A question on gays that’s difficult to ask

Mecklenburg uncertain whether benefit violates Amendment One

by The Charlotte Observer  Charlotte News Alliance  
Published: October 13, 2012 in News

By The Charlotte Observer Editorial Board
Originally published by The Charlotte Observer: Friday, Oct. 5, 2012

Mecklenburg commissioner Bill James wants to know if the county is violating North Carolina law by offering domestic partner benefits to employees in same-sex relationships. The answer to that question might result in those benefits being lost, which might explain why James seems to be one of few county officials who wants to know. He is right to ask, however — whatever his motivation might be. James, who has railed against homosexuality regularly as a commissioner, questioned the county’s same-sex benefits policy in May, soon after North Carolina voters passed Amendment One, which made marriage between a man and a woman the “only domestic legal union.” In August, county manager Harry Jones directed deputy county attorney Tyrone Wade to gather information on the constitutional amendment’s implications.

Wade made his report to commissioners in a closed session during the first week in October, James and commissioners chair Harold Cogdell told the editorial board. Wade said there were “no good answers” regarding the legality of same sex benefits. Commissioners, he said, had three options: change the policy, which has been in effect since 2009, rescind the policy or do nothing.

James wondered if there might be a fourth option: Ask County Attorney Marvin Bethune for his full legal opinion. Commissioners can do so by putting such a request on the board meeting agenda, which takes three votes, then approving it. Cogdell, as county chair, can put the item on the agenda by himself, and Bethune also can offer his opinion at the request of County Manager Harry Jones.

Bethune told the editorial board on Oct. 4 that he hasn’t been asked for his legal opinion by Jones or the board, which hasn’t put the question on the agenda of the next board meeting. Cogdell said he won’t do it himself for what he calls a “political” matter.

We don’t doubt that James may be pushing the issue more because of his views on homosexuality than his desire to follow the letter of the law. But regardless of whether leaders like or dislike Amendment One, it’s the law, and cities and counties have an obligation to determine if their policies are in compliance.

That’s what Charlotte City Attorney Bob Hagemann has done. Earlier this year, Hagemann smartly requested a legal opinion on same-sex benefits from the N.C. attorney general’s office before the city begins offering those benefits next January. Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, told the editorial board that lawyers are still working on an answer.

Experts are split on the legality of the benefits, but agree that the courts will likely decide. We’re sure of this: It would be an injustice for gays to lose benefits because their union doesn’t fit someone else’s definition of marriage. We, along with Amendment One’s many opponents, warned that this kind of governmental discrimination might be a byproduct of passing the amendment.

Cogdell said the board might revisit the topic if the attorney general’s office tells Charlotte its benefits policy is illegal. Bethune guesses the issue will land on his desk eventually. There’s no reason for that not to happen now. Officials can avoid potential lawsuits by protecting the county with knowledge, even if it’s something they don’t want to know. : :

— Originally published by The Charlotte Observer on Oct. 5, 2012. Reprinted via the Charlotte News Alliance.

More on Amendment One

Keep up with the latest news on Amendment One, its ramifications and the continuing debate, along with other state legislative news, at goqnotes.com/in/ncga/.