Courts likely to decide future of Amendment One

After North Carolinians voted to amend the state constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman as the only union recognized by the state, there continues to be widespread disagreement over the effects the amendment might have on state businesses and families.

Many experts and opponents of Amendment One have expressed concerns that the amendment creates uncertainty for unmarried couples, since state courts have not yet ruled on how to apply the amendment to existing laws.

Potential court interpretation could range from business regulation in the state to laws concerning the finances of adoption, domestic violence and custody arrangements of unmarried couples — both same-sex and opposite-sex — said Maxine Eichner, law professor at the UNC School of Law.

Boone Turchi, an economics professor at UNC, said many large corporations are looking for a diverse workforce, and many highly-educated workers are looking for a diverse environment to work in.

Turchi said it is very likely that businesses may view this amendment as an obstacle to the creation of such an environment. He said this might lead highly-educated workers and some corporations to choose other states for their business.

“A passage of an amendment like this could have a significant impact on jobs in the state and on companies that would choose to relocate to North Carolina,” said Ryan Butler, president of LGBT Democrats of North Carolina.

Turchi said private businesses will likely be able to continue offering benefits to same-sex couples, but there is less certainty surrounding whether public institutions will be able to do the same.

Many public institutions have sought legal advice to evaluate the impact of the amendment on their policies.

Joni Worthington, spokeswoman for the UNC system, said the system’s attorney is looking at the possible implications of the amendment on UNC policies.

Julia Vail, spokesperson for the N.C. Department of State Treasurer, wrote in an email that the state does not anticipate any impact on health or retirement benefits for state employees, but that her department is awaiting further legal interpretation of the amendment.

Supporters of the amendment have argued that similar laws have been passed in other states without any economic harm.

Sen. Jerry Tillman, R-Montgomery, said the amendment will have no effect on recruitment or job benefits offered to unmarried couples by private and public institutions, although he said that the courts could interpret this differently.

The disagreement over economic impact between the two sides is also mirrored in legal matters concerning unmarried couples.

Many family law experts are concerned that ambiguities in the amendment may cause courts to reconsider legal doctrines that have been applied in similar matters.

Eichner said it is conceivable, though not likely, that a court could rule the domestic violence statute unconstitutional when applied to unmarried couples.

She said in Ohio, where a similar constitutional amendment was passed in 2004, a lower-court ruling led to the dismissal of indictments and overturning of convictions in at least 27 cases of domestic violence involving unmarried couples before the state supreme court intervened.

Eichner said courts might modify policies on granting custody of children if they conclude that unmarried relationships are not in the child’s best interests. She said such an interpretation is plausible based on the amendment’s wording.

Supporters of the amendment have said it was intended solely to protect a traditional definition of marriage.

Tillman said the amendment merely confirms previously established state policy, and will not force any changes in legal doctrine. He added that most other states with constitutional marriage amendments have not altered legal precedent.

Orange-Chatham District Attorney Jim Woodall said his office will continue to prosecute cases of domestic violence involving unmarried partners.

But Butler said such matters will only be decisively settled in court.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if someone brought action against the amendment in the courts,” Butler said. “Give it a few weeks.”

Contact the State & National Editor at state@dailytarheel.com.