Open thread: Lugargeddon; Update: Mourdock wins; Update: Lugar hits Mourdock’s “unrelenting partisan mindset”; Update: NC bans gay marriage and civil unions; Update: Massive GOP turnout for Scott Walker; Update: Obama facing stiff challenge in WV from … federal inmate

posted at 5:21 pm on May 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

The polls in Indiana close promptly at 6 p.m. ET. If you believe the latest numbers, we’ll get a call sooner rather than later. How did it come to this? WaPo:

At the start of 2011, Lugar met with senior party strategists who walked him through the mistakes made by the likes of Murkowski and Bennett — and emphasized how he too was vulnerable unless he took a far more aggressive approach to the possibility of a primary fight. Lugar chose not to heed those warnings.

Instead, the senator seemed to believe — wrongly — that his situation was unique, that his connection to voters in the Hoosier State went deeper and was, therefore, tougher to break than those of his losing colleagues…

“Conventional wisdom is that he should have gone nuclear early, but that would have killed him out of the gate,” said one Republican strategist who has worked in the state and is sympathetic to the incumbent. “Indiana would simply not have accepted that from him.”

The other problem for Lugar, according to the source, was that there was never a clean hit available on Mourdock that matched the incumbent’s support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), his votes on judges, nagging residency questions, and, yes, the friendliness between him and President Obama. (Lugar has been floated as a possible Defense Secretary in the Obama Administration.)

Contrast Lugar’s lackadaisical approach with Orrin Hatch’s aggressive backstage maneuvering to make sure this year’s Utah GOP convention was more favorably disposed to him than the last one was to Bob Bennett. The result: Lugar’s headed for retirement while Hatch came within a whisker of clinching the nomination outright and will probably win the runoff against Dan Liljenquist. Assuming it plays out that way, the conventional wisdom among Republican incumbents will be set in cement. From now on, if you see a tea-party challenge coming, you follow the McCain/Hatch approach and confront it proactively and expeditiously. There’ll be no more Bennetts or Lugars who get caught napping in the primary; from now on, everyone’s awake. I’m not sure how grassroots conservatives will counter that but I’d bet on a bigger role for outfits like FreedomWorks and the rise of tea-party Super PACs which can aggregate funds and launch damaging broadsides against incumbents before they’ve consolidated a lead against their primary opponents.

As for why a nice man like Dick Lugar needs to be retired, James Antle sums it up:

Peggy Noonan also stressed family ties when making the case for sending Lugar back to the Senate: “What Washington needs is sober and responsible adults.” Noonan didn’t disclose who the children were in this relationship.

But it is the sober and responsible adults who have accumulated a national debt larger than the country’s economy. There are two ways to demonstrate one’s sobriety and responsibility in Washington: to be as supportive of druken sailor-style fiscal irresponsibility as possible or to be as timid as possible in opposition to it.

Over in the Greenroom, Karl reminds Noonan that she seemed to have a handle on this logic not so long ago. Simply put, if you’re bracing for a brutal political war over sustainability in the age of entitlements, you’re probably not going to get much from a genial grandfatherly type whose tenure has seen more than $14 trillion added in federal debt. (Same goes for Hatch, do note.) More from Dan McLaughlin:

As I’ve noted before, besides the various ideological and cultural divides within the GOP, a core dividing line is over a sense of urgency to contain the runaway growth of federal spending and the reach of the federal government. It is difficult to picture Lugar and Hatch, as a pair of courtly octogenarians, having the necessary energy not only to seek what is apt to be a difficult partisan confrontation over these issues, but to put pressure on a president from their own party. And while Utah voters will surely be excited to go to the polls for Romney, conservative voters in other states like Indiana will need more encouragement – not yet another message that the establishment has shut them out. That’s good news in Ohio, where a fresh face (State Treasurer Josh Mandel) is on the ballot facing accused wife-beater Sherrod Brown; it may be more difficult to manage in some other races. And building a critical mass of such candidates (Mandel, Liljenquist, Mourdock, Ted Cruz in Texas, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Don Stenberg in Nebraska, Mark Neumann in Wisconsin, possibly a few others who haven’t proven themselves just yet) will make it easier to convince conservatives nationwide that even with Romney at the top, and even with some Senate races where we are resigned to moderates (Dean Heller, Scott Brown, Linda Lingle) or establishment-minded conservatives (George Allen), the party has not completely lost touch with the lessons of its victories in 2010.

Beyond all of this, on a gut level, the careerism evinced by an 80-year-old pleading for one more term in the Senate after serving 36 years is simply grotesque. (Again, same goes for Hatch.) I used to oppose term limits on grounds that the people should be fully free to choose their representatives but over time I’ve come to think the greater danger than slightly limiting their choices is letting a permanent political class calcify. If you want bold solutions to grave national problems, one surefire way to encourage them is to free politicians from reelection considerations. Give ‘em two terms in the Senate and, let’s say, six in the House and you might finally see some movement on entitlements. Might.

Here’s the Google Elections page for tracking results. Two other important races tonight. First, in Wisconsin, Democrats will choose a recall challenger for Scott Walker. Labor’s candidate is Kathleen Falk but Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is favored; the contest is bitter enough that a post-election party unity rally has been canceled, so sit back and enjoy as Trumka and his pals in Wisconsin fume. The other big contest is the North Carolina vote that would ban gay marriage — and civil unions. If the last poll is right, the vote won’t be close: It’s 55/39 in favor of the ban in a state O won in 2008, which helps explain why he’s keeping his head down on this subject this week. Gallup’s out with a new gay-marriage poll today too showing 50 percent support nationally versus 48 percent opposition, but the key is the demographics. Greg Sargent:

It’s been widely reported that Obama fears coming out for marriage equality because it could alienate culturally conservative Dems and independents in swing states. Perhaps, but sizable majorities of moderates and independents support it, making Obama’s stance all the more mystifying (though no one believes he actually opposes it).

That said, there is one other interesting data point: Gallup tells me that non-college voters oppose gay marriage by 56-43. This appears to include African Americans, but it also suggests blue collar whites — a demographic Obama has alienated and needs to win back — risk getting put off over the issue. (Incidentally, as Molly Ball points out, non-whites oppose gay marriage in almost exactly the same proportions as the rest of Americans do.)

That’s why President Gutsy Call makes his flack go out to the podium and give ridiculous non-answers like this. The polls in Carolina close at 7:30 ET. Stand by for updates, needless to say.

Update: Looks like the Google Elections link I gave you is following the by-now-meaningless presidential primary results. For Lugar/Mourdock returns, click here.

Update: That didn’t take long. Lugar’s Senate career is over.

NBC News has declared Richard Mourdock as the projected winner in the Indiana Senate primary. Mourdock defeated Republican foreign policy elder statesman Sen. Richard Lugar…

Looking toward the November election, National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said two weeks ago that “it will probably make it more of a contest if Sen. Lugar is not the nominee, but I’m confident we’ll hold the seat.”

Not such a good night for this guy either, huh?

Update: What now for Lugar, then? He’s eager to work for another six years despite his advanced age, but he hasn’t been a private-sector guy for a long, long time. He’s friends with Obama so presumably The One will appoint him to something. Any ambassadorships open? Forget Pakistan; I mean something less stressful.

Update: Go figure that a careerist would turn bitter when finally forced to answer to his constituents.

Of Mourdock, Lugar says: “His embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance.”

More:

Lugar: “Our political system is losing its ability to explore alternatives. … Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions.”

Jonah Goldberg joked earlier on Twitter that they’ll be wearing funeral attire tomorrow on “Morning Joe.” He’s only half-kidding: Prepare for a solid day’s worth of truly insufferable media navel-gazing about the “loss of moderation” and tea-party “radicalism,” yadda yadda yadda.

Update: Philip Klein sees the value in sending a message to Romney:

Any elected Republican that doesn’t pursue a small government agenda once in office risks suffering the same fate as Lugar. Had Lugar hung on, then a lot of people would have dismissed the Tea Party as a passing fad from 2010. But now it’s clear that the movement has been underestimated once again. Tea Partiers have a lot more staying power than skeptics expected.

With the Republican presidential nomination going to the ideologically malleable Mitt Romney, supporters of limited government have recognized that their best hope for advancing the conservative agenda rests on the ability to elect as many principled conservatives to Congress as possible. That is, lawmakers who will be willing to fight for smaller government even if it means standing up to a president of their own party. The more victories the Tea Party racks up, the greater the chance that Romney will be forced to govern as a limited government conservative if elected, even if his natural inclination is to migrate to the left.

Update: Very curious. Looks like the prepared statement that Lugar released earlier was much more critical of Mourdock than the remarks he ended up delivering. Compare and contrast. Maybe his speechwriters drafted something and he thought it was too bitter? Here’s the relevant passage from the prepared remarks:

He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it…

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that.

Update: As expected, North Carolina’s initiative to ban all forms of same-sex unions wins in a romp. Probably won’t hear too much more about gay marriage from Joe Biden during this campaign.

Update: How’s this for a beautiful result? Count the vote totals — and remember that the Democratic primary was the one being hotly contested while its GOP counterpart was a walkover:

Walker’s banked considerably more votes than Barrett and Falk combined. Message sent.

Update: And at last, we arrive at the most surreal story of the night. I think we can go ahead and put West Virginia in the Romney column for November:

With 60-odd percent of the vote counted in West Virginia’s Democratic primary, a man named Keith Judd can make a unique claim. He has won a greater proportion of the vote — almost 40 percent — than any other primary candidate running against Barack Obama.

Who’s Keith Judd? He’s prisoner #11593-051, currently serving out a sentence for making threats at the University of New Mexico.

With 74 percent reporting in West Virginia, Obama leads Judd 60/40. Inmate #11593-051 may end up winning a delegate.

Update: Jon Gabriel tweets, “It’ll be ironic if Eric Holder ends up being Keith Judd’s cellmate.”

Update: You ready for this? Joe Manchin refuses to say whether he voted for Obama in the Democratic primary in West Virginia.


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 6 7 8 9 10 12

bluefox on May 8, 2012 at 10:27 PM

If he would have been like this right out of the gate – he would have the nomination all wrapped up with a nice pretty bow.

Oh and his response to Greta on supporting Romney. That couldn’t have been any better IMO.

gophergirl on May 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

This whole gay meme, that being gay is equal to being black is well… offensive. From a Biblical world view being gay, is not equal to being black.

Kjeil on May 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM

From a biblical worldview, woman was made from a rib and one man built the biggest boat in the history of the world (dimensions too large to have possibly been seaworthy) and carried around two of every species on Earth. Oh, and frogs rain from the sky.

sobincorporated on May 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

bluefox on May 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM

ALL congress critters are up for election this November-not just EC.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Maybe you hayseeds should secede and leave the twenty-first century to the rest of us. Oh, and good luck in November.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Is that some of that love you were proclaiming earlier?

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Love always wins over hate. One day, y’all will be like those photos of screaming white racist segregationists in my kids’ school books.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Firstly, it’s not only white people that vote against gay marriage. Check out the range of votes in CA and probably in a few days this election.

Second, very few conservatives that I’ve talked to or have read on line have issues with civil unions. Why not just let the traditionalists have their word and fight the good fight for the legal issues, which would be no different whether it be “marriage” or “civil unions”.

Instead it’s become a battle of the wills and like most bullies are demanding a change for change’s sake. It’s like everything else that liberals (of which the majority of gays are) get their fingers on – they have to bully their will against everyone else.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I was part of a group that hosted a primary debate when she was elected. She was the weakest candidate, as in she had no idea what she would do. The only reason she won the primary was that she had backing from the NC GOP and the other 4 didn’t. When every other candidate in the country was running on fiscal conservatism, she almost lost to Bob Etheridge because she campaigned on abortion. She has no spine, that’s what I disagree with. She’s just someone else’s puppet.

LoganSix on May 8, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Oh, sour grapes from 2010.

I’d get used to her. After this year’s gerrymandering, she has that seat for as long as she wants it.

She’s been one of the best freshmen of the 2010 class. She’s clearly ambitious. Nothing wrong with that. We need more women in leadership positions.

joana on May 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Once again the anti-Christian bigots are put in their place by a citizenry that understands that it is society that gets to define its institutions, not the special pleading of groups claiming special rights.

Someday the homofascists will get the message… oh, who am I kidding. They will never give up the fight to declare sexual deviancy a perfectly healthy and valid expression of love, and then through will to power crush every institution that ever denied them the unreserved endorsement of their behavior they demand.

So entrenched is their sickness that what I write above is no exaggeration. Mere tolerance is bigotry, acceptance is only a first step on the road to repair. No, we must endorse their behavior, we must shout from the mountaintops that there is no difference between homosexual behavior and sexual behavior – or else they will use the full force of the state to make sure if we can’t ring their accolades, we shall not speak at all.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Via The Rightscoop:

Watch Richard Mourdock’s full victory speech after defeating Dick Lugar

Seven Percent Solution on May 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

This whole gay meme, that being gay is equal to being black is well… offensive. From a Biblical world view being gay, is not equal to being black.

Kjeil on May 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM

.
Right on, and bravo. : )

But we’re going to have to repeat that (a very large number) times, before it starts to sink in.

listens2glenn on May 8, 2012 at 10:35 PM

From a biblical worldview, woman was made from a rib and one man built the biggest boat in the history of the world (dimensions too large to have possibly been seaworthy) and carried around two of every species on Earth. Oh, and frogs rain from the sky.

sobincorporated on May 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

With God all thi
ngs are possible. just sayin’

Rio Linda Refugee on May 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

What is happening in Washington, D.C. is an abomination.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I think you speak for all of us that can see and hear. Every State needs the right to recall any U.S. House or U.S. Senate member that votes against our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Every State needs to reform their Election laws also, in my opinion.

bluefox on May 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Craig who?
Go Cruz!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM

The savior of Lubbock, silly goose.

cozmo on May 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Senator Joe Manchin refusing to say if he voted for Obama or Keith Judd, the federal inmate, in today’s primary.

Too funny.

joana on May 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Larry O’Donnell on pMSNBC needs an upper. Why is he talking so slowly? Good lord.

SouthernGent on May 8, 2012 at 10:37 PM

La Shawn Barber has written extensively on this:

Homosexuals have cited Loving v. Virginia and the entire Civil Rights movement in their quest to legalize marriage between two men. Aside from the moral outrage this should generate in the black community, marriage between a man and woman of different races and marriage between people of the same sex aren’t comparable at all. Marriage is a legal union recognize by the states as serving fundamental purposes: provides structure for family formation and rearing children, and provides a stabilizing influence that benefits the whole society.

and

Loving the Interracial Marriage Distinction

INC on May 8, 2012 at 10:37 PM

The one thing that people like Lugar don’t understand is, with his demeanor, the Democrats will do nothing but take advantage of him. They know, going in, that he’s willing to compromise so they’ll approach him with some minor compromise piece and he’ll bite right away, because that’s who he is.

IMHO, it’s people like Lugar, who have allowed the Senate Democrats to not pass a budget in 3 years. They may not have the power, by the rules of the Senate, but they certainly have a pulpit with which to beat the Democrats about the head and shoulders. The Republicans have, for the most part, been silent about this, as compared to what the Democrats would have been in the same position.

With elections like this, it’s entirely possible to hope we can get some cooperation between the Senate and the House and actually get the country moving forward again. Romney may not be the most conservative guy on the planet, but with a little help from a conservative House and Senate, he could turn out to be a very good President.

bflat879 on May 8, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Ed, Allah, yeah that’s strong, but it’s from the heart, and in the spirit of the Founding Fathers.

What is happening in Washington, D.C. is an abomination.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I love you, but I don’t think you go far enough.

arnold ziffel on May 8, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Are you talking to me??? Because if you are you need to dust off your sarc radar.

rik on May 8, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Kudos to AP for taking it to ol’ Gutsy Call. Been looking for someone to point it out.

wolfsDad on May 8, 2012 at 10:39 PM

bluefox on May 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM

ALL congress critters are up for election this November-not just EC.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

:-) I know the House is. Just mentioned the date in case anyone else may have thot he was a Senator, since Cantor has involved himself in this and other Senate races.

bluefox on May 8, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Update: As expected, North Carolina’s initiative to ban all forms of same-sex unions wins in a romp.

That’s a shame. People sure are scared of freedom.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 10:40 PM

1966: “Everyone has the right to marry someone of their race. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

2012: “Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

sobincorporated on May 8, 2012 at 10:17 PM

2020: “Everyone has the right to marry someone over the age of 16. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

2028: “Everyone has the right to marry only one other person. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

2039: “Everyone has the right to marry a person of their own species. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

trigon on May 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I love you, but I don’t think you go far enough.

arnold ziffel on May 8, 2012 at 10:38 PM

LOL

bluefox on May 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Hey Lugar … step aside … get your old butt out of the way. We really don’t care what you have to say.

I’m a poet and didn’t even know it.

ORrighty on May 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Maybe you hayseeds should secede and leave the twenty-first century to the rest of us. Oh, and good luck in November.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Is that some of that love you were proclaiming earlier?

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Heh. Good one.

4Grace on May 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

As I’ve said before, I’m generally ambivalent about marriage equality as a cause. But its still heartbreaking to see a state, en masse, endorse the exclusion of a whole class of citizens from legal recognition of their relationship. Especially when the legal recognition of that relationship does nothing to harm anyone else. Its aggressively hateful and just a shame.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

G’bye Dickie we hardly knew ye.

Bradky on May 8, 2012 at 10:43 PM

That’s a shame. People sure are scared of freedom.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Not really, they held a free vote and free people freely voted to make their own free decision on what marriage is.

Rio Linda Refugee on May 8, 2012 at 10:43 PM

We need more women in leadership positions.

joana on May 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

The irony…

Gohawgs on May 8, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Was there a Senate primary in Wisconsin today?

Mark1971 on May 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM

“Self-declared and contractual domestic partnerships would become unlawful.

Despite the existing statutory definition of marriage as between a “male and female person”, a number of same sex (and opposite sex) couples have done everything they can to create a relationship which gives them, to the extent possible, the benefits of marriage. I will interview such a couple later in this series of posts.

This is done through wills, grants of power of attorney for health care and financial decisionmaking, and, where employers offer it, declarations of domestic partner status granting access to employer-provided health and insurance. A number of local governments in this State offer such benefits to declared domestic partners of their employees, including the County in which I reside. If the Amendment passes, these benefits will become unlawful immediately.

This is because the Amendment goes much further than existing law. It states that the only “domestic legal union” that shall be “valid or recognized” in North Carolina is an opposite sex marriage. The term, “domestic legal union” is not defined, but it surely includes within its sweep the arrangement discussed above. Such unions will not be “recognized” (meaning to have their existence acknowledged) by any court.

This means that, for domestic partners of employees of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham County, the city of Durham, Greensboro, Mecklenburg County, and Orange County, a list that includes two of the State’s five largest counties, and two of its five largest cities, all such benefits will end immediately. They may also end, or become much more difficult to enforce, for domestic partners of private employers, many of which offer such benefits as an employee recruitment tool.”

———-

CONGRATS NORTH CAROLINA ON YOUR IMPENDING NIGHTMARES

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Does anyone have more recent numbers than this one from the Hill?

Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) would start off with a narrow lead over Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) in the general election if Mourdock beats Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) in the GOP primary, according to general-election numbers obtained by The Hill from a Donnelly poll.

Donnelly leads Mourdock by 34 percent to 28 percent in the poll, while he would trail Lugar by 42 percent to 29 percent.

Let’s hope that Mourdock does not pull a Sharron Angel and Ken Buck in November.

galtani on May 8, 2012 at 10:47 PM

ORrighty on May 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Go Beav’s…

Gohawgs on May 8, 2012 at 10:47 PM

I don’t know who is more broken up about Lugar losing: Beltway liberals (Obama, John Kerry and Washington Post columnists) or the RINO/Troll Brigade at HA.

bw222 on May 8, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Exact same strawman dummy. You are still providing an example of unequal treatment under the law. What unequal treatment exists when gay marriage is denied?

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 10:12 PM

The comment I originally responded to made reference to “will of the people phobe(s)”. I read that as someone advocating for tyranny of the majority so I gave an example of something ridiculously absurd (flogging blue-eyed people) and asked if the same standard could be applied if something like that were to pass on a majority vote; I would be a “will of the people phobe” if it did and I wondered if the person who posted that statement would join me in that.

On the subject of gay marriage, I would have voted against what passed today in North Carolina but my comment didn’t relate to that directly.

alchemist19 on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

We need more women in leadership positions.

joana on May 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

The irony…

Gohawgs on May 8, 2012 at 10:43 PM

I’m sorry, what’s the irony?

joana on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

2020: “Everyone has the right to marry someone over the age of 16. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

2028: “Everyone has the right to marry only one other person. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

2039: “Everyone has the right to marry a person of their own species. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

trigon on May 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Exactly. This is what the “people against Gay Marriage are bigots” folks don’t understand. You can try to say all you want that a slipperly slope won’t take place, but look at where Obama has taken Federal power in just a few short years.

The polygamous and the polyamorous will soon want the same economic and other benefits that GLBT couples claim they want too. Beastality is also becoming less taboo in the world. To pretend that this issue would just go away if GLBT couples go their “civil rights” is bad thinking.

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

the fight to declare sexual deviancy a perfectly healthy and valid expression of love

I thought it was about traditional marriage, not bigotry against ‘deviants.’ Oh, right. Silly me. Dog whistles n’ all. Maybe the Christian soldiers of teh South can rise up and smite the true ‘enemy of mmarriage’–divorce–next. Oh, right. Solly me. It’s the deviants they’re afraid of, not the hayseed divorcees.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Not really, they held a free vote and free people freely voted to make their own free decision on what marriage is.

Rio Linda Refugee on May 8, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Yes, really. Did you think I was referring to the freedom to vote?

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Typos and all, the sentiment still stands. Angry.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:49 PM

I thought it was about traditional marriage, not bigotry against ‘deviants.’ Oh, right. Silly me. Dog whistles n’ all. Maybe the Christian soldiers of teh South can rise up and smite the true ‘enemy of mmarriage’–divorce–next. Oh, right. Solly me. It’s the deviants they’re afraid of, not the hayseed divorcees.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Maine is a southern state?

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 10:50 PM

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

You clearly don’t understand the conservative position on this issue.

Charlemagne on May 8, 2012 at 10:50 PM

What is happening in Washington, D.C. is an abomination.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Oh, wait a minute…I see what you did there.

Jaibones on May 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM

We need more women in leadership positions.

joana on May 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

No, I think you have done enough damage already. OK, the bad ones really stand out.

arnold ziffel on May 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Did you think I was referring to the freedom to vote?

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Nope. I think you’re a dunce

Rio Linda Refugee on May 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Maine is a southern state?

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 10:50 PM

California is, kinda sorta. At least it’s south of Maine…

Gohawgs on May 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM

I just heard on FoxNews that Mourdock is criticized by Dems because he took the illegal Chrysler “screw-the-preferred-stockholders” bailout to the Supreme Court.

That’s a huge point in his favor.

A guy with that kind of willingness to stick to his guns and stand up for what’s right is just what the Senate needs.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Exactly. This is what the “people against Gay Marriage are bigots” folks don’t understand. You can try to say all you want that a slipperly slope won’t take place, but look at where Obama has taken Federal power in just a few short years.

The polygamous and the polyamorous will soon want the same economic and other benefits that GLBT couples claim they want too. Beastality is also becoming less taboo in the world. To pretend that this issue would just go away if GLBT couples go their “civil rights” is bad thinking.

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Why are there economic benefits for anyone? How about embracing limited government and support the elimination of the tax code?

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 10:52 PM

It’s the deviants they’re afraid of, not the hayseed divorcees.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Off you go, whiner. This space is for serious discussion.

Jaibones on May 8, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

My goat thinks you’re a bigot and goatphobe

rik on May 8, 2012 at 10:52 PM

1966: “Everyone has the right to marry someone of their race. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

2012: “Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

sobincorporated on May 8, 2012 at 10:17 PM

You people just cite cases like Loving v. Virginia and have no historical basis for your argument. FIRST, when Loving was decided only FOUR states still had interracial bans. It means the democratic process ran in other states. Secondly, you’re first point is simply untrue. ALL minority races could intermarry, but White were solely banned from interracial marriage. There is a distinct different since a set of people could interracially marry, and one could not. NO ONE can currently marry if they are same-sex therefore there is NO exclusion.

melle1228 on May 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Settle down, Mr. Rywall, some liberal judge will vacate the vote before sundown tomorrow. The people don’t really get to speak anymore.

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

With 74 percent reporting in West Virginia, Obama leads Judd 60/40. Inmate #11593-051 may end up winning a delegate.

Awesome!

talkingpoints on May 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Typos and all, the sentiment still stands. Angry.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:49 PM

How about the feelings of schools and religious institutions that have to deal with your accusations of bigotry?

My Church should not have to rent out its facilities or celebrate weddings between GLBT individuals, yet there are individual state legislature and Federal legislators who want to take our religious freedom away. My Church should not have to worry about its clergy being thrown in Jail by some human rights tribunal for saying that Homosexual sex acts (which are in the same category as any out of wedlock sex act) are mortal sins, yet this has happened in Canada and it is not a strech to say it could happen here in the name of “justice” and “ending bigotry”.

So there are many of us that are “ANGRY” about this issue as well.

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Who’s Keith Judd? He’s prisoner #11593-051

Somewhere in Illinois Blago is having a laugh….

Bruno Strozek on May 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Nope.

Rio Linda Refugee on May 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Well your answer certainly indicated you did. Now you’ve moved on to name calling, a sign of a weak mind.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 10:55 PM

CONGRATS NORTH CAROLINA ON YOUR IMPENDING NIGHTMARES

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Is there nothing going on in Canada? I know the Provinces and that is about it. I have a passing knowledge of many of our states here in the US but not down to the county level.
You must really love us.

arnold ziffel on May 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Re: the gay marriage, I suppose I’m a moderate.

I oppose gay marriage, but I support civil unions between two people of the same sex. Not three people, but two. If they are together and want to legalize that partnership, especially when it comes to surviving spouse and other legal issues, than I don’t think it’s the state’s place to deny them legal protections afforded a man and woman.

However, I oppose gay marriage. And I also oppose the right of gay couples to adopt children.

So, I guess I’m in the middle. But that’s my stance.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

https://twitter.com/#!/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/200055149916463106

Did Joe Manchin (D-WV) vote for prison inmate Keith Judd in today’s primary? He refuses to say if he voted for Obama.

Mark1971 on May 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Angry.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:49 PM

We can see that! Relax, you can’t possibly think that this is over.

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Whoa … Scott Walker and 402,000 sane WI voters send a powerful message to the fuc%ing unionist/maggot/Democrat retards. Sweet.

Jaibones on May 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM

As I’ve said before, I’m generally ambivalent about marriage equality as a cause. But its still heartbreaking to see a state, en masse, endorse the exclusion of a whole class of citizens from legal recognition of their relationship. Especially when the legal recognition of that relationship does nothing to harm anyone else. Its aggressively hateful and just a shame.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Yup, just like you libs whine and cry that laws preventing you from marrying your multiple sex partners are hateful.

We understand the game, pig. You and yours are desperate to just grab more from the trough and steal benefits that were meant to help children, not adults.

northdallasthirty on May 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM

With 74 percent reporting in West Virginia, Obama leads Judd 60/40. Inmate #11593-051 may end up winning a delegate.

Awesome!

talkingpoints on May 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

That is SUCH a great thread-in-waiting.

Allah? Ed? There’s your gimme thread for the morning.. how 0bama is beating a locked-up criminal by the SAME MARGIN AS MOURDOCK VS. LUGAR!

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Love always wins over hate. One day, y’all will be like those photos of screaming white racist segregationists in my kids’ school books.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Maybe you hayseeds should secede and leave the twenty-first century to the rest of us. Oh, and good luck in November.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:10 PM

I thought it was about traditional marriage, not bigotry against ‘deviants.’ Oh, right. Silly me. Dog whistles n’ all. Maybe the Christian soldiers of teh South can rise up and smite the true ‘enemy of mmarriage’–divorce–next. Oh, right. Solly me. It’s the deviants they’re afraid of, not the hayseed divorcees.

lostmotherland on May 8, 2012 at 10:48 PM

I can’t wait to see how you, Axelrod and DWS thread the needle when the exit polls are published and show that blacks overwhelmingly supported the ban. LOL

Flora Duh on May 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM

With God all things are possible. just sayin’

Rio Linda Refugee on May 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

God’s greatest gift to you is free will and the power of logic. He would be Displeased to see you abandon either so easily in your Praise of Him.

ctwelve on May 8, 2012 at 10:59 PM

1966: “Everyone has the right to marry someone of their race. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

2012: “Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. There’s no unequal treatment under the law.”

sobincorporated on May 8, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Faulty moral equivalence.

Conscious behavior is not the same as skin color.

Keep trying.

BuckeyeSam on May 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Exactly, the gay lobby won’t simply settle for recognition of their “marriages”, that’s just another step in their march to force acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent to the natural order. They won’t be satisfied until all opponents of homosexuality are shunned, shamed, and forced to acquiesce to all of their demands.

I don’t think homosexual relationships are equal and I won’t allow the gay lobby to force their views on me and through the public schools, force their views on my kids.

Charlemagne on May 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

As I’ve said before, I’m generally ambivalent about marriage equality as a cause. But its still heartbreaking to see a state, en masse, endorse the exclusion of a whole class of citizens from legal recognition of their relationship. Especially when the legal recognition of that relationship does nothing to harm anyone else. Its aggressively hateful and just a shame.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Push people far enough and they will start to push back. Looks like those that want to pervert the term marriage took one step too far.

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Re: the gay marriage, I suppose I’m a moderate.

I oppose gay marriage, but I support civil unions between two people of the same sex. Not three people, but two. If they are together and want to legalize that partnership, especially when it comes to surviving spouse and other legal issues, than I don’t think it’s the state’s place to deny them legal protections afforded a man and woman.

However, I oppose gay marriage. And I also oppose the right of gay couples to adopt children.

So, I guess I’m in the middle. But that’s my stance.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I am for civil unions as well except gays are not happy with that. See California for an example..

melle1228 on May 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

29 States now define marriage as one man one woman.

21 more to go.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

As for your other question, I think the party is losing its big tent essence. Anyone who deviates on even one issue now is considered a RINO. This is causing our representatives to feel like they have no room to do anything that isn’t 100% pure even if it would be wiser to negotiate. I do not think this is a smart strategy in the long run.

McDuck on May 8, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Since the 2000 elections, marked only by a slight pause after 9/11, the dems have been vitriolic, partisans. I couldn’t belive the nastiness and disrespect they put a sitting President through when George Bush was in office.

The dems won’t compromise on anything and they see everything in the prism of winning the next election. I believe in compromise for the good of this country but not for the sake appearance or fear of losing an election.

Republicans need to wise up.

Vince on May 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

https://twitter.com/#!/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/200055149916463106

Did Joe Manchin (D-WV) vote for prison inmate Keith Judd in today’s primary? He refuses to say if he voted for Obama.

Mark1971 on May 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

To be fair, he could have left that question blank.

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:02 PM

BuckeyeSam on May 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

This obvious fact has to be hindering the support that they expected to get from black Americans. The comparison is so insulting.

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Damn! Marriage amendment passes even in Winston-Salem/Greensboro

! Amazing. There’s a lot of green on that map!

http://www.wral.com/news/political/page/10991843/

SouthernGent on May 8, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Exactly. This is what the “people against Gay Marriage are bigots” folks don’t understand. You can try to say all you want that a slipperly slope won’t take place, but look at where Obama has taken Federal power in just a few short years.

The polygamous and the polyamorous will soon want the same economic and other benefits that GLBT couples claim they want too. Beastality is also becoming less taboo in the world. To pretend that this issue would just go away if GLBT couples go their “civil rights” is bad thinking.

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 10:48
————-

Where’s your outrage over polygamy that already exists in America?

Oh wait – you think gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry animals.

You’re too stupid to be listened to.

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Was there another open registration?

None that was announced.

Anyone else noticing a lot of new names on this (and a couple of other current) threads?

With ‘concern troll’ like comments?

LegendHasIt on May 8, 2012 at 9:45 PM

You’re not the only one who noticed, Legend. Some might be Axelturd or other minions too, some even with “conservative” pretentions.

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

So how are Dems going to boycott North Carolina if their convention is there?

Mark1971 on May 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Must be an entire regiment of moles being dribbled out a bit at a time. I’ve seen so many new names pop up to comment that I couldn’t keep track of them.

Bishop on May 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM

INC on May 8, 2012 at 10:37 PM

That’s an interesting quote you posted. I’m going to play a little devil’s advocate with it.

I don’t deny the benefits of marriage to society. If marriage is beneficial then what’s the harm in letting gay people do it? It certainly doesn’t threaten my relationship in any way; maybe there are people out there whose marriages are so weak that if they find out gay people are being allowed to do it that that will be the final straw and they’re off to find a divorce lawyer. Or maybe there are people who’ve never thought about being gay before but if gay marriage were legalized they’d want to give it a try. The prospect of being able to marry another man doesn’t entice me in the slightest to “bat for the other team”, as it were. Maybe that’s just me though.

alchemist19 on May 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Where’s your outrage over polygamy that already exists in America?

Oh wait – you think gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry animals.

You’re too stupid to be listened to.

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

There is no outrage. What people do in their own home is their business including homosexuals. We aren’t talking about that though. We are talking about state recognition, state endorsement, and state coercion.

melle1228 on May 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Yup, just like you libs whine and cry that laws preventing you from marrying your multiple sex partners are hateful.

We understand the game, pig. You and yours are desperate to just grab more from the trough and steal benefits that were meant to help children, not adults.

northdallasthirty on May 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM

So you are in favor of government-granted “benefits”?

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Oh dear.

The liberal blogs are whining about teabagger extremists – again. More amusingly they are saying the Tea Party will effectively destroy any chance of large GOP wins in the House and Senate this year. Apparently something to do with the War on (fill in the blank).

Delusional.

CorporatePiggy on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

“A last will and testament is not a contract. A will can be revoked at any time, regardless of promises made. If this Amendment passes, any will in which one member of a same sex couple devises his or her property to the other will be open to challenge by spurned relatives, who can claim that the will was procured through “undue influence,” in other words the love and affection between a couple engaged in a domestic relationship which is constitutionally enshrined as unlawful in North Carolina.

A power of attorney, whether for financial purposes or for health care, is not a contract. State run hospitals may be required to disregard a health care power of attorney where power is held by a domestic partner. Suppose Wimpy suffers a massive stroke and goes into a coma. Wimpy has told his domestic partner Bluto that he does not wish to be fed through a tube, unable to enjoy hamburgers as a living vegetable. Wimpy has even given Bluto a power of attorney over all health care decisions, so strongly does he feel about this. If Wimpy is hospitalized at the University of North Carolina hospitals (a state facility), Wimpy’s niece Olive, his only lawful relation, will now have a strong case to challenge Bluto’s decision on the grounds that the law does not “recognize” a power of attorney procured through a domestic partnership, which is unlawful in the State of North Carolina.”

———–

WAY TO GO EVERYBODY GOOD JOB

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

I am not a supporter of Lugar. There is something not right for a person to spend 36 years in the office and still runs for re-election at age 80.

I do hope Mourdock’s support he has now will carry him over Donnelly in November. Schumer is making noises about a possible pick up in Indiana.

galtani on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Tonight was a berry berry good night for our side.

Vote No Preference 2012!

TheLastBrainLeft on May 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM

I don’t deny the benefits of marriage to society. If marriage is beneficial then what’s the harm in letting gay people do it?

State marriage was ONLY beneficial when it involved a couple having and nurturing children and the state has done its best to ruin that.

melle1228 on May 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Push people far enough and they will start to push back. Looks like those that want to pervert the term marriage took one step too far.

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

You make a great point. In the 70s and 80s it was “tolerance” progressing to “acceptance.” Then to the 90s and now—”You better go along with pretty much anything or there will be trouble.”

arnold ziffel on May 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Okay, so Lugar’s out, and GOP numbers (so far) are looking good for Walker. Dare I wonder if a certain reproductively-minded robot will put in an appearance?

Sekhmet on May 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM

With Mitt being the nominee, Lugar getting the boot is the only catharsis I can enjoy, but I was wondering if anyone in a debate or town hall or interview has asked Mourdock if he wants to be a career politician.

Dongemaharu on May 8, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Where’s your outrage over polygamy that already exists in America?

Oh wait – you think gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry animals.

You’re too stupid to be listened to.

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Eh, the militant gays and most of the American left are equating the lack of gay marriage laws to that of black slavery, so obviously there is hyperbole enough to go around.

Bishop on May 8, 2012 at 11:08 PM

I do hope Mourdock’s support he has now will carry him over Donnelly in November. Schumer is making noises about a possible pick up in Indiana

And it’s just noise. Mourdouck will win by double digits, much like Dan Coats did in 2010.

TheLastBrainLeft on May 8, 2012 at 11:09 PM

WAY TO GO EVERYBODY GOOD JOB

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Folks who want same sex marriage can emigrate to Canada or wherever else it’s legal.

They are more than welcome to vote with their feet.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Of Mourdock, Lugar says: “His embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance.”

Possum Holler Translation:

“That ballsy clown really acts like he believes that limited government bologna. You suckers that call yourselves “Constitutional Conservatives” are just ignorant hicks.

Oh, yes I’ll take that call from my good friend Joe Biden….Joe, yes, oh yes I’m bashing them right now, yes, thank you for calling….where was I?….”

Goodbye ya old goat…….next up Oral Hatch please.

PappyD61 on May 8, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Where’s your outrage over polygamy that already exists in America?

Oh wait – you think gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry animals.

You’re too stupid to be listened to.

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Don’t you have some homework trying to find another example of an American who was raised in another country as a Muslim by his Communist mother and transvestite manny, only to be shipped to America and raised at the knee of a pedophile? Who then converted from being a Muslim to Black Liberation Theology?

You never answered me last time. I waited and waited. :’(

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:11 PM

I am not a supporter of Lugar. There is something not right for a person to spend 36 years in the office and still runs for re-election at age 80.

I do hope Mourdock’s support he has now will carry him over Donnelly in November. Schumer is making noises about a possible pick up in Indiana.

galtani on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

As much as I liked Strom Thurmond and a few others I can’t remember, at some point it is time to go. Past 80, I still love you Grandpa–and I am being sincere here, but give it a rest, thanks for your service.

arnold ziffel on May 8, 2012 at 11:11 PM

However, I oppose gay marriage. And I also oppose the right of gay couples to adopt children.

So, I guess I’m in the middle. But that’s my stance.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Open thread, so let me draw an odd parallel.

I oppose the right of gay couples to adopt children.
I also have qualms about vegetarian parents’ raising their children from birth to be vegetarians, as well.

Here’s where they tie in: all the science I have read says that vegetarians miss out on important nutrients that meat provides, nutrients that cannot always be supplied adequately by supplements.

In my primitive way of thinking, if God meant for people to be vegetarians, either the human body would be able to derive everything it needs from vegetable matter alone, or vitamins would grow on trees.

If God meant for children, who statistically are likely not biologically gay, to be adopted and raised from near-birth to see two gay parents as their role models, without resulting in extremely confusing feelings at puberty, then he would not have made the *parts* fit together like they do. Going through life wearing two left shoes is difficult and ruins one of your feet.

Shoes are made in pairs for a reason. DO you want to encourage a kid to wear two left shoes?

And what are vegetarian kids to think of their carnivore uncle who thinks squirrel makes a good gravy? Is he evil? Life is complicated enough without adding additional complexity to kids’ lives.

I know there’s a gap in my reasoning and I haven’t completed the circle, but it’s the best I can do. That’s why the whole subject of gayness is an endless source of conflict.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Where’s your outrage over polygamy that already exists in America?

Oh wait – you think gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry animals.

You’re too stupid to be listened to.

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

“A Richland County man was charged with animal cruelty after he allegedly had sex with a dog he adopted last month.”

“He had a sign that said, ‘Just Married,’” DeLeon said. “I was (thinking) who in the world did he get married to? I didn’t see it in the paper, and (I found out) he was talking about his dog, Tara.”

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2011/06/16/story-shelby-man-charged-with-animal-abuse-sex.html

Google is your friend.

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Sekhmet on May 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM

REPRODUCTIVELY-MINDED ROBOT!
REPRODUCTIVELY-MINDED ROBOT!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Re: NC ban will have the same result as Prop 8 and some judge making law. It does not matter if they can they paperwork to file and try to remove the ban in court is already filled out.

tjexcite on May 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM

The language of our Amendment would restrict protections for all unmarried couples – whether they are straight or same-sex. In addition to prohibiting same-sex marriage, the Amendment:

- would prohibit North Carolina from passing civil unions in the future;

- would bar the state from creating a domestic partnership status for same-sex couples
that would give them some lesser range of protections than married couples;

- would eliminate the domestic partner insurance benefits currently offered to their
employees by a number of local governments, including Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro, and Mecklenburg and Orange Counties.

In addition, courts could interpret the language of the Amendment to restrict many more protections for unmarried couples, whether they are straight or same-sex. The problem is that no one can say for certain how many more. In prohibiting state validation or recognition of “domestic legal unions,” the proposed Amendment would introduce into the Constitution a phrase whose meaning is unclear, which has never been used in any prior statutory law in North Carolina or interpreted by our courts, and which has never been interpreted by courts in any other state. Given how courts have interpreted amendments in other states, it is very possible, however, that courts would interpret the Amendment to bar the state from giving any protections to unmarried couples – straight or same-sex – based on their relationships. This would:

- invalidate domestic violence protections for all unmarried partners;

- undercut existing child custody and visitation law that is designed to protect the best
interests of children;

- prevent the state from giving committed couples protections that help them order their
relationships, including the right to
- determine the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains;
- visit their partner in the hospital in the event of a medical emergency;
- to make emergency medical decisions for their partner if their partner is
incapacitated;
and
- to make financial decisions for their partner if their partner is incapacitated.
Furthermore, if courts interpreted it in a far-reaching manner, the Amendment could even:
- invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other.

———-

IT KEEPS GETTING MORE AWESOME BY THE MINUTE, NORTH CAROLINA

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9 10 12