From a Charlotte News & Observer op-ed: “Perhaps the most surprising development in the fight over Amendment One is that so many leading North Carolina conservatives oppose it. … Should the measure be defeated by the voters on May 8, conservatives will have played a major role in its demise.” And this:
Then there’s the outright restriction of individual rights. Only a month after the U.S. Supreme Court heard powerful arguments against the health insurance mandate as unconstitutional, it rings hollow to many conservatives to insist that the heavy hand of the state come down against people who want to commit themselves to sharing a life. Put simply, if there is a liberty interest in choosing to buy health insurance, isn’t there a liberty interest in choosing to marry?
9 Comments for “Many Conservatives Oppose North Carolina Marriage Amendment”
posted by Many Conservatives Oppose North Carolina Marriage Amendment | QClick Radar on
[…] North Carolina Marriage Amendment Independent Gay Forum Wed, May 2, 2012 7:34 AM UTC Independent Gay Forum Rate Loading … Share (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); […]
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A welcome development.
It is about time that (a) conservatives started waking up to the fact that the anti-marriage amendments that the Republican Party has been cynically using for short-term political gain since 2004 constitute a radical infringement on liberty and are antithetical to authentic conservative principles, and (b) pro-equality conservatives started fighting against the amendments instead of sitting back and keeping their mouths shut.
From the article: “Putting Amendment One before the voters was a high priority for Republican legislative leaders (House Speaker Thom Tillis, who organized passage of the amendment in the General Assembly, says he will vote for it but predicted that if it’s enacted, repeal would come in 20 years.)”
20 years. That’s the rub, isn’t it? The anti-marriage amendments throw a chock block into the political process, taking the question of marriage equality out of the political process until the amendments are removed.
In Wisconsin, right on Nate Silverman’s predicted schedule, opinion has tilted toward marriage equality according to recent polling. So now we are beginning the process of dismantling the work of the Republican alliance with Wisconsin Family Action, and removing that amendment.
The repeal process will take 6-8 years, at a minimum, and cost us millions. All the while, gay and lesbian couples and their children pay the price, daily, for the devil’s bargain that the Republican legislatures of 2004/2006 made with WFA’s Julaine Appling.
The devil’s bargain, incidentally, remains intact. In 2010, every Republican candidate for the legislature and statewide office went on record with the WFA supporting repeal of Wisconsin’s extremely limited Domestic Partner Act. In 2011, WFA laundered close to $500K of Koch money into negative advertising against against a Democratic Senate recall candidate in a targeted district, tipping the scale to a narrow Republican win and keeping the Wisconsin Senate in Republican control.
If you are wondering why those of us on the progressive/liberal side of politics don’t come running over and sucking up to Republicans at this point, that’s the reason. We’ve had enough of Republican wedge-issue politics to last us the rest of our lives, we have years and years of work ahead of us getting the playing field back to level after the damage Republicans wrought with the amendments, and Republican elected officials continue to stubbornly fight us every inch of the way on the repeal process.
posted by Jorge on
If you are wondering why those of us on the progressive/liberal side of politics don’t come running over and sucking up to Republicans at this point, that’s the reason.
Well that explains it, and perfectly: I slept through your whole explanation.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I slept through your whole explanation.
Of course. That’s what you need to do to remain a Republican.
posted by Walter Olson on
Also worth noting, from the Charlotte Business Observer, “WRAL unable to find CEO to go on record in favor of Amendment One”:
http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2012/04/27/wral-unable-to-find-ceo-to-go-on.html
I was glad to see John Hood, president of the state’s conservative think tank the John Locke Foundation, also express his opposition. Polls show the measure failing among NC voters who realize that it is written broadly enough to ban civil unions. The question is whether enough voters can be educated in time.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Polls show the measure failing among NC voters who realize that it is written broadly enough to ban civil unions.
True enough, Walter, but the same polls show that the amendment is likely to prevail by a wide margin and that there no indication that the numbers are moving.
The question is whether enough voters can be educated in time.
I hope that the amendment will be defeated, but heavy early voting levels suggest to me that the the numbers won’t change much in the next week. Too many votes are in the can at this point to overcome a 14-point difference.
I don’t want to be a pessimist, but it looks to me like North Carolina will join Wisconsin in out banning Alabama.
posted by Houndentenor on
This one isn’t just about marriage. Gay marriage is already illgal in NC. It’s about all partnership agreements that aren’t marriage as well. That would affect non-married straight couples more than gay couples. It also shows how narrow and mean-spirited the anti-gay groups actually are.
posted by Houndentenor on
Oh, and shouldn’t the headline read “A Handful of Conservatives” rather than “Many”. I don’t see many here.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Sexy Liberal Stephanie Miller — via Current TV — was interviewing of the NC people trying to stop the anti-gay ballot measure. I can not recall his name, but he did mention that their was a conservative-libertarian against the measure.
Proponents of these measures often claim, wrongly, that the measure is not going to threaten civil unions/domestic partnerships.
The reason that they tend to lie about this, is because their is a pretty broad based, tri-partisan sentiment that gay couples or even opposite sex couples living together should have some legal protections.