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.
Brian's got a lot of nerve, criticizing Pew polling. I had a push-poll phone call from NOM that asked if I thought marriage was between "a man and a woman" -- saying yes seems the logical choice (because yes, some marriage are between a man and a woman!), but I simply had to say no. Their polling is disingenuous and guaranteed to produce the result they want. I'd leave the accurate polls to people whose methodology has been proven for decades.
In reply to Jonathan Wolinsky: Going back even further, I always wonder what part of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is difficult to understand. Not to mention all that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness stuff.
What happened with the polling before this vote? I was living in my home state, Virginia, when Douglas Wilder won a close vote for Governor. In that election, the opinion polls had Wilder winning by wide margin. The vote was much closer. Apparently, Virginians were uncomfortable expressing their opposition to voting for an African-American for Governor (even though Mr. Wilder was then currently Lt. Governor).
So here we are, an electorate uncomfortable with their own prejudices-until they reach the privacy of the voting booth. An tacit acknowledgement of discrimination? My guess is yes.
I now wonder what this portends for a Mormon candidate for President.
As a gay man and resident of North Carolina, I feel like I am no longer welcome here. I cannot tell you how hurtful this is.
As for Mr Brown's comment on polls and how questions color responses: "PUNISHMENT" is excactly what the LGBT community is suffering when our freedoms and rights are made illegal. Why not call ammendments like these what they are? "Ammendment to prove we don't want gay people to have the same rights as the majority." Don't worry, sir. Most of us have been bullied much of our lives. We're used to it. Congratulations on your victory.
This goes beyond just gay marriage. About a year ago I met an addiction counselor who was married to his wife for 35 years. They raised three children and five grandchildren. All his life he struggled with his gender identity and about 8 years ago he transitioned from male to female. Under Minnesota law, his marriage of 35 years was no longer recognized and now "she" and her wife could no longer receive the legal benefits they had been entitled to. They had to spend thousands of dollars just to arrange for the same legal protections they had been automatically granted as a married couple. These marriage amendments fail to address just who is "female" or "male" and thus opens a can of worms for many families.
My family takes trips to NC outer banks every year. We rent a large beach house and spend two weeks in the outer banks and visit a lot of tourist sights in the state.
We will NOT be going this year, or again. I am not exposing my family to a bunch of bigots. Good luck crawling your way back into the 21st century.
Your guest criticized polls that use the question whether same sex marriage should be illegal instead of whether you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is a big difference between these questions. A person could believe that within their own life, marriage is defined as that between a man and a woman yet the same person could believe that that standard need not be enshrined in the law where it becomes the standard for all people including those with different beliefs. Just for comparison, a person could believe that Christ is the son of God yet not believe that it should be illegal for someone to have a different belief about Christ or God.
When polling takes place, it must be kept in mind that asking whether people believe that it should be illegal for same sex marriage is NOT just a negative way to ask if people believe in same sex marriage. It is a fundamentally different question.
Personally, I have no problem with people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I have a problem with those who wish to make this belief a matter of law where it would apply to all, including those who have a different belief.
Gay marriage opponents reveal political strategy in secret memo
The nation’s leading anti-gay-marriage group has a surprising strategy for opposing same-sex marriage: pit African Americans and gays against each other.
With an improving economy undercutting the GOP's fiscal arguments against Democrats, Republicans have already indicated that they intend to return this year to social issues — including same-sex marriage. At least five states are expected to have ballot measures this year relating to the issue: Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, North Carolina and Washington state.
In internal memo from the National Organization for Marriage was part of a cluster of documents unsealed Monday by a federal court as part of a probe into the group’s disclosure practices for donors. The strategy memo — marked “confidential” — included a detailed passage entitled “Not a Civil Rights Project.”
“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies,” read the memo, which outlined a plan to recruit African-American spokesmen to speak out against gay marriage, then organize a media campaign around their objections.
You can read the rest of the article here.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/218519-anti-marriage-gro...
Im my humble opinion this is very sick, but unfortunately very effective. Will this email make it on the show? Probably not, because it cuts to the heart of the matter.
Sincerely,
A quite disgusted North Carolina resident.
In the bible God makes many covenants with us, and they are solidified with blood. With the covenant of marriage you are suppose to have this sharing of blood(which can only happen with a man and woman).
With the new covenant of Christ, God has shown us that only He can keep the promise because we will always sin, so do we still need this sharing of blood to keep a covenant with God? Christ's blood takes care of our sins, do we still need to have this covenant of blood between a man and woman to sanctify marriage?
social conservative voters must be more organized and MOTIVATED. Too bad conservative christians just can't just worry about their own sins and not worry about what others are or are not doing. This kind of foolishness has reinforced my belief that organized religion is the work of the devil.
I don't understand why the majority gets to infringe the rights of the minority. As Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." I also don't see why people care about what someone else does with their lives, at least as far as marriage goes. Does it really effect your life if a gay couple gets married? And why are the religious conservatives trying to make everyone having to live by their beliefs? I have Christian friends who have no problem with gay marriage as they focus more on the idea's from the bible about not judging others. Everyone deserves equal rights regardless of things like religious beliefs, race, or sexual orientation.
What I don't understand is this, the primary objection to gay marriage that I have heard is that it is not defined as so by God, it goes against their religious beliefs. I would like to hear a more varied response.
It seems as though the separation of church and state is only applied when it does not benefit the church, but is wholly ignored when the religious community would like to oppose their beliefs on others. Does the separation of church and state apply if there is no other basis for objection?
As an "elite" per Diane's first guest's description (which I assume means an individual capable of independent thought not marred by personal bias) I understand that "marriage" is traditionally defined as a religious institution not as a civil institution. Not all religions ban gay marriage. The Catholic church in its beginnings, did indeed perform gay marriages. Marriage at the state or federal level needs to be redefined as civil marriage as opposed to religious marriage. If NC wants to pass a constitutional ammendment against religious marriage more power to them, then the religious groups that do allow it can take them to court.
To state that equal marriage is not necessary consider this:
=When Gay service members give the ultimate sacrifice for their country, their partners do not recieve their death benefits, their partners are unable to take part in the health benefits provided to other service members families. NC should apologize to the gay marines at Camp Lejeune.
= Gay families have to file separate tax returns not married returns no matter that they may have been together 50 years.
=Gay partners do not gain social security survivor benefits, property does not automatically transer to the surviving partners.
=Health insurance is not provided evenly to gay partners between states. If one state had civil union or equal marriage, benefits will be provided if it doesn't they are not. I experience this at my own workplace.
I defy anyone, even the most observant in the Jewish faith, to fully live up to the codes in the Levitical Law. So trotting out this as a reason to ban gay marriage is a red herring. The totality of the way we do business in the world violates this law, especially when it comes to the lending of money. How many are there, who are willing to burn down the house with mildew in it?
Further, this country is not a THEOCRACY. Technically, we are not governed by the principles of any religion.
Will they selectively enforce the law by allowing the common law hetero marriages to stand. As far as I can understand the law, those are banned as well. Now the duplicity in that type of enforcement is a case for a serious law suit.
I so agree.
I want a definition of a "man" and a definition of a "woman" that is absolute and that can not be challenged in any legal sense.
A definition that would eliminate the debates in sports over the legitimacy of women who have been known as women all their lives by their family and doctors and community, but challenged by other women, and in scientific tests by sports judges have been determined to be men, not women.
As these State constitutions make a legal determination that certain rights are determined based on being "man" or being "woman", then the constitutional definition of a "man" and a "woman" must be a constitutional definition that can not be debated.
agreed. the churchs enjoy tax deductible and tax free status as separate from the state, however they wish to impose their values on the state. If that is the case then they can lose those statuses and become tax paying corporations like every other business in America.
I wish Diane would have followed up and had Maggie answer --why people have a right to vote on my "civil" rights. My right to protect my family.My right to all the rights and responsibilities all other americans enjoy,for free.
amy from Mclean
My son once asked me what the gay marriage opponents were so afraid of-- "after all, it's not like we are making THEM marry some one of the same sex. Why do they care?" I can't comprehend that in this era of our society, people are so hypocritical as to want to have control over what happens in my bedroom, but still want "big government" to stay out of their lives. They're in my bed, but I can't be in their gun safe?! The hypocrisy makes me sick & sad...
My son once asked me what the gay marriage opponents were so afraid of-- "after all, it's not like we are making THEM marry some one of the same sex. Why do they care?" I can't comprehend that in this era of our society, people are so hypocritical as to want to have control over what happens in my bedroom, but still want "big government" to stay out of their lives. They're in my bed, but I can't be in their gun safe?! The hypocrisy makes me sick & sad...
I just don't understand that the concept of marriage comes from the bible. Marriage, two people uniting, is much older. It is not fair for one group to claim marriage and say this is how it is defined, because God says so.
From Charlottesville, Virginia
I would like to revisit the issue of the majority being allowed to determine the rights of the minority. Ms. Smith did not address the issue directly. Instead she cited a history of the referendum as a tool of liberals.
She asserted that neither she nor anyone should have the right to assert a new definitition of the institution of marriage. She does not discuss the fact that in the civil rights era did indeed redefine marriage. Loving v. Virginia redefined marriage to allow interracial marriage across the land overturning antimiscegenation laws passed at the state level. The second issue is that she does not acknowledge that at the core of the civil rights movement was the definition of personhood - at least as sacrisanct an institution as marriage.
I believe this amendment passed because of religious beliefs and a sincere desire to do what God wants us to do. I'm a Tarheel born and a Tarheel bred, a heterosexual mom of two kids, and a devout Christian. I voted against the amendment for religious reasons (because God created us in his image, so every person is sacred). It us up to Christians who voted against this amendment to listen to our neighbors and engage on deep discussion. I have religious friends who are wonderful parents, and they are gay. I want their family to be recognized not only legally, but by the religious authorities that they are a sign of God's love.
Ms. Gallagher said something I absolutely agree with: if we allow gay marriage then people who oppose it will be viewed the same as people who opposed civil rights. Good, they should be viewed that way.
Also, 61% is not a landslide. I've been in NC my whole life, and I think that this is a sign of great growth in support for same-sex marriage.
I am sadly, a resident of North Carolina and voted against this amendment which was created by a group of fundamentalist bigots in the state legislature. This would never have been approved by the previous, Democratic legislature. I am sad to say, that at this stage in our political process, Republican = Bigot. While there are exceptions, the results speak for themselves.
As I appreciate your objection to "Obama Care," I am surprised that you permit repetition of "activist judges." Recently someone said we can a judge "activist" if we disagree with the judgment. Surely we should agree that each judge, despite clay feet, is as fair as possible in balancing the law and their own inclinations. Attacking the judiciary cannot take us in good directions. We should allow judgments to play out in further courts or in legislative bodies.
Great show. Victoria
If the sanctity of marriage is so important, what are your guests stances' on divorce? Isn't divorce a far greater threat than same-sex marriage?
Is there any way your guests talk about why a person is gay or lesbian? I believe there is a science explanation as well as why there is a persona straight man or a woman. Once this is explained deeply then it would be clear, perhaps, that the real gay and lesbians don't have a spell or their brain don't work right. It might be a way to embrace them as people and give them the rights they deserve...even religious people could change their mind if they have this explanation. What the guest would say about it?
Marriage is religious concept and should be removed from government as all religion should be removed from government. The government should change all laws to remove the word Marriage and change them to Domestic Contracts, since that is what it is and should be relegated to contract laws not religious laws.