Cook: Amendment One is not straight talk

[struggle4progress]

Sunday, May 13, 2012 12:00 AM

... Mecklenburg County Commissioner Bill James was already trying to put the amendment to the test, tweeting on Tuesday night that it was time for Mecklenburg’s county government to “eliminate those illegal benefits” — i.e., benefits for gay partners — “as there is now only one ‘domestic legal union’ recognized in the state.”

James may be targeting gays, but the amendment could threaten straight partners who are unmarried. If one of them works for the government and takes advantage of insurance benefits for their family, a trap door has just appeared under the family’s feet.

The amendment takes a hands-off attitude to what private business does by including this sentence: “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.”

Notice two things about that sentence. It was not on the ballot, so most voters do not know about it. And the sentence says nothing about government contracts. So it leaves private business to do as it wishes and puts politicians’ hands firmly on the lever to that trap door beneath public employees’ feet ...

http://www.salisburypost.com/Opinion/051312-edit-cook-amendment-one-qcd

[Politicalboi]

1. I'm glad they're sharing this misery

With straight unmarried couples. LOL! I feel for those who voted No and are in this boat, but maybe they'll learn from this. We need more of this. If the straights are going to be affected, it's less likely to get passed in states that READ the proposition. We need more straight unmarried matters in civil rights laws for gays.

[struggle4progress]

2. LOL? Lemme guess: you didn't actually follow this until it was too late, did you?

Folk opposed to the amendment worked hard for months to point out these issues