Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Repercussions from Amendment One vote?


Hello. Welcome to O-Pinion. I'm associate editor Fannie Flono, your host today.

No need to wonder what folks are talking about today. The buzz is all about North Carolina's vote approving a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage - a ban that wasn't even necessary since N.C. law has banned same-sex marriage for 16 years. The amendment of course goes further than the state ban of course. It outlaws civil unions and domestic partnerships as well which several legal experts say affects straight and gay couples who are unmarried.

Here's what some other pundits had to say about North Carolina's vote:
From the conservative Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Bell takes note of the vote's impact on the issue platform of Democratic National Convention: "Yesterday’s overwhelming approval of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions by the voters of North Carolina underlines the growing likelihood that the issue will be a major factor in the 2012 presidential election," he wrote.
"The gulf between the American people and what the Democratic party is likely to write into its platform this September in Charlotte is rendering the issue of gay marriage unavoidable this November. The unanimity of Democratic elites has made a gay marriage platform plank unstoppable. The Republican platform will continue to oppose gay marriage, and by election day more voters than ever before will be aware that, for better or worse, reelection of the Obama-Biden ticket could well mean federal imposition of gay marriage in the president’s second term."
Bill Kristol, the Standard's editor, takes note of the "cultural divide" in Tuesday's vote. "Take a look at the county results. Orange (which includes the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and Durham (Duke) voted 5 to 1 and 5 to 2, respectively, against the amendment. Neighboring counties like Alamance, Person, and Granville were 2 to 1, or more, in favor. So there's a pretty considerable culture gap between adjacent counties in North Carolina."

Alex Roarty of the National Journal joins Bell in taking the long view - of how North Carolina's marriage amendment vote will affect the presidential elections
"The overwhelming North Carolina vote to define marriage as legal only between a man and woman is an unequivocal reminder that gay marriage remains unappealing in many parts of the country, even as its support grows overall nationally," he writes.

"That’s a warning for President Obama, who is currently positioned somewhere between supporters of gay marriage – who include campaign backers and members of his own administration -- and resistant voters like those who helped pass the gay marriage ban this week in the Tar Heel State... Obama’s description of himself as 'evolving' on the issue amounts to a public flirtation, and has prompted speculation that he’ll become a gay-marriage supporter in time for the Democratic National Convention this summer in Charlotte. But the president is counting on North Carolina and demographically similar states, like Virginia, to lift him to a second term. Assuming an unpopular position on such a high-profile issue is politically perilous in those states and others where he may need every last vote to beat back Republican foe Mitt Romney."

Shane L. Windmeyer, a national LBGT leader in higher education, wrote in the liberal Huffington Post that "this constitutional amendment vote brought out the worst in the people of our state. The divisive nature of the political atmosphere was disheartening along with the disappointment of the final vote." But he concluded that "all this vote proves is that education takes more time. As individuals became educated about the amendment, their support for passing the measure declined. And with more time, more conversations, we will undoubtedly win. History is on the side of equality in North Carolina and for all LGBT Americans."

This editorial board thinks history is on that side too. It's a shame voters in the state - but not here in Mecklenburg County, thankfully - decided to look to the past, and repeat civil rights mistakes that many lived to regret, rather than to the future.

Remember Tim?I couldn't resist including this tidbit from the Daily Kos' election round-up about North Carolina's primary: "(David Jarman): Is the name Tim D'Annunzio sounding vaguely familiar? He's on track to be the GOP's nominee in NC-04. (A path to sheer irrelevance, of course, seeing as how that already-blue district got transformed into a 70%+ Obama vote sink.) If you don't remember him, he made it as far as the runoff in 2010 in old NC-08, despite the fact that he's crazy. And not just "crazy" in the Allen West/Joe Walsh sense of being unable to rein in his mouth, but in the clinically insane sense, as in (for starters) believing that he found the Ark of the Covenant in the Arizona desert."

It's great to get mentioned in the national news. Isn't it?

15 comments:

anziulewicz said...

I'm sure there are plenty of high-fives going around at the offices of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and all the other groups that fought so viciously against marriage equality in North Carolina. So congratulations, you issued Gay couples in that state a setback ... for now. I still take comfort in knowing that sooner or later Gay and Str...aight couples in the U.S. will be treated equally.

Exactly how is allowing Gay couples the exact same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted going to affect 'traditional marriage?" Marriage equality for Gay couples will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to “teach” about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage.

Instead you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do Straight voters get to decide that the rights that they take for granted should NOT apply to Gay Americans?

RVaughn said...

Surprised the Opinion Staff is out of bed today. Figured the hissy fit was going to have many calling in sick.

Waaaaa

Waaaa

Waaaa

States Rights, People Have spoken, get over it.

Ghoul said...

Wow Fannie, this is like 3 blogs in a row where you have allowed comments. You must be softening in your old age.

aNON said...

Gays a major issue?? Talking about fiddling while Rome burns oh eh yeah they had plenty of Gays in Ancient Rome also....

Archiguy said...

aNON - It may interest you to know that not only Rome had gay people, they're present in every single human society that historians and anthropologists have studied, along with every group of humans on the planet from Americans to Australian Aborigines.

And the really remarkable thing about that? It's that the percentage of gays in the overall population always hovers around 2-4%. It doesn't get selected out by evolution, so it has to have other origins Someday we'll know what they are. Enlightened Christians tend to think it is that way because God wants it that way.

Homosexuality has also been seen in some 1500 animal species. It appears to be universal and persistent. Why, we don't know, but the very existence of these facts makes it highly unlikely that any of these people, much less all those animals, chose to be gay. Would you not agree?

Reasonable, sensible, rational, logical-thinking people see no point in discriminating against such a large group that appears to be exhibiting a normal variant of human behavior. That's what the evidence consistantly shows us.

CarolinaDrums said...

Fannie:

Sorry to disappoint you but the so-called "victory" in Mecklenburg County wasn't that big - something on the order of 15K votes. So your silly comment "This editorial board thinks history is on that side too. It's a shame voters in the state - but not here in Mecklenburg County, thankfully - decided to look to the past, and repeat civil rights mistakes that many lived to regret, rather than to the future." is just that, silly and misleading.

Wiley Coyote said...

Carolina Drums...

You mean like Obama taking NC by only 14,000 votes....

Riiiiight... No difference.

1 vote or 14,000.

Wiley Coyote said...

Carolina Drums...

You mean like Obama taking NC by only 14,000 votes....

Riiiiight... No difference.

1 vote or 14,000.

J said...

Are you liberals ever going to stop dismissing those who disagree with you as backward, stupid, knuckle-dragging neanderthals?

Also, to say that the amendment is unnecessary because there is already a law against gay marriage is over-simplifying our structure of government. A law can be challenged in court, and potentially thrown out for being unconstitutional. An amendment to the constitution banning the practice eliminates the law's opponents from challenging the law on Constitutionality grounds.

I voted for the amendment. I spent more time debating with myself on which way to go than any other vote I have ever cast. I am a Christian, and I also recognize the danger of legislating morality. It was a tough call for me.

What it boiled down to for me is that I do not believe this is a civil rights issue. I do not hate homosexuals, I just disagree with how one enters that realm (I say it's a choice, others believe it's how you are born).

So yes, I voted for the amendment. And no, I am not a backward, stupid, bigoted, knuckle-dragging neanderthal.

I wish there could be disagreement on political issues without everyone calling those with opposing views names.

anziulewicz said...

"I do not hate homosexuals, I just disagree with how one enters that realm (I say it's a choice, others believe it's how you are born)."

TWO QUESTIONS:

1: Have you ever asked a Gay person if they felt they had a choice in the matter?

2: Did you make a conscious choice to become heterosexual, or was it something that just sort of came naturally?

J said...

anziulewicz - to answer your questions...

1) Yes. I have a gay cousin and a few years back I reported to a manager that is gay. Both are quite adamant that they had no choice in the matter. I don't argue the point; it's not my role to judge them.

2) It is my belief that the only natural attraction is to the opposite sex (I have a hard time believing the research that archiguy cites in his comment).

As I stated in my first post, I am a Christian, and use the Bible as my guide. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the Bible about whether homosexual relationships are permitted (they aren't). But as I also said, that is my belief, and I know there are many who do not share that - hence what I said about the dangers of legislating morality.

I sense you disagree with me. That is fine. I just hate it when people on either side of an issue dismiss the opposing opinion as a stupid, backward, racist or intolerant opinion.

SirWinstonChurchill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SirWinstonChurchill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SirWinstonChurchill said...

The progressives, like the homosexuals, want to first molest the minds of children and then molest their bodies later.

People just don't want to pay public welfare benefits for two lunatics sodding off all day.

Muslims would just kill homosexuals.

Taking into consideration broken clocks tell the correct time twice each day, maybe "spread the other cheek" is not a good public policy.

In your unabridged Oxford Dictionaries, the word "faggotry" denotes the bundling of steel to be hammered or rolled together.

Mammalian evolution is entirely heterosexual.

Monogamy is not required for evolution, monogamy is a tenet of religion.

To prohibit polyandry and polygyny is an ecclesiastic rule of law.

To establish an ecclesiastic standard of monogamy for homosexuals is nothing but RELIGIOUS FAGGOTRY.

James Allen said...

Women everywhere are different, but what may be a difference is that (typically) with women here you may speak more openly with each other early on in the relationship and be less hesitant to hold back the 'freakier' things. Not that I think Anal and Toys are freaky, but there are plenty who do. One of the things I like about online meeting is the more candid conversations you tend to have early on that don't happen for a LONG time when all conversations are purely face to face.
live sex mobile