Obama bailed out of North Carolina visit as traditional-marriage amendment goes to voters

posted at 1:21 pm on May 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Is the new sensitivity on the gay-marriage issue at Team Obama really all that new?  Last week, the White House scheduled a visit to North Carolina today to talk about the economy, which would have been interesting enough in a state with a jobless rate above the national average.  With traditional-marriage Amendment One appearing to be headed for victory, the White House changed direction two hours later and said the President was unavailable to speak in the Tarheel State, a fact reported today in North Carolina:

President Barack Obama was scheduled, albeit briefly, to visit North Carolina on Election Day to make an speech in Asheville about the economy.

But the White House sent the notice Wednesday last week but reversed course about five hours later, saying the trip wasn’t taking place, according to a North Carolina congressional office notified about the trip. The false alarm isn’t unprecedented — but the fact the White House even considered visiting the state on primary election day is interesting.

A controversial vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions is on today’s ballot. Obama issued a statement against the amendment earlier this year — but polls show it is likely to win by a solid margin.

That decision preceded Joe Biden’s comments on Sunday, which makes it appear that Biden may really have gone off the reservation.  Had Obama spoken today, there is little doubt he would have had to address Amendment One at some point.  How could Obama have responded?  Arguing that he’s still “evolving” while publicly opposing the amendment would have produced some awkward and incoherent moments.  So much for leadership.

It’s a shame we missed that, but North Carolina’s embattled governor gave us a demonstration of what it would have looked like today.  Governor Bev Perdue backed the current statutory language banning gay marriage, but opposes the amendment to the state constitution that would put the issue out of the reach of activist judges.  Suddenly, Perdue thinks that this issue doesn’t belong on ballots and needs a “national conversation,” which prompts Chuck Todd to ask her how Perdue can possibly square this circle:

It’s a headscratcher, all right, especially the claim that this amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage.  Here’s the text of the amendment:

“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

So domestic partnerships would still be legal, as they are now in North Carolina.  The amendment only changes the status of the legal definition of marriage from statute to constitutional amendment while protecting private contracts such as domestic partnerships.  In other words, it’s only about same-sex marriage, not about taking rights away from anyone, as the Salisbury Post tacitly notes in their analysis:

What will happen if the amendment fails?

Same-sex marriage will remain illegal under a 1996 North Carolina law. Civil unions still will not be offered to either same-sex or opposite-sex couples, but the state could pass a law to allow them.

There will be no constitutional ban on either gay marriage or civil unions, meaning a state court could one day strike down existing law as unconstitutional.

What will happen if the amendment passes?

It will be added to the state Constitution, meaning a three-fifths majority of state legislators would have to agree to repeal it.

The amendment would prohibit both same-sex marriage and civil unions, or legal unions with equivalent rights to marriage.

Just as in Minnesota this fall, the amendment gives voters in North Carolina a chance to keep judges from redefining marriage from the bench.  That’s it.  And if Perdue and Obama agree that the legal definition of marriage should be one-man-one-woman and that any other definition should be reached through means of representative democracy rather than declaration by judicial fiat, they should have no problem with Amendment One.  Perdue — and Obama — want to have it both ways, and as Chuck Todd implies, that’s nothing less than sheer incoherence.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If I sit on a street corner and watch three guys beat and rape a woman, do nothing and refuse to even call the police. Can I really claim to be supporting that woman?
 
libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM

rogerb on May 8, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Not even voting “Present” on this one, is he?

/s

cs89 on May 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I Ran Into Tammy Faye Beverly Perdue At The Mall tee-shirts available

pain train on May 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

In case anyone’s interested…

pain train on May 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Leading from behind

cmsinaz on May 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Perdue — and Obama — want to have it both ways, and as Chuck Todd implies, that’s nothing less than sheer incoherence.

typico libero if you ask me, hypocrisy is a feature to them

DanMan on May 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Why can’t we all be more level headed and suspend voting on any referendums so our leaders can decide these issues for us without any political pressure?

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 1:29 PM

If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex.

How difficult does this need to be?

NeighborhoodCatLady on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Governor Bev Perdue backed the current statutory language banning gay marriage, but opposes the amendment to the state constitution that would put the issue out of the reach of activist judges. Suddenly, Perdue thinks that this issue doesn’t belong on ballots and needs a “national conversation,”

I see a trend here with Perdue. It seems the only voting that she approves of is are the ones that make her the governor.

“No, the people shouldn’t vote for their government in 2012, nor for this silly marriage issue. What they should be doing is talking about it a lot more, not actually doing something. This is very bad policy for politicians…this…this…voting thing.”

BobMbx on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

It’s really too bad the show was cancelled. I had my popcorn all ready to go!

Sasha List on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Perdue — and Obama — want to have it both ways, and as Chuck Todd implies, that’s nothing less than sheer incoherence.

I thought that was “nuance”.

Bitter Clinger on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

That decision preceded Joe Biden’s comments on Sunday, which makes it appear that Biden may really have gone off the reservation.

Well, it’s been Settled Science since at least early 2009 that 5-Time Draft Dodger Uncle Joe is 31/32nd Full Breed Idiot.

Pass the Indian, Please.

Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Too late for The DNC to change their convention site?

GreenBlade on May 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Evolution means never having to say you’re sorry….

apostic on May 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Economy
Jobs
Gas Prices
Food Prices
EPA Gone Wild
SCOTUS

JPeterman on May 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Where have I seen Bev before?

pain train on May 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Not even voting “Present” on this one, is he?

/s

cs89 on May 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

He’s discovered a new decision position: Yea, Nay, Present, and now Absent.

BobMbx on May 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Hello Obama from Asheville. I’m sorry you couldn’t make it just because we MAY be a little embarrassing for you. But I promise to make it up later, when I vote your sorry butt out in November.

Cheers, The Turt.

Turtle317 on May 8, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Lsm will still equate this ban as against rights

They don’t want to report the truth

cmsinaz on May 8, 2012 at 1:33 PM

lol at obama and bev trying to dance around the issue. watching them twist themselves into pretzels is a lot of fun!! =)

they know that a lot of north carolinians have a man-woman view of marriage… like i said on the other thread, the same-sex view supporters are very loud and vocal while traditional supporters are intimidated and name-called (“bigot,” “hater”) into silence. so there is this illusion of the same-sex supporters being more numerous than they really are…

still, i don’t want to assume the amendment passed- i’ll wait for the final results!!

also, i hope conservatives everywhere are supporting conservative local and congressional candidates. i tried to do that so i hope the best people win tonight.

Sachiko on May 8, 2012 at 1:34 PM

With traditional-marriage Amendment One appearing to be headed for victory

I certainly hope not, although I can’t say I’d be surprised or shocked if it does end up passing. Although, if nothing else, it has been extremely entertaining watching several vocal supporters of Amendment One embarrass themselves and their cause.

theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Most people think Perdue quit because Obama didn’t want her to be attached to him in the re-election. That is probably mostly true. It is possible, that she quit, knowing that there would be a primary for the Democrat candidate for governor and it would help increase turnout in the polls for the Amendment 1 vote.

LoganSix on May 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Obama bailed out of North Carolina visit as traditional-marriage amendment goes to voters

You mean the preeezy that got Bin Leeeedy….ran like a scalded dog??

Did someone say dog?

That O’Bummer…what a tool… hahahahahhhah…. :D

BigSven on May 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Too late for The DNC to change their convention site?

GreenBlade on May 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Heh. I think they really stepped in it with their convention this year. Not only is the current Democrat governor unpopular and unemployment state-wide still high, but he’s going to be accepting the nomination in a stadium named after the most hated big bank in the country. Priceless.

changer1701 on May 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM

When Bev Perdue was Lieutenant Governor, overseeing the state Senate, she prevented things like this amendment from even reaching a vote on the Senate floor. She ruled Senators “out of order” when they were not out of order. She ruled that certain topics were “not germane” when they absolutely were germane.

I’ll be happy to see Purdue removed from office.

ITguy on May 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM

That decision preceded Joe Biden’s comments on Sunday, which makes it appear that Biden may really have gone off the reservation.

The 3/425th’s of me that’s Cherokee (Northern England branch) resents hate speech! Now can I get some lunch?

Trafalgar on May 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM

“Bev” Perdue is not as smart as she sounds in this clip. Trust me.

SouthernGent on May 8, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Now headlining on DRUDGE:

RENDELL TO OBAMA: ‘Man Up’…

Isn’t that the whole gay-marriage argument in an, er, nutshell?

Bruno Strozek on May 8, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Arguing that he’s still “evolving” while publicly opposing the amendment would have produced some awkward and incoherent moments. So much for leadership.

Pretty much sums up the past 3 1/2 years.

rbj on May 8, 2012 at 1:44 PM

IMO, I hope Romney stays out of this. He has his position and everyone knows it. The democrats can’t seem to come together on this, and Obama is showing himself to be a real squish.

rubberneck on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I thought she looked familiar, remember this.

Suspend Elections Bev Perdue

MontanaMmmm on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Too late for The DNC to change their convention site?

GreenBlade on May 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Fraid so. The fake Greek columns have already been ordered.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Leading from behind

cmsinaz on May 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I see what you did there!

pain train on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex.

How difficult does this need to be?

NeighborhoodCatLady on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I don’t believe same sex marriage exists, so a a law sanctioning it is an oxymoron.

Not difficult to understand at all. Or perhaps you meant it should be ‘not difficult’ in the sense that people who disagree with you should give up. Perhaps liberals shouldn’t push so hard for government to be in the business of sanctioning and regulating every aspect of our lives. Then private institutions could do whatever they want and you wouldn’t have this problem.

Fenris on May 8, 2012 at 1:46 PM

MontanaMmmm on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

No, none of us recall that. Where did you dig up such obscure and defamatory nonsense?

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM

If you needed further proof that NC Dems are both stupid and incoherent, one of the front-runners to replace Chicken Bev is Bob “Whoeryew” Etheridge. The other is the absolutely invisible Walter Dalton, most well-noted for doing both jack and sh!t.

PJ Emeritus on May 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Not even voting “Present” on this one, is he?

cs89 on May 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

…JugEars has to be absent!

Leading from behind

cmsinaz on May 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM

…because he doesn’t want to want to lead… the bending over?

KOOLAID2 on May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I hope Romney stays out of this. He has his position and everyone knows it. The democrats can’t seem to come together on this, and Obama is showing himself to be a real squish.

rubberneck on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Romney needs to let the Dems beat themselves up as socially conservative blacks and the pro-sodomy crowd of liberals go at it. The public has not “evolved” to the point where same sex marriage is tolerated. Not even in California. In Maryland, it took a sneak vote in the middle of the night when, due to an illness which sent an opponent to the hospital, the pro-sodomy crowd was able to bully a bill through that could well go down in defeat when it and the DREAM act face public referendums.

That being said, Romney can’t just ignore the inevitable questions. What he should say is some generic concept about respecting all Americans and then hitting back by pointing out that the way to best approach to America’s problems is getting Americans back to work and the economy turned around from the morass that it has drifted under Obama and Democrats.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

“You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan,” Biden said of the bin Laden raid

Barry sneaks into Pakistan undetected and kills bin Laden with his bare hands but can’t stand up to the ‘Rainbow” crowd?

Gutsy call!

pain train on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Marriage should not have the adjective traditional in front of it as a modifier. Marriage is marriage as it always has been—between a man and a woman.

The word traditional is an extraordinarily weak description of an institution established across time and cultures. It’s usually quite location and/or time specific. IMO its use concedes that there may be other forms of marriage—which there are not. What is being advocated is an overthrow of the marriage and not an alternative.

INC on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

No, none of us recall that. Where did you dig up such obscure and defamatory nonsense?

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Just to make sure you are being sarcastic?
do I need more links?
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/new-audio-nc-governor-struck-serious-tone-on-suspending-congressional-elections/

MontanaMmmm on May 8, 2012 at 1:53 PM

“North Carolina?!?!? No, no, no. I thought you said North Korea.” – dear leader

Lost in Jersey on May 8, 2012 at 1:53 PM

That is, the word traditional is usually used to describe something location and/or time specific.

INC on May 8, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Maybe I am wrong but haven’t the various Republican primary days been a day set aside as a day when Obama makes speeches in the big states where primaries occurred? Come on Obama, it is almost like you are ignoring and well writing off North Carolina.

DVPTexFla on May 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM

If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex.

How difficult does this need to be?

NeighborhoodCatLady on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

If you want to get married, marry a member of the opposite sex, the way God and nature intended.

It’s only as difficult as you make it.

but polls show it is likely to win by a solid margin.

It will win. Any state that has been given the choice(and not having it ramrodded through by some judge following his own(and the activists/agitators) agenda, has chosen to keep marriage traditional in word and deed.

Liberals seem to only be “for choice” when that choice(on their side) involves and leads to their own or someone else’s destruction.

Sterling Holobyte on May 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Leadership? From President PRESENT!?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

GarandFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

the same-sex view supporters are very loud and vocal while traditional supporters are intimidated and name-called (“bigot,” “hater”) into silence. so there is this illusion of the same-sex supporters being more numerous than they really are…

Exactly. Same-Sex marriage supporters dont want to “talk” about the issue, they want to shame all those who are pro-traditional marriage, then claim that the majority supports their cause.

AverageJoe on May 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

theoddmanout, I fully expect NC to be on the wrong side of history on this one. Far more interesting will be how more liberal states vote when they consider/reconsider in the near future.

Oh, and the argument that this is about restricting judges isn’t very strong. If this were about judges, then one would expect an amendment that limited the power of the courts but still kept the normal options open. No, instead, as we have seen with reactions to states that OKed via the perfectly normal legislative route, at its core the debate over this issue is about the status of gay people and discrimination.

Civil unions for all. Marriage for all. Those are reasonable possibilities that treat people equally.

Separate but (not really) equal? Not a good thing.

McDuck on May 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM

MontanaMmmm on May 8, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Its sarcasm. Trust me.

Are you new (or fairly new) to HA?

BobMbx on May 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Lol koolaid

I tell ya, she ain’t no Jan brewer

cmsinaz on May 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

If NC wants to vote in bigotry, let it. I mean, it’s NC – not exactly a mecca for enlightenment. It’s already a national joke…let them finish the job.

It will be overturned somehow anyway. We always win in the end.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

INC on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Good point, INC!

I’ll change my own wording:

“…has chosen to keep marriage traditionalreal in word and deed.”

Ok, it’s not that great of a change, but it does imply that there is only one true marriage.

Sterling Holobyte on May 8, 2012 at 2:05 PM

What, no photo op with Silky Pony, like in ’08?

/

Christien on May 8, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Maybe this hits a little too close to home for Barry. Who’s right?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz? or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (President of Argentina)?.

Still waiting for Larry Sinclair to weigh in.

pain train on May 8, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Too funny. Dems can’t say what they believe, as usual. Go ahead, girls…I dare you.

Jaibones on May 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM

IMO, I hope Romney stays out of this. He has his position and everyone knows it. The democrats can’t seem to come together on this, and Obama is showing himself to be a real squish.

rubberneck on May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM

This is Obama and the DNC being entirely evasive – as in, politically manipulative – using this whole “sympathy for the gay/lesbian issues”…

Because Obama’s primary secure voter block, Blacks, are by high percentages against the idea of modifying marriage to include those who identify as homosexuals with persons of that same behavior. So Obama wants to keep them securely in his queue long enough to gain a second term, then he’ll “evolve” and announce he’s for “‘gay’ marriage” and it’ll be too late for those Black voters to do much of anything about it except try to maintain some sort of fascination for Obama for show.

“Incoherence” falls short of describing what the Democrats/Obama are up to. It’s not incoherent, it’s corruption. Either they want to modify marriage or they don’t. Obama is simply trying to worm his way again past November.

Lourdes on May 8, 2012 at 2:09 PM

It will be overturned somehow anyway. We always win in the end.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Who is this We?

bettycooper on May 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

the same-sex view supporters are very loud and vocal while traditional supporters are intimidated and name-called (“bigot,” “hater”) into silence. so there is this illusion of the same-sex supporters being more numerous than they really are…

Exactly. Same-Sex marriage supporters dont want to “talk” about the issue, they want to shame all those who are pro-traditional marriage, then claim that the majority supports their cause.

AverageJoe on May 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

You guys certainly called it! Example number one:

If NC wants to vote in bigotry, let it.
inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Sterling Holobyte on May 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

If I sit on a street corner and watch three guys beat and rape a woman, do nothing and refuse to even call the police. Can I really claim to be supporting that woman?

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM

rogerb on May 8, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Is this a trick question? The obvious answer is yes… you would be in a mosque and that the women in question had obviously not cooked a meal properly for her family and needed to be punished.

now if it was ramadan the the mullah would join in and then obviously have to remover her genitals aftwards since allah requires that.

acyl72 on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Who is this We?

bettycooper on May 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Educated progressives.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Ed, here is the official explanation of the amendment (under the link ‘Official Explanation of Constitutional Amendment’) as posted on the NC State Board of Elections:

A current North Carolina law enacted in 1996 says that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid in North Carolina. This amendment would make that concept part of the North Carolina Constitution. If this amendment is passed by the voters, then under state law it can only be changed by another vote of the people.

The term “domestic legal union” used in the amendment is not defined in North Carolina law.

There is debate among legal experts about how this proposed constitutional amendment may impact North Carolina law as it relates to unmarried couples of same or opposite sex and same sex couples legally married in another state, particularly in regard to employment-related benefits for domestic partners; domestic violence laws; child custody and visitation rights; and end-of-life arrangements. The courts will ultimately make those decisions.

The amendment also says that private parties may still enter into contracts creating rights enforceable against each other. This means that unmarried persons, businesses and other private parties may be able to enter into agreements establishing personal rights, responsibilities, or benefits as to each other. The courts will decide the extent to which such contracts can be enforced.

This amendment will not keep the courts out of the mix, it was sloppily written and the loopholes handed a lot of ammo to the Dems. Why they could not have just stated that gay marriages were a no-no is beyond me.

Dawnsblood on May 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM

He/she means the activist judges which the homosexual lobby will pay off to overturn the will-and votes-of the people. Nice how liberals are so “fair”, isn’t it?!

Sterling Holobyte on May 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Obama is passive-agressive over gay ‘rights’, which itself is a gay cliche.

But seriously, militant gays should realize that he is not their guy. They’ll still vote for him of course because the alternative is evil theocratic rethuglikkkans, but basically the LGBT ‘community’ needs to accept it has struck out. The half-white Jesus values his re-election prospects more than their crusade.

CorporatePiggy on May 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. How difficult does this need to be?
NeighborhoodCatLady on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I see, so we can just change definitions on our own and expect the rest of the world to live by our lights.

I want to change the definition of mortgage to gift. Ya think my bank will mind?

Akzed on May 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Oops, forgot the quote.

Who is this We?

bettycooper on May 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

He/she means the activist judges which the homosexual lobby will pay off to overturn the will-and votes-of the people. Nice how liberals are so “fair”, isn’t it?!

Sterling Holobyte on May 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Sterling Holobyte on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

If you don’t believe in same-sex INCESTUOUS marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex IN YOUR FAMILY.

How difficult does this need to be?

NeighborhoodCatLady on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Oppose Incestaphobes! Support legalizing daddy-daughter marriage today!

/

mankai on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Are you new (or fairly new) to HA?

BobMbx on May 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I guess I would have to say fairly new as commenter, lurker for a long time. I mostly comment at night, and not too much there either.

Mostly I just haven’t talked to NotCoach very much…
Guess it was too easy of a lay up, at least I didn’t say it was breaking news. I should have realized it was not news to this crowd.
Preachin to the Choir and all that:)

MontanaMmmm on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Marriage should not have the adjective traditional in front of it as a modifier. Marriage is marriage as it always has been—between a man and a woman.

The word traditional is an extraordinarily weak description of an institution established across time and cultures. It’s usually quite location and/or time specific. IMO its use concedes that there may be other forms of marriage—which there are not. What is being advocated is an overthrow of the marriage and not an alternative.

INC on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Agreed…

Similarly, when the Left refers to anyone not among the Left, it’s “the far-right” and “rightwing Republicans” and such. But the Left are always “just” “the Left” or Liberals/Progressives and outraged when they’re identified accurately as Socialists and some as Communists (Progressives are such).

It’s an issue of the Left continuing to try to control our very language — which is also why I find the whole “word banning” practice so offensive. It’s made possible by the Left’s domination of media, unfortunately: they start with the young and shape what words “mean” in a Leftwing, sociopolitical diction and not one that is sincere to language itself.

Lourdes on May 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM

inthemiddle, I agree that the SCOTUS will eventually strike down all SSM bans . The question is when. I think it will be sooner than most people think. There is a good chance that Justice Kennedy sees these bans for what they really are.

McDuck on May 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM

theoddmanout, I fully expect NC to be on the wrong side of history on this one. Far more interesting will be how more liberal states vote when they consider/reconsider in the near future.

Oh, and the argument that this is about restricting judges isn’t very strong. If this were about judges, then one would expect an amendment that limited the power of the courts but still kept the normal options open. No, instead, as we have seen with reactions to states that OKed via the perfectly normal legislative route, at its core the debate over this issue is about the status of gay people and discrimination.

Civil unions for all. Marriage for all. Those are reasonable possibilities that treat people equally.

Separate but (not really) equal? Not a good thing.

McDuck on May 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Of course. As you can clearly see from some of the comments on this article and several other articles, a lot of people who are against gay marriage view homosexuals as perverts, freaks, pedophiles, mentally diseased, depraved, and/or beneath “normal” straight people. They don’t want gays to be able to get married because they don’t want the government to treat and promote gays as being equals to straights. If that happens, it will become harder and harder for them to be able to convince their peers that homosexuals are deviant perverts who are sick in the head.

theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

If I sit on a street corner and watch three guys beat and rape a woman, do nothing and refuse to even call the police. Can I really claim to be supporting that woman?

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Can’t say, but you would be confirmed as a liberal.

“Maybe she deserved it…who am I to judge?”

And we conservatives would expect no less from you.

BobMbx on May 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM

inthemiddle, I agree that the SCOTUS will eventually strike down all SSM bans . The question is when. I think it will be sooner than most people think. There is a good chance that Justice Kennedy sees these bans for what they really are.

McDuck on May 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I agree. I think this vote will hasten the SC taking it up, which I encourage. Kennedy has been very sympathetic to gay rights and it will probably be 5-4 to legalize SSM.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM

theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Thanks, Saul, for assigning gross motives to your opponents. Very convenient.

Do you happen to support incestuous marriage and/or polygamy? How about an entire apartment complex getting married?

mankai on May 8, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Oppose Incestaphobes! Support legalizing daddy-daughter marriage today!

/

mankai on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Whoa there, hoss.

Since I don’t have a daughter of my own, I expect the government to provide me with one. Fair play and level playing field and all that.

BobMbx on May 8, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Educated progressives.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Since most “progressives”(and I use that term lightly because “progressives” don’t “progress” anything except immorality and lifestyles of self-destruction – that’s progress?!) are “educated” in government indoctrination centers(public schools) and then go on to be further “educated” by left-wing professors, your answer is one big honking oxymoron.

Sterling Holobyte on May 8, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Sterling Holobyte on May 8, 2012 at 2:05 PM—Thanks!
Lourdes on May 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM–Exactly!

Words are everything. Language inserted into political dialogue can be and is a propaganda tool. Definition of terms subtly shifts the argument and begins the erosion of ground. Let me go Orwellian here: “…if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought….What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them.

IOW watch out when people play Humpty Dumpty with words.

INC on May 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM

it will become harder and harder for them to be able to convince their peers that homosexuals are deviant perverts who are sick in the head. theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Two guys bolwing and sodomizing one another is a great basis on which to build a society. That’s why there have been so many societies built on gay marriage.

It’s so fruitful too, promising a great future for those societies. I mean, if you wanted to build a society that guarantees there will be plenty of young people around to take care of the old heads, then an exclusively homosexual culture is the one you want.

Perfectly natural, and no way anything could ever go wrong.

Akzed on May 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM

theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Marriage isn’t a “right” and that there are competency requirements of a various sort to enter in to marriage is hardly inconsquential to our — and to any — human civilization.

Lourdes on May 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I live in NC, and have been quite taken aback at the amount of hatred being spouted at those of us voting for the amendment. There is also a wealth of misinformation being shoved down our throats by gay marriage supporters. Have to say its nice to see Hotair finally address it!

conservativeswrker on May 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

If I sit on a street corner and watch three guys beat and rape a woman, do nothing and refuse to even call the police. Can I really claim to be supporting that woman?

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM

rogerb on May 8, 2012 at 1:23 PM

OH – yeah – you mean like Obama did with Neda, right?

Oh – and THEN he STAYED silent after he watched them MURDER her and she Bled to Death on The Street In Iran……

williamg on May 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

OH – ANSWER to Previous Post:

NO – President Obama was NOT “supporting that woman”

williamg on May 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM

http://youtu.be/q_qjsEzntcs

Ain’t a damn thing “progressive” about what you call your views

Happy guys with sad souls.
Nature’s got a funny way of taking back control.

Tradition and fidelity.
You love to hate them both in the name of sensitivity.

Two cents. ;)

mankai on May 8, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Who is this We?

bettycooper on May 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Educated progressives Indoctrinated proles.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Fixed that for ya.

UltimateBob on May 8, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Marriage is not about having sex it is about having children.

growl on May 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I can see why she is so popular in North Carolina. She, like Obama, tries to be all things to all people. Legislation means nothing – look at California. As soon as prop 8 was passed, a judge ruled it down as ‘unconstitutional’.

mouell on May 8, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Suddenly, Perdue thinks that this issue doesn’t belong on ballots and needs a “national conversation…”

Can somebody please tell me WTF is a “national conversation?”

Is everyone in the country, all 300+ million of us, supposed to sit down in one room and talk it over?

I believe it really means that these spineless politicians want to take some time and see that the blogs & talking heads are saying about it, watch some poll numbers, stick a finger in the breeze, and see which way the political winds are blowing before making a decision.

That’s a lot easier than, you know, actually making principled decisions.

UltimateBob on May 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Can somebody please tell me WTF is a “national conversation?”

UltimateBob on May 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM

It’s progressive code for “shut up and do what we tell you”.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Not even “present” anymore, champ?

President None of the Above.

He’s pathetic, but evolving – into an ex-President in November.

2008 will go down in the history books as a monumental error based on a combination of total deceit, white guilt, and needless hand-wringing to make “history”. Yep, history alright. Fortunately it’ll be corrected, by throwing this one-term jackass out in 2012.

Just a skinnier, slightly more educated and well dressed version of Al Sharpton.

Good riddance.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on May 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM

If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex.
How difficult does this need to be?

NeighborhoodCatLady on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

If you don’t believe in slavery, don’t own a slave. How difficult does this need to be?

If you don’t believe in murder, don’t kill anybody. How difficult does this need to be?

If you don’t believe in theft, don’t steal. How difficult does this need to be?

If you don’t believe in polygamy, don’t marry multiple women. How difficult does this need to be?

If you don’t believe in incest, don’t marry a close relative. How difficult does this need to be?

If you don’t believe in bestiality, don’t marry an animal. How difficult does this need to be?

Gee, this morality stuff might actually be more complex than you progressives would have us believe. Innnnnnteresting …

OhioCoastie on May 8, 2012 at 2:46 PM

If this passes, all clear thinking fair minded people shoudl boyucott the state. Cancel hotel reservations, heck dont even fly over the state until they chaqnge their bigoted minds.

Oh wait…

What about this event?

http://2012.democratic-convention.org/

Uh-oh, Houston,we have a problem!!!!

Mittens, you devious underhanded bastard!!!

patch on May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Mostly I just haven’t talked to NotCoach very much…

MontanaMmmm on May 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I do bite, so it’s understandable. :P

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I live in NC, and have been quite taken aback at the amount of hatred being spouted at those of us voting for the amendment. There is also a wealth of misinformation being shoved down our throats by gay marriage supporters. Have to say its nice to see Hotair finally address it!

conservativeswrker on May 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

You mean how voting for the amendment means you hate children because this amendment hurts children!?!?? Yeah, saw that on WRAL’s website which has been shilling sooooo hard for the amendment’s defeat. I’m sure the other news outlets have been shilling as well.

SouthernGent on May 8, 2012 at 2:59 PM

OT, but just found this:

BREAKING: Wikipedia deletes “Forward” entry showing link between Barack Obama’s new slogan and Socialism.

pambi on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Wow. Just wow.

How appropriate is it that Wikipedia’s logo shows a puzzle with pieces missing?

UltimateBob on May 8, 2012 at 3:08 PM

That being said, Romney can’t just ignore the inevitable questions. What he should say is some generic concept about respecting all Americans and then hitting back by pointing out that the way to best approach to America’s problems is getting Americans back to work and the economy turned around from the morass that it has drifted under Obama and Democrats.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Answering questions about same-sex marriage by bringing up the economy is kind of kinky and perverse, n’est pas? /sarc

Gladtobehere on May 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Educated progressives.

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

A rare breed, oops, sorry lizzy warren

doublee on May 8, 2012 at 3:10 PM

conservativeswrker on May 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

+1 from this corner of NC

mankai on May 8, 2012 at 3:17 PM

inthemiddle on May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Oxymoron

PJ Emeritus on May 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

OT, but just found this:

BREAKING: Wikipedia deletes “Forward” entry showing link between Barack Obama’s new slogan and Socialism.

pambi on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

It’s still possible to find the page cached at Yahoo by typing “Forward (generic name of socialist publications) wikipedia” into the Yahoo search engine. It might be worth making copies for later.

Gladtobehere on May 8, 2012 at 3:21 PM

“Forward…!”

… Ummmmm, on second thought…… no, wait…. ummmmmm… let me think about this……. ummmmmm…. anyone taste dog?….. ummmmm…. what do you think”?…. aaahhhhhh, ummmmmm….

Seven Percent Solution on May 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2