Opinion:   “Nothing in the Amendment prohibits local governments or the UNC System from offering or continuing to offer benefits to same-sex partners of employees or students, as long as they do not base it on a relationship like domestic partnerships or civil unions.



Fact:   The suggestion here is that local governments would be able to continue offering benefits to same-sex partners of employees, but only if they aren’t listed as domestic partners. The bounds of logic are strained here. How will the municipalities control which partners get benefits? Will they offer benefits to “roommates and acquaintances”? Currently, most insurers require an “Affidavit of Domestic Partnership” as a control for these benefits in the absence of a marriage license. The statement here suggests that, with the amendment in place, local governments could offer same-sex partner benefits to employees, but couldn’t require this affidavit or any other controlling mechanism whatsoever. So, the legal effect of the amendment would be to tie the hands of municipalities. They would not be able to offer same-sex partner benefits, because the only way to do that is by formalizing what it means to be a domestic partner. This statement offers a false solution to a very real problem affecting thousands of North Carolinians.