The unintended consequences of Amendment One

Today, voters in North Carolina will decide whether the state constitution should be amended to ban same-sex marriage.  However, Patrick at Popehat explains that the amendment as worded goes farther.  Much, much farther:

Despite the existing statutory definition of marriage as between a “male and female person”, a number of same sex (and opposite sex) couples have done everything they can to create a relationship which gives them, to the extent possible, the benefits of marriage.  I will interview such a couple later in this series of posts.

This is done through wills, grants of power of attorney for health care and financial decisionmaking, and, where employers offer it, declarations of domestic partner status granting access to employer-provided health and insurance.  A number of local governments in this State offer such benefits to declared domestic partners of their employees, including the County in which I reside.  If the Amendment passes, these benefits will become unlawful immediately.

This is because the Amendment goes much further than existing law.  It states that the only “domestic legal union” that shall be “valid or recognized” in North Carolina is an opposite sex marriage.  The term, “domestic legal union” is not defined, but it surely includes within its sweep the arrangement discussed above.  Such unions will not be “recognized” (meaning to have their existence acknowledged) by any court.

This means that, for domestic partners of employees of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham County, the city of Durham, Greensboro, Mecklenburg County, and Orange County, a list that includes two of the State’s five largest counties, and two of its five largest cities, all such benefits will end immediately.  They may also end, or become much more difficult to enforce, for domestic partners of private employers, many of which offer such benefits as an employee recruitment tool.

[...]

North Carolina, like every other State, gives social workers and courts the power to remove a child from a household when it is deemed to be “in the best interests of the child”.  While it is biologically impossible for same sex couples to produce children, such couples adopt children frequently, particularly in States where they can marry.

If Amendment One is ratified, it will become much easier for police or social workers to justify seizing such children, in the “best interests” of the child, even if the child was adopted in another State by a same sex couple lawfully married in that State, because such relationships are against the public policy of North Carolina.  Likewise, it will be easier for District Court Judges to justify such seizures.  An appellate court may reverse such a decision, but when was the last time you paid for an appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina?  It isn’t cheap.

If Amendment One passes, my advice to same sex couples married in other states, particularly where children are involved, would be never to bring those children to North Carolina.  North Carolina has lovely mountains and beaches, but so does Maryland and so do many others states which don’t enshrine discrimination in their Constitutions.

These considerations also apply to custody and visitation for biological parents of children who later enter same sex relationships (it happens).  It will be much more difficult for those parents to establish custody or gain visitation rights in North Carolina, no matter how good they are as parents.

Amendment One is expected to pass, unfortunately.  But the Speaker of the GOP-controlled State legislature knows which way the winds are blowing, in the long run:

State House Speaker Thom Tillis, a Republican from a Charlotte suburb, said even if the amendment is passed, it will be reversed as today’s young adults age.

“It’s a generational issue,” Tillis told a student group at North Carolina State University in March about the amendment he supports. “If it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Two related stories

Canada:

A Nova Scotia teenager who made international headlines for getting suspended from school after wearing a T-shirt with a Christian message didn’t attend classes on Monday and may be leaving the school for good.

William Swinimer, a Grade 12 student at Forest Heights Community School in Chester Basin, N.S., was suspended last Monday after repeatedly wearing to class a bright yellow T-shirt with the slogan “Life is wasted without Jesus” despite a request from the principal not to.

On Friday, the suspension was reversed and he was expected to resume classes on Monday, wearing the shirt. The school had planned to hold a special talk about religious freedoms.

But instead, he arrived on campus early Monday morning with his father, who abruptly pulled him out of the school, saying he doesn’t want anything to do with the school’s planned discussions about the balance between religious freedom and students’ rights to not have their beliefs criticized. [emphasis added]

India:

CR 61/2012, Juhu Police Station, has been filed against miracle-buster Sanal Edamaruku, who is also founder-president of the Rationalist International, which has scientists such as Richard Dawkins in it.

The FIR [apparently a First Information Report -EV] has been filed under IPC Sec 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs….

The whole story began on March 5, when during a TV programme in Delhi, Sanal dismissed reports that the “dripping cross” outside Vile Parle’s Velankanni church was a miracle….

Later on March 10, Sanal attributed the water dripping from the Jesus statue to capillary action of underground water near the cross. His photographs, displayed on TV-9, showed seepage on the wall behind the cross and on the ground near its base. “I removed one of the stones covering a canal for dirty water nearby, and found that water had been blocked there. Once water is blocked, it will find an outlet, if not downwards, then upwards. Every student knows that trees get water through capillary action.” [emphasis added]

There is a right to freedom of expression, or a right to not be offended. Pick one.

Posted in Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Nova Scotia | 1 Comment

“Life is Wasted Without Jesus”

If you’re a Christian, you probably think that statement is just common sense.  If you aren’t a Christian, you probably rolled your eyes and moved on.  And if you’re an administrator at Forest Heights Community School in Chester Basin, you think it’s hateful speech meriting suspension from school:

William Swinimer was suspended from the Forest Heights Community School in Chester Basin for five days on Monday, after he defied the principal’s instruction not to wear a yellow T-shirt sporting the phrase “Life is wasted without Jesus” anymore.

He’d worn the shirt to school several times before he was told two weeks ago that another student had complained. That was when he was told to leave it out of his school week wardrobe.

Swinimer says he never intended to be rude or disrespectful, but he’ll keep wearing the shirt because he stands behind its message.

“That’s my opinion, but under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms I’m allowed to have my opinion and express my opinion,” the Grade 12 student told CTV’s Canada AM on Friday.

“The only reason I’m wearing the T-shirt continually now is because I’m standing up for my rights as a Canadian citizen.”

But according to South Shore Regional School Board Supt. Nancy Pynch-Worthylake, the problem is not that the shirt sports a religious message, but that this particular message appears aimed at denigrating those who don’t agree.

“We do ask that our students are expressing their views in a way that could not be interpreted by other students as a criticism of their beliefs,” Pynch-Worthylake told CTV Atlantic on Thursday.

A good test case: let’s get a female student at Forest Heights to wear a shirt reading “Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries” and see what happens.

More here and here.  If a teacher was using his position in a public school to promote his religion, I’d understand the controversy.  (There’s also some suggestion that Swinimer has been aggressive in confronting other students about his Christian beliefs, which wouldn’t necessarily merit a suspension, but could at least be said to be imposing on other students’ rights.)  But “keeping religion out of the schools” doesn’t mean students shouldn’t be allowed to express their religious beliefs.  Unless you’re in France, at least.

At least one student has gotten the message: if you see something that offends you, whine about it until it’s removed from your sight.

Grade 11 student Niall Barkes told CTV Atlantic that interpretion is within reason.

“I’m an atheist myself and I’m kind of offended because he’s basically stating that my life is wasted without Jesus, it’s just not a fair statement at all and I think the reason for him getting suspended is reasonable,” Barkes said.

I believed a lot of obnoxious, self-righteous things when I was your age, too, Mr. Barkes.

Posted in Constitutional Law, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Nova Scotia | 3 Comments

Insert your own “Jazz Singer” reference here

On one hand, she may have her daughter taken into care. On the other hand, she’s almost certain to get her own show on TLC.

Posted in Child Welfare | Leave a comment

“Father of peace studies,” hater of Jews

If this kind of thing surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention:

Johan Galtung, Norwegian sociologist nicknamed the “father of peace studies,” made anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks while lecturing at the University of Oslo, in an article published afterward in the Norwegian press and in an interview with Haaretz that followed.

Among other statements, Galtung claimed that a possible connection exists between the terrorist responsible for the massacre of children in Norway last summer, and the Mossad. “The Jews control U.S. media, and divert for the sake of Israel,” wrote Galtung in an article published in Norway.

He pointed out that one of the factors behind the anti-Semitic sentiment that led to Auschwitz was the fact that Jews held influential positions in German society.
Galtung also recommended reading “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” – one of the most popular anti-Semitic texts in the world.

[...]

In the correspondence with Haaretz, Galtung mentioned what he calls the “ambiguity of everything human.” To explain, he raised examples from the Middle Ages and the modern period. According to Galtung, “The terrible programs,” carried out upon the Jews, had another “problematic” side as well. “The Jews played a role in demanding payment from indebted peasants,” wrote Galtung.

According to Galtung, “terrible Auschwitz,” had two sides as well. “[It was] not unproblematic that Jews had key niches in a society humiliated by defeat at Versailles,” wrote Galtung, referencing Germany following World War I. Galtung continued, “In no way, absolutely no way, does this justify the atrocities. But it created anti-Semitism that could have been predicted.”

Another claim, made by Galtung in a Norwegian periodical, is that Jews control the American media. “Six Jewish companies control 96% of the media,” wrote Galtung. He included the names of journalists, publishers, TV networks, and movie studios, that he claims are controlled by Jews. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch was also included on the list. “He’s not Jewish, but many of the people under him are,” wrote Galtung, in reference to Murdoch. “Many of them are fanatically pro-Israel,” he pointed out. Immediately following these claims, Galtung wrote that “seventy percent of the professors at the 20 most important American universities are Jewish.”

Galtung bases his doctrine on an article written by William Luther Pierce, founder of the “National Alliance,” a white supremacist organization. The same article inspired Timothy McVeigh to carry out the Oklahoma City bombings that killed 168 people in 1995.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

If it’s too good to be true…

A proposed Egyptian law that would allow a man to have “farewell intercourse” with his late wife for up to six hours after her death is the perfect symbol of how that country has deteriorated since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak.  It’s also, according to the Christian Science Monitor, complete nonsense:

It was soon mentioned in an English language version of Al-Arabiya and immediately started zipping around social-networking sites. By this afternoon it had set news sites and the rest of the Internet on fire. It has every thing: The yuck factor, “those creepy Muslims” factor, the lulz factor for those with a sick sense of humor. The non-fact-checked Daily Mail picked it up and reported it as fact. Then Andrew Sullivan, who has a highly influential blog but is frequently lax about fact-checking, gave it a boost with an uncritical take. TheHuffington Postwent there, too.

There’s of course one problem: The chances of any such piece of legislation being considered by the Egyptian parliament for a vote is zero. And the chance of it ever passing is less than that. In fact, color me highly skeptical that anyone is even trying to advance a piece of legislation like this through Egypt’s parliament. I’m willing to be proven wrong. It’s possible that there’s one or two lawmakers completely out of step with the rest of parliament. Maybe.

But extreme, not to mention inflammatory claims, need at minimum some evidence (and I’ve read my share of utter nonsense in Al Ahram over the years). The evidence right now? Zero.

There was a Moroccan cleric a few years back who apparently did issue a religious ruling saying that husbands remained married to their wives in the first six hours after death and, so, well, you know. But that guy is far, far out on the nutty fringe. How fringe? He also ruled that pregnant women can drink alcohol. Remember, alcohol is considered haram, forbidden, by the vast majority of the world’s Muslim scholars. Putting an unborn child at risk to get drunk? No, that’s just not what they do. Whatever the mainstream’s unpalatable beliefs (there are plenty from my perspective) this isn’t one of them.

It’s important to remember that the structure of the Muslim clergy is, by and large, like that of a number of Protestant Christian sects. Anyone can put out a shingle and declare themselves a preacher. The ones to pay attention to are the ones with large followings, or attachment to major institutions of Islamic learning. The preacher in Morocco is like the preacher in Florida who spent so much time and energy publicizing the burning of Qurans.

Related: 5 Clearly Fake News Stories That Fooled the Media.

Posted in Family Law, Media | 2 Comments

If you’re an American who bought Nutella between January 1, 2008 and February 3, 2012, it’s time to cash in.

Posted on by | Leave a comment