North Carolina Amendment 1

===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"/>