More on the Marriage Amendment

Since I last wrote about the proposed Marriage Amendment, there’ve been several changes. I know I said I wasn’t going to do essays about it, but I feel the need to close the loop a bit at least.

I thought I was going to look up all the amendments done to the NC Constitution since it was last re-written (1971ish), and go through each of them to explain what they did. This, however, proved to be a somewhat daunting task because they’re not all attached to the end like they are with the US Constitution. I guess since there were typewriters, if not word processors, in 1971, they just added and deleted rather than hooking it on. It means that it’s hard as the dickens to figure out what the 28 or so amendments are, and the statute books aren’t very user-friendly in helping with the task.

So much for that.

What you’d find out is that the changes are, for the most part, very technical and work to eliminate and define errors in the original product. They don’t look to limit anyone’s rights, other than possibly the one about no one who’s ever been convicted of a felony being able to hold the elected office of Sheriff.

Then I was going to look at the impact on individuals and families in North Carolina, but most of the mainstream press has covered that pretty significantly. Interestingly enough, the legal scholars say it’s a bad idea – not ideologically, necessarily, but because the amendment is so poorly drafted as to be ambiguous. Nobody really knows what the consequences will be, but in a worst case scenario it may well mean that (a) unmarried heterosexual couples may be denied benefits they get now; and (b) the rules may well interfere with private contracts of both straight and gay couples.

Here’s why – although it’s unclear as to exactly what the language will be thanks to either the deceit or the incompetence of our legislature, the overall thought is that it will deny the validity of any contract based upon marriage to individuals other than one man to one woman.

So, suppose someone gets health insurance through a partner’s employer. You think that Blue Cross isn’t going to jump at a chance to say, “Oh, sorry – we didn’t realize your benefits were based on a relationship between people who aren’t legally married, so we can’t pay the $250,000 for your heart transplant. We will give back the $4,328 you paid to us in premiums over the last 16 years, though.”

Does anyone truly think that an insurance company is altruistic enough that they won’t look for ever potential loophole to get out of paying benefits? There’s a reason they pay their lawyers a bazillion dollars – and make huge donations to politicians – to insure that the wording of their contracts strictly comply with the law to allow them to avoid every possible claim and thereby maximize profits.

That’s not an indictment – it’s what private companies are supposed to do – make a profit for their shareholders! The problem is that we will once again see ‘big business’ working to benefit themselves rather than those individuals who legitimately think that they’ve contracted for a specific product.

They will, in effect, save this loophole to use when it benefits them the most. Of course, if you never get a major illness or have a significant claim, you wouldn’t ever know about this because they wouldn’t be looking for a way to avoid paying it. Thus, only those who are truly the most at risk will find themselves uninsured.

Furthermore, I predict that we’ll potentially see an impact on new and expanding businesses in this state, because we have a younger generation of those who will hold the creative and managerial positions.

That is one bright spot. While gay marriage may be a moral issue to those in the 50+ age group, age is a self-limiting affliction. We will die out eventually. On the other hand, those in the 30 and under age group for the most part couldn’t care less about it and surveys show that they tend to think that gay marriage should be allowed. It may take time, but it looks like even a popular vote will eventually win the day, although that’s of little comfort to those of us who live in the here and now.

So how will this amendment impact business? Think about this -- if you have creative companies that hire well-educated individuals who tend to hold jobs that pay in the upper ranges (such as in the Research Triangle Park), I suspect that you’ll find more and more of those young people who are looking at overall quality of life and not only organizations but communities that have ideologies that are compatible with their own beliefs.

These are the same kids that have seen their parents and grandparents laid off from long-term employment with companies where they were hard workers and did a good job for years because it was financially expedient to eliminate them or their positions. Let's not overlook the fact that Mitt Romney made his millions doing exactly that for his company.

This younger generation has come to understand that there is no loyalty from your employer, and it is therefore important that you begin to look out for your own interests -- secure your retirement, invest where you think appropriate, and just assume that your company would just as soon drop you as keep you. In part, this means that they are more demanding with regard to work / life balance and to looking at the quality of life overall rather than just where they spend their employment hours.

They negotiate these points and research them much better than prior generations, and are probably better at cost / benefit analysis than most of us were. As a result, if I’m looking to move my family and take a job, but I find out that my domestic partner isn’t going to be able to tag onto my employer-provided family health insurance, I may think twice (or more) about whether this is really the place I want to be. After all, those people can generally find employment in larger metropolitan areas in states that tend to be a bit more progressive.

If those companies can’t attract the help they want, they’ll either close or move. Either way, ALL the jobs leave - not just the upper echelons and thus a decision on the marriage amendment circles around to impact the wallet people who might otherwise be inclined to sit by and think, “That doesn’t affect me.”

Enough of this rant for today. Can’t guarantee that it’s over yet, but I’ll be looking for something different to talk about as we round out the year.