NC Amendment 1 is Not Anti-Gay

May 6, 2012 by John Smith

North Carolina has a law that basically states that marriage is between one man and one woman and the state only recognizes that form of union. Yet on Tuesday the citizens of the State will vote on a constitutional amendment that will define that law into their constitution.

Progressives have been incensed over this amendment. As well as they should. No state should have to define something as basic as marriage. However, as the Congress first settled this issue in 1894, with the Enabling Act. On Tuesday voters in North Carolina should reaffirm this by voting in favor of Amendment 1.

This is not very libertarian in thought but yet there is a viable reason. That reason is pulled from the Founders and our founding documents.

From the time of the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution there was no major change in these statements. Yet, North Carolina is now taking up marriage. Those citizens are not know for fast changes. This is a state that, once the Royal Governors were gone ended gubernatorial veto. After several hundred years of thought, over veto, they restored very limited veto to the governor in the 1990’s.

Now comes Amendment 1, “anti-gay” NOT. 3 reasons it is not:

1. Those that claim that it is against Judo-Christian beliefs would say, in its most basic form, that marriage is a sacrament (institution) that was ordained by God for the purpose of procreation. Government involvement in marriage was after the Church.
2. The United States of America law is derived from the Constitution and follows the tenants of English Common Law. Thusly, marriage under English Common Law has no known case of same sex marriage.
3. Marriage is a right that is guaranteed. No it is not a Right under our system. Rights do not come from the “State” under our system. Under our current system it will never be a right. Yet if it is something that makes you happy, you have the Right to pursue it, but you do not have the right achieve that pursuit, unless you wish to amend the US Constitution. Just ask Utah.

Reasoning Explained 

The Enabling Act was the legislation that set in motion accepting Utah as a State. One of the “requirements was to ban polygamy in the state constitution.” This left marriage as that between one man and one woman.

But is not marriage a Right or is it a privilege? The Founders of the United States that meet and publicly Declared that these 13 colonies were the United States of America. Wrote the answer:

“..they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Rights come not from man or government. That was the premise of the founding document and they supported that by further penning:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

The Solution

The solution to the so called “problem of same sex marriage” under the current system was given us under Roman law. It continued under English Common Law and continues to exist even today. Here is a Right (contract) that one whom is gay should not ever wish to surrender. Just compare marriage to this old Roman answer.

Marriage

• You are able to jointly own property
• Jointly control accounts
• Spouse has rights over other if medically impaired
• Spouse has right to depose of body at death, burial
• Hospital visitation
• Inheritance
• Insurance and other benefits
• Joint filing of taxes

Roman 

• You are able to jointly own property
• Jointly control accounts
• Domestic partner has rights over other if medically impaired
• Domestic partner has right to depose of body at death, burial
• Hospital visitation
• Inheritance
• Insurance and other benefits (depends on job and planning)
• Joint filing of taxes (depends on job and planning)

Compare: If you are looking for equal you should ask yourself what is wrong with me, why would I take a down ground for one or two pickups.

1. Under marriage your spouse cannot sign your name. Yet a domestic partner with a general power of attorney is able to just that. The power of attorney will give the domestic partner more rights than a spouse.
2. Joint banking is just that, joint. You do not need to be married to that. And you can add someone to an account to discuss the account.
3. You are in a coma: yes your spouse may direct treatment; however, a medical power of attorney will allow your domestic partner to do the same.
4. Burial: it is the same as number 3 you just need to have the paperwork drawn up.
5. Hospital visitation is achieved via items 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. Money is a great equalizer.
6. Insurance and benefits depends on what type of work you do and whom you work for. If you own your own business this is the super win. If you work for government it is a loss. Life insurance is the win-win in this scenario. If you have keep your personal credit separate and worked a plan (see item 7 below) this is where you win. Life insurance is payable to anyone or thing.
7. Taxes are where it is all at today. For the liberal reading this, this answer is based in part on the Kennedy’s. Get yourself a trust. See up a corporation. You need only look back to the days of 90 plus percent personal income tax on the top earners. A company in those days was paying about half. Talk to a tax attorney and estate planner. This may be set up in a way to not just benefit your partner but other heirs. It is possible to pay no inheritance tax if done right.

Equality is not always equal. Equality does promise equal, yet for equality to thrive, difference must exist equally. Just think for a moment; if everything was equal all would be the same, there would exist no difference, just bland and like. The promise of equal is that we start equal with basic equal rights. Equality is the force that would allow someone to become Bill Gates and not Charles Manson.

Related Posts

Tags

Share This