《天没有塌下来:北卡罗来纳州婚姻修正案的意义和法律影响》

E. Wallace
{"title":"《天没有塌下来:北卡罗来纳州婚姻修正案的意义和法律影响》","authors":"E. Wallace","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2259702","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In May 2012 North Carolina became the thirty-first state to define marriage as involving only opposite-sex couples when it amended its constitution to provide that \"[m]arriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.\" There was much disagreement prior to the vote about the meaning and potential legal effects of this provision. Led by law professors from every law school in North Carolina, opponents of the Amendment claimed that it not only would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, but also would threaten a wide range of legal benefits and protections given to all unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, including existing domestic violence and child custody, adoption, and visitation laws. They also claimed that the Amendment's passage would lead to a flood of litigation over its meaning. A year has passed and none of these predictions have come true. This article addresses the political controversy over the Amendment and how courts likely will rule on its scope and legal effects. It explains why opponents’ claims about the Amendment’s far-ranging \"unintended consequences\" were never likely to occur in North Carolina. It also provides a guide for resolving Amendment-related legal issues should they arise in litigation in North Carolina or other states with (or considering) similar amendments.","PeriodicalId":87421,"journal":{"name":"The American University journal of gender, social policy & the law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Sky Didn't Fall: The Meaning and Legal Effects of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment\",\"authors\":\"E. Wallace\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2259702\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In May 2012 North Carolina became the thirty-first state to define marriage as involving only opposite-sex couples when it amended its constitution to provide that \\\"[m]arriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.\\\" There was much disagreement prior to the vote about the meaning and potential legal effects of this provision. Led by law professors from every law school in North Carolina, opponents of the Amendment claimed that it not only would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, but also would threaten a wide range of legal benefits and protections given to all unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, including existing domestic violence and child custody, adoption, and visitation laws. They also claimed that the Amendment's passage would lead to a flood of litigation over its meaning. A year has passed and none of these predictions have come true. This article addresses the political controversy over the Amendment and how courts likely will rule on its scope and legal effects. It explains why opponents’ claims about the Amendment’s far-ranging \\\"unintended consequences\\\" were never likely to occur in North Carolina. It also provides a guide for resolving Amendment-related legal issues should they arise in litigation in North Carolina or other states with (or considering) similar amendments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American University journal of gender, social policy & the law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American University journal of gender, social policy & the law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2259702\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American University journal of gender, social policy & the law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2259702","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2012年5月,北卡罗来纳州修改宪法,规定“一男一女之间的婚姻是该州唯一有效或认可的家庭合法结合”,成为第31个将婚姻定义为只涉及异性伴侣的州。在投票之前,对这一规定的含义和潜在的法律效力有很多分歧。在北卡罗来纳州各法学院的法学教授的带领下,该修正案的反对者声称,它不仅会禁止同性婚姻、民事结合和家庭伴侣关系,而且还会威胁到所有未婚夫妇(无论是异性恋还是同性恋)的广泛法律利益和保护,包括现有的家庭暴力、儿童监护、收养和探视法。他们还声称,修正案的通过将导致对其含义的大量诉讼。一年过去了,这些预测没有一个成真。本文讨论了围绕该修正案的政治争议,以及法院可能如何裁决其范围和法律效力。这也解释了为什么反对者所声称的修正案范围广泛的“意想不到的后果”永远不可能在北卡罗来纳州发生。如果在北卡罗来纳州或其他有(或考虑)类似修正案的州发生诉讼,本指南还为解决与修正案有关的法律问题提供了指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Sky Didn't Fall: The Meaning and Legal Effects of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment
In May 2012 North Carolina became the thirty-first state to define marriage as involving only opposite-sex couples when it amended its constitution to provide that "[m]arriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." There was much disagreement prior to the vote about the meaning and potential legal effects of this provision. Led by law professors from every law school in North Carolina, opponents of the Amendment claimed that it not only would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, but also would threaten a wide range of legal benefits and protections given to all unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, including existing domestic violence and child custody, adoption, and visitation laws. They also claimed that the Amendment's passage would lead to a flood of litigation over its meaning. A year has passed and none of these predictions have come true. This article addresses the political controversy over the Amendment and how courts likely will rule on its scope and legal effects. It explains why opponents’ claims about the Amendment’s far-ranging "unintended consequences" were never likely to occur in North Carolina. It also provides a guide for resolving Amendment-related legal issues should they arise in litigation in North Carolina or other states with (or considering) similar amendments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信