Senate Bill 637 would amend North Carolina’s domestic violence protective order law to make clear that same-sex couples are covered by the statute’s definition of a “personal relationship.” Under current law, several categories of qualifying relationships are limited to “persons of the opposite sex,” including people who live or have lived together and people in a dating relationship. The bill removes those opposite-sex limitations so that same-sex spouses, cohabitants, and dating partners can seek domestic violence protective orders under G.S. 50B-1.
The bill is narrowly focused on the eligibility criteria for protective orders and does not change the substantive standards for obtaining an order. It would take effect when enacted and apply to domestic violence protective orders issued on or after that date. In practical terms, it would expand access to civil protection remedies for same-sex victims of domestic violence and align the statute with a broader, gender-neutral understanding of intimate partner relationships.
Impact
S637 would amend G.S. 50B-1(b), North Carolina’s domestic violence protective order statute, by deleting “opposite sex” language from the provisions covering cohabiting and dating relationships. This would expand the class of people who can qualify for a domestic violence protective order to include same-sex couples in those relationship categories, while leaving the rest of the protective order framework unchanged. The bill would affect courts, petitioners seeking protective orders, and respondents in domestic violence cases by broadening statutory standing and eligibility for relief.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally supportive or corrective sentiment toward the bill, with the measure framed as ensuring equal access to domestic violence protections for same-sex couples. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s title and text indicate a targeted civil-rights and public-safety purpose rather than a broader policy overhaul.
Contention
The main point of contention is the statute’s existing use of “opposite sex” in defining qualifying relationships for domestic violence protective orders. Supporters would view that language as excluding same-sex couples from protections available to similarly situated opposite-sex couples, while any opposition would likely center on changing long-standing statutory wording or the scope of qualifying relationships. No specific objections, amendments, or recorded dissent are included in the provided materials.