Professional associations representing several types of health care providers used a news conference at the General Assembly to publicized their opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment on the May 8 ballot.

Good for them, but sorry to see Binker limit his initial explanation to "The amendment would add a definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the state constitution," when of course it also would rule out civil unions.

Meanwhile, "North Carolina's top law enforcement official said Wednesday he'll vote against the marriage amendment on next month's ballot, pointing out potential legal problems with its language."

Comments

[Sean]

obviously, AG Cooper is another "just because" nut job who doesn't understand family law like i do.

[Spag]

Maybe Cooper will accept my bet. Nobody else has.

[cheripickr]

After much consideration I agree with Sean and have concluded that we should not even be allowed to vote on this. We should withdraw this awful amendment and just leave things the way they are. It's worked for North Carolina all these years. Why mess with a good thing. Everyone agree?

[Bill B.]

mmmmm.........let's see, now. It is a blog comment. It indicates agreement with me. It would seem to indicate a change of mind from a previously held position. Quandary: call Ed to ease him into the shock gently, or call Guiness to get a screenshot for evidence? What to do? What to do?

This must be a trap! Where is the hidden logical noose?

This is much easier when everybody just talks past each other. Can't we all just get along (that way)?

All above in fun, cheripicker. I was just reflecting on Ed's comments on comments the other day. Of course, I spotted the trap. Everyone agreeing? Ha!