Same-Sex Marriage: North Carolina, President Obama and Voters
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-09/same-sex-marriage-north-carolina-president-obama-and-voters
North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. Turnout was moderate but a half-million people had cast early ballots. Ahead of the vote, both sides waged intensive lobbying efforts. Former President Bill Clinton came out against the measure. The Rev. Billy Graham supported it. North Carolina is now the 30th state to approve putting a ban on same-sex marriage in their state constitution. But polls show a growing number of Americans support same-sex marriage. Support is higher among younger people. Publicly, President Obama has remained on the fence. Diane and her guests talk about the politics of defining the term "marriage."
Guests
Brian Brown
president, National Organization for Marriage; executive committee member, Vote for Marriage North Carolina.
Michael Cole-Schwartz
communications director, Human Rights Campaign.
Michael Dimock
associate director, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Maggie Gallagher
president, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy; editor, www.MarriageDebate.com; head of the Culture War Victory Fund; author of the forthcoming book "Debating Same-sex Marriage."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
There are two primary reasons why people get married and both are financial.
1). to gain healthcare benefits
2). to ensure a fair distribution of properties in the event of a divorce.
All other reasons are quaint pleasantries.....
"On the other hand, African Americans, one of the main pillars of the President’s political coalition, remain decidedly skeptical about gay marriage. In the last year’s worth of Post-ABC data, just 42 percent said they support legalization while 55 percent oppose it."
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/05/08/reason-obama-wont-support-gay-marriag...
One thing glaringly obvious in this discussion is our brave presidents stance, what is it now "evolving views on gay marriage". What a joke the man can't even be decisive on an issue like this if he thinks it will lose him a few votes. In case your unaware generally speaking black people do not support gay marriage, maybe if he comes out for it he will only get 94.9% of the black vote instead of the 95% he got last time.
There are as many reasons people marry as there are marriages. Among them:
Love
Companionship
(Ironically, it was the Catholic Church that first promoted the idea of companionate marriage - marriage for love. Now it’s trying to deny what it started, and pretend love is unimportant.)
Procreation
Status
Wealth
And if we limit ourselves just to the legal benefits of marriage, they include:
Automatic transfer of property on death.
Legal right to provide and direct health care for the invalid partner (when they are unable to).
Right to sue for the wrongful death of the loved one.
Right to obtain life insurance on one’s spouse.
Various tax advantages.
But the real question is this: What proof is there that any of the “horrors” opponents of gay marriage invoke actually exist?
The answer is: NONE!
Which is why the opposition to gay marriage is composed of two groups: deceivers, and the deceived.
Etaoin,
There are a number of people that have a moral objection to the homosexual lifestyle(I am NOT one of them). But that being said a major concern of these folks is that they do not want to have their children raised in an environment that makes homosexuality a normal situation. Personally I couldn't care less, one way or the other, it does not effect me and does not warrant my consideration. If people want to marry let them, how could it possibly be damaging to an institution that has been wrested from the churches(the original arbitors of marriage) by government, at this point marriage is nothing more then a legal construct as long as that is the case it should follow the same rules and restrictions as other legal contracts. The counter to that is that in the eyes of the federal government, sexual orientation is not a protected class so it is perfectly legal to discriminate both personally and professionally on that basis alone. Though there are a number of states that have made sexual orientation a protected class and should by there own laws be unable to restrict same-sex marriages.
Very interesting points, mnemecek. I did not know that sexual orientation is not a protected class. It seems absolutely crazy that the American government can legally discriminate against them for that reason! Something has to be done to correct this.
I totally understand you were just laying out the arguments against gay marriage, so this isn't directed at you :) In regards to people who don't want to raise children in an environment that makes homosexuality a normal situation, all they have to do is look at the 10 countries in the world who have legalized same-sex marriage. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Are any of these countries known for being raving homosexual populaces? No. Why? Because having gay marriage legalized doesn't change anything! As you pointed out, mnemecek, and the others who have commented on this story so far have also pointed out, marriage is just a legal institution now. Really there is nothing different between two people living together as a devoted couple for life and a married couple besides the fact that the government recognizes one of them as being partners under law.
I don`t understand this law. If you must vote to change the Constitution to limit marriage,it means to me,it is,or was, legal to wed before these votes took place.So why aren`t they allowed their Constitutional rights?
Etoain:
Companionship marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage as you stated the Catholic Church stated.
paperbacklucy ,
The lack of proctection on the federal level has been upheld by the supreme court a few times in the past, where they cited that Race, Nationality, Gender... are things that are "an innate, indisputable characteristic" and sexual orientation does not meet that criteria(I'm paraphrasing this last part)
After years of listening to talk shows with guests on both sides of this issue, I have never heard a gay marriage advocate explicitly deal with this question: Every year, on Yom Kippur, Jews read a section of the Torah that deals with forbidden sexual relations including incest, adultery, bestiality and the following: "You shall not lie carnally with with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) In today's pluralistic society I would never advocate nor condone nor tolerate any behavior that could be described as a hate crime or job or housing discrimination but neither can I agree with or condone institutionalizing behavior that the Bible describes an abomination.
If someone feels that the Bible is nothing more than historical fiction, then supporting gay marriage is a reasonable view point but if they feel that the Bible is Divinely inspired and defines morality then opposing gay marriage is the only logical position.
Leviticus also says don't eat pork. But we do.
Patsy, same sex marriages were already banned in North Carolina before this amendment was proposed. So supporters of the amendment have gained nothing with this vote whereas a minority of people may now have lost much. It is very sad that the definition of a word must be amended into a state constitution in the first place. Civil rights and liberties have been trumped by a single word. I have never felt this way before, but today I am ashamed to be from North Carolina.
Backward.
Let's see..what if all 'Homosexuals' & supporters not spend any money for just 1 day..I think we would see the power that we actually have..1 day is nothing to show $$ power..
So amendment backers gathered in the Hilton to celebrate their brave defense of marriage from untold dangers - and a "surprise" banning of unions - by cutting a 7-layer wedding cake.
A nuanced understanding and approach has always been to Obama's credit, but again, imagine how that constitutional issue "all people being created equal" would get spun....
If scripture's your authority, you can find differing messages - including those that contradict this dogma, notably those of Jesus.
Dee, good idea. Sometimes we forget our power, whether in number or dollars.
I had heard that a recent poll showed 55% support for the amendment initially, but that support dropped to 40% when it was explained that the amendment disallowed civil unions. I was disappointed to see that the full text of the amendment was not printed on the NC ballot. The wording made it easy for people to misunderstand the scope of the amendment. Is there a legal challenge available based on the ballot's wording?
If republicans are so sure of their position why have the vote in May instead of November when more voters turn out? Business here in Charlotte and in Raleigh-Durham overwhelmingly rejected the amendment.
What is the middle ground on this issue? What is a compromise? If the issue is about rights, as it should be in a democratic society, then civil unions grant equality under the law. The North Carolina law is a backlash against a massive reach beyond rights to cultural hegemony by those fighting for gay marriage over and above the recognition of civil unions and doing so at a time when a sizable portion of the American society and more importantly the cultural history defines marriage, as a religious institution and between a man and a woman. Unfortunately the media, in general, has aided this conflation and has been complicit in this issue because they have not challenged the reach for marriage, a cultural concept. They have adopted the parlance of the movement and made gay marriage a social justice issue. Civil unions are a social justice issue but marriage is not; it is a sense of what a democracy means by the notion of tolerance. Tolerance is reciprocal. It is no more right for gays to impose their conception of marriage on those of us who are deeply committed to an alternate definition than it is for us to deprive them of the legal rights. Someone please make this distinction because the country keeps being torn apart by discourse as hegemony!
Good question, Diane, about defining "elite."
Isn't karma wonderful! The Republicans will gain no new voters, but will only lose voters...and money. Same for North Carolina. It should be noted that Charlotte voted against this hateful amendment.
Apparently having an education makes you an "elitist". I guess I've been called worse.
Brian Brown talks of "the elites" vs "the people" and says "the people" have spoken, but disregards the fact that this was actually a minuscule percentage of the voting population here. In fact something some people simply don't like has been enshrined in the constitution. What's next on the GOP agenda of things they simply don't like?
Where's the fairness in having opposing view points? There are 2 guests that are against marriage equality, 1 who is for marriage equality, and (presumably) an unbiased pollster.
Please ask your guest not to use negative descriptions when describing an issue e.g. elite, activist judges, impose, liberal, mandate, radical, self-serving.
These words are on a list that the GOPAC ask people to use
to get people to vote against something.
It is not about facts.
When it comes to issues of gay marriage at the state level, I'm always confused as to why the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (which does apply to the states) doesn't allow for gays to marry. A marriage is a legal contract and thus should it not be protected by the constitution? Aren't all of these state level initiatives therefore moot?
I am so very tired of the hijacking of the word "elite."
The dictionary defines the word elite as:
1.( often used with a plural verb ) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2.( used with a plural verb ) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3.a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
If Brian Brown defines elite as those that are college educated, then he has just confirmed that his, and his groups intent is to keep the masses uneducated and ill-informed - easier to manipulate that way.
As a North Carolinian who voted AGAINST the Amendment, I was greatly disappointed. My understanding is that many who were urged to vote in favor had no idea of the repercussions of the amendment. Today, many of my friends are beginning the fight to repeal.
Our government is secular. Why does it issue marriage licenses which are religious? Why not have the govt give a civil license and receive your marriage contract from your chosen religious institution?
Who is this Brian Brown? Just the tone of his voice and duplicity of his arguments are galling. I live in NC and voted against this stupid amendment. These are non-issues made into issues so as to distract from the real problems that everyday American face. Once this state had industry in textile mills, farms, and manufacturing. Those jobs are gone, and have left a population without opportunity. That is when vulture issues like this one come in. If people had more to do, this would not be an issue.
We here in NC know that less voters come out for primary votes, and the most motivated and robotic voters in the state are over the age of 60. Yes, the baby-boomers have great numbers and vote every time. Times will change because time marches on. But in the meantime, we must tolerate these self-involved groups manipulating the public. Unfortunately, when fear is involved--manipulating the public isn't very hard.
I want to question the conservative assertion that the trend in the polls does not reflect the real sympathies of voters. I'm a NC voter and it's very clear to me that factors other than pure poll numbers influenced the lopsided outcome in favor of the referendum passing. I live in overwhelmingly conservative south Charlotte (our Congressional Representative is the xenophobic Sue Myrick), and yet my precinct voted 57.6% AGAINST the amendment. My neighbors are wealthy conservatives, but they are more economic conservatives than social. The major metropolitan areas in the state (Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham) voted against the amendment, while the more rural areas voted solidly for it. The deciding factor, I think, is that the evangelical pastors pushed their congregations to get out and vote, and, in areas where those religions dominate, they dominated to polls. Evangelicals, however, do not make up that large a slice of the population. This referendum, held in a primary election, was won by the ground game. It might have won anyway according to the polls, but not by this margin.