grandchild under the age of 16;

::(4)        Have a child in common;

::(5)        Are current or former household members;

::(6)        Are persons of the opposite sex who are in a dating relationship or have been in a dating relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, a dating relationship is one wherein the parties are romantically involved over time and on a continuous basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary fraternization between persons in a business or social context is not a dating relationship.<ref name="Domestic Violence Statute">{{cite web | url=http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_50b/GS_50B-1.html|title= Chapter 50B| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110809093919/http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_50B/GS_50B-1.html | url-status=live| archive-date= August 9, 2011}}</ref>}}

Adoption and child-visitation protections were also in question. While North Carolina only allows adoption by one unmarried adult,<ref name="Fact and Fiction"/> 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, there were 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.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/> 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.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/> 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.<ref name="amendment one" /><ref name="Legal Effects"/> Although there are legal documents that can help protect medical and financial security (power of attorney, living will, medical power of attorney), these could have been contested in court based on the argument that they recognize a domestic legal union between the two parties.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/> Issues in estate planning could have arisen through increased litigation contesting wills of unmarried individuals, particularly those in same-sex relationships.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/> Again, the courts could have ruled that any recognition of a domestic legal union between unmarried partners would be unconstitutional and therefore rule those wills and trusts invalid.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/>

===Economics===
In addition to legal implications, there were concerns that the amendment would harm economic development and vitality. Some felt that business's employee recruitment and retention would be hurt if the most talented prospects did not feel that North Carolina was progressive or representative of their beliefs.<ref name="Biz Owners">{{cite web | url=http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2012/04/19/biz-owners-amendment-one-could-harm-business-economic-development/|title= Biz Owners: Amendment One Could Harm Business Economic Development| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120503021843/http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2012/04/19/biz-owners-amendment-one-could-harm-business-economic-development/| url-status=dead| archive-date= May 3, 2012}}</ref> Many [[Fortune 500]] companies have implemented policies protecting employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation, which would not be affected by such legislation.<ref name="Biz Owners"/>

===Public knowledge===
An April 2012 [[Public Policy Polling]] found that only 40% of North Carolina voters actually knew that Amendment 1 bans both same-sex marriage and civil unions, and among those voters who do know the effects of Amendment 1, they opposed it with 60% against and 38% in favor. Among the 27% of voters who thought Amendment 1 banned same-sex marriage only, they supported it with 72% in favor and 27% against, and with voters who didn't know what Amendment 1 did, they supported it with 64% in favor and 28% against. Among North Carolina voters who were informed about the effects Amendment 1 banning same-sex marriage and civil unions and then asked how they would vote, only 38% continued to support it, 46% against it, and 16% were unsure. When combined those who do and don't know the effects of Amendment 1 it found that 55% would vote for it, 41% would vote against, and 4% were unsure. It also found that 55% of North Carolina voters support legal recognition of same-sex couples with 27% supporting same-sex marriage, 28% supporting civil unions, 41% oppose any legal recognition of same-sex couples, and 4% were unsure. When asked what the effects of Amendment 1 would be, 40% of voters thought that Amendment 1 banned same-sex marriage and civil unions, 27% thought it banned same-sex marriage only, 26% were unsure, and 7% thought it legalized same-sex marriage.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_050112.pdf|title= Amendment One still up 14 points in N.C.| date= May 1, 2012|access-date= June 7, 2013}}</ref>