Whatever lies behind the N&R's editorial reticence on Amendment One, the local daily's failure to opine on North Carolina's hottest political issue does not seem to be dictated by ownership, as another Landmark paper -- in Virginia, no less -- has published a strong piece on the subject.

I lack inside knowledge of the doings on Market Street, but both of the senior staffers in the editorial department, Allen Johnson and Doug Clark, have written about the amendment in columns and blog posts. Both, in fact, oppose Amendment One. Yet the formal editorial voice of the News & Record remains silent on an issue that has captured national attention.

As far as I know, that leaves publisher Robin Saul as the only force capable of blocking a lead editorial. [UPDATE: Confirmation from Romenesko's media blog. /update]

The News & Record and its predecessors have a proud history of speaking up for civil rights. The late Bill Snider, an editorial legend in this state and the finest of Southern gentlemen, endured a cross burning and other vandalism to his home as he stood up for then-controversial ideals just decades ago.

And now, silence.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Comments

[Bill Yaner]

"To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men." - Abraham Lincoln

[Lex]

It is possible that the paper is planning to run an editorial the Sunday before the referendum, Sunday being the day of the week with the highest readership. No idea whether that's actually what it will do, though.

Before the state started early voting, the paper typically would run its lead editorial the Sunday before election day on the presidential race, the U.S. Senate race or something else at or near the top of the ballot. The importance of doing so on that particular Sunday has diminished now that we have early voting, of course. But then the industry is rife with longstanding practices that have become anachronisms in light of new technology or other developments.

(Re the Norfolk paper: Although based in Virginia, it was for a time the easiest metro paper to obtain in the northern Outer Banks and other northeastern N.C. coastal communities, and its news coverage and even some editorials took that fact into account. No idea whether that's still the case; the Virginian-Pilot's interest may be on a par with that of the Times or the Post, these days.)

Would Robin Saul singlehandedly order up a pro-Amendment One editorial? I don't think it's likely. But I think it's even less likely that he would involve himself for the purpose of saying, "Don't do an editorial on this one way or the other."

[Ed Cone]

I hope you're right about Sunday, Lex, although if that's the case the N&R will have removed itself from the very important early-voting discussion, and also lagged other major papers from NC to NY on this issue. It will not look good.

I have remarked on this several times and not gotten any comment from Doug or Allen, which I fear may be telling.

[bubba]

They can editorialize for it all they want. As is the anti-amendment hysteria we've been treated to endlessly here,I suspect such will make no difference in the bigger scheme of things.

Meanwhile, let's see if the N&R reports this tomorrow.

(Hint: Try IE. Chrome doesn't like the link. I suspect many of the antis won't either.)

[Sean]

every biblical argument offered should be automatically trotted out back and put down without discrimination.

if that's your personal belief, fine. just don't try to codify it into law and discriminate against the rights of fellow citizens. separation of church and state is a rather simple concept.

[bubba]

As previously established, "gay marriage" is not a civil rights matter, nor is it an equal protection issue.

All the various academic and intellectually bankrupt tactics and strategy used by the antis won't change that.

[Sean]

bubba, any two people can have a ceremony and consider themselves "wed" under the eyes of their lord. this includes gay people. this amendment won't halt that from happening. gay couples will continue to have ceremonies, continue to adopt children or become impregnated, continue to live as families, continue to struggle and enjoy life and continue to watch each other die like the rest of us.

the actual debate happening is whether or not gay people should have access to the thousands of rights and benefits that straight couples enjoy when wed by the state.

it's obvious that you feel that gay people don't deserve that right. noted.

[Account Deleted]

It will become an equal protection issue once a case reaches the Supreme Court, as has been pointed out by others here before. The evolution of the constitutional status of this issue is beginning to look much like that of the course the issue of slavery took in terms of various states having various laws on the issue.

I wish more historians were bloggers.

[bubba]

"It will become an equal protection issue once a case reaches the Supreme Court, as has been pointed out by others here before."

Really?

The Court would have to certify that homosexuals are deserving of special class recognition, (like that accorded to blacks) that exempts them from having to comply with various state's marriage eligibility requirements.

Unlike the Civil Rights movement, which sought to restore rights enumerated in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the movement to legitimize gay marriage does not seek to restore any "right" previously enumerated to gays.

In addition, the (th Circuit's decision that struck on Prop 8 was clear in determining that same-sex marriage is not supported by precedent as the law of the land.

Excerpt:

"The majority stated clearly that no fundamental right was at issue. Citing Romer v. Evans, the court asserted that if a law does not 'burden a fundamental right' the provision will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate end. From that premise the court found that Proposition 8 did not involve such a right, stating succinctly, that '[s]uch was the case in Romer and it is the case here as well.' Not surprisingly, the dissenter, Judge Smith, agreed. Citing Lawrence v. Texas, Judge Smith wrote that 'The United States Supreme Court has not recognized that the fundamental right to marry includes a fundamental right to gay marriage.' "

[Ed Cone]

I think Bubba is going to vote against the amendment.

But the point of the post is that the N&R has not written an editorial on the issue.

I'd hope that my hometown paper would stand against this amendment, and for the civil rights of all North Carolinians.

But if it doesn't, it should say so.

It still can, either way. The best time to do it has passed, but better late than never.

Never would be really bad.

[Sean]

does anyone even read the n&r anymore? i'd get the concern if we were talking about a local/national paper with real circulation, like wapo or the times, but the n&r? i don't think such editorials carry much weight these days.

[bubba]

"I'd hope that my hometown paper would stand against this amendment, and for the civil rights of all North Carolinians."

Why stop there?

Why not insist that every preferred by "progressives" candidate for state office express support for repealing Amendment One, and insist they campaign on that issue?

Why not insist that all preferred by "progressives" candidates for Congress express support for an amendment to the US Constitution that codifies marriage rights for gays, and insist they campaign on that issue?

Why not?

Or will you and your fellow "progressives" suddenly decide you have more important issues to address?

[Bill Yaner]

Why not insist that all the "conservatives" like "bubba" refrain in the future from using quotation marks every time they refer to "progressives" ?

[Sean]

bubba, if you hate this spot so much, why do you frequent it so often? i realize that no one reads your rants on your own blog, but don't you find it a bit humiliating to repeatedly visit a spot where 95% of the readership finds you to be a caricature?

that was a rhetorical question.

[bubba]

"that was a rhetorical question."

Obviously, seeing that you have no valid response to the material I've presented on this thread.

You're just lucky I have some free time this afternoon to help educate you.

[bubba]

"Why not insist that all the "conservatives" like "bubba" refrain in the future from using quotation marks every time they refer to "progressives" ?"

I like being accurate in my descriptions. The quotation marks indicate that there is nothing really progressive about "progressives".

[Ed Cone]

So, anyway, the absence of an editorial about the biggest political issue of the year in this state strikes me as odd, and I'm curious about the internal politics at the N&R that have silenced its voice while other NC papers have made their positions clear.

[Ged]

Prejudice is an ugly thing, pure and simple. Amazing how some still cling to it like a security blanket in their crib at night.

[bubba]

"Prejudice is an ugly thing, pure and simple. Amazing how some still cling to it like a security blanket in their crib at night."

Do you have anything constructive to say about the material I've provided today, Ged? Or do you just want to share your personal catharsis?

[Sean]

bubba, you insult people left and right, yet demand that they take your "material" serious? it' funny, only because when i do the same, i could care less about your opinion, because i know you don't have one.

sorry, ed, but i still feel the n&r is a useless dinosaur with close to zero value at this point -- no disrespect meant towards the journalists hanging on for dear life over there.

[bubba]

"bubba, you insult people left and right, yet demand that they take your "material" serious?"

Note to Seanie: I don't care what any of the "regulars" on this blog think about my material. I post only to counteract their wrong/false conclusions, and to hold them accountable for their lack of academic and intellectual integrity.

Don't read my material or comment on it if you don't like it, or can't discuss the issues on the merits. You are one of the most egregious offenders in that category.

[Sean]

all you do is post quotes from other people and drop snark. please. you're not doing anyone a service.

present your own thoughts, link to facts to back up your own thinking, and even the majority of people that don't agree with your perspective would engage with you... not that you care, of course. you "counteract" perspectives and hold people accountable for some middle-school derived "permanent record."

have at it, bubs. it's annoying like mud, but we all can wipe our own feet.

[JB]

Sean, I see your point but I disagree about zero value. There are probably some dead-enders who still get that paper and who just might be swayed by an editorial that points out all of the reasons why we shouldn't be carving discrimination into our state constitution. Ideally it should also mention all of the non-hippies, from Hood to Orr and beyond, who oppose the amendment too.

If the vote is close, the Good will need every single vote that logic and human dignity can possibly unleash. Because, sadly, the Bad is going to be getting a lot of votes based on unfounded fear of people who are gay.

Those dead-enders could make the difference.

[Ged]

JB, I agree even though the local paper isn't as important as social media, it matters none-the-less. What matters most is the fact that lawmakers are going out of their way to discriminate against LGBT couples, seemingly on a whim or to protect the sagging birthrate of white Christians. As I said in another thread, in 20 years all of these points will be moot. Many states already have legal protections in place for gay couples, why NC feels the need to go out of it's way to discriminate against them is beyond me.

[Ged]

Bob, you didn't respond to my posting of the actual wording of the amendment in the other thread, so why on Earth should I reply to your lose collection of material here? Especially since for *some* reason you cannot seem to keep the discussion clear of irrelevant, personal comments.

It cuts both ways Bubba.

[Sean]

it wouldn't hurt for the n&r to publish such an editorial, but i really don't think it would make the kind of dent in the polls that matters right now. yes, a .5% swing (in a perfect world) would be nice, but that's all it would be... nice. it seems like canvasing neighborhoods in the sticks of NC might be a better strategy -- dangerous as hell, but a better strategy nonetheless.

[bubba]

"....present your own thoughts, link to facts to back up your own thinking, and even the majority of people that don't agree with your perspective would engage with you"

You have a short attention span, or a reading comprehension problem. That's not my fault.

In addition, as is the case with many of your kindred spirits, you've proven yourself incapable of conducting a legitimate debate on the issues. It's pretty obvious you're not interesting in participating in that sort of thing when you get offended by someone's viewpoint.

[bubba]

Oh, one other thing regarding the other thread: There is no established civil right or equal protection right for same sex marriage.

You can say the opposite as much as you like, but it does not change the basic element of the current law of the land in this nation.

[Sean]

bubba, please point to a thread that you *actually* participated in with your own viewpoint, in your own words, *and* without lobbing verbal bombs. i'm no saint, but i at least bat .333 in the same circumstance.

i won't hold my breath.

but back to the topic at hand, right?

[Account Deleted]

I didn't deign to predict what the court would decide, I merely pointed out what would be at issue. As many people have pointed out the Prop 8 case is likely headed to the Supreme Court in 2013 and so we will get national clarity on the issue as opposed to the current patch work of state laws.

[Account Deleted]

In reviewing the opinion on the Prop 8 case it looks like the 9th Court declined to render a decision on the issue of gay marriage as a civil right in order to let the Supreme Court make the decision.

Noteworthy:

We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already committed to same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of ‘marriage,’ and Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents. This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment’s constitutionality on narrow grounds.

As noted in one of the links in my last comment, observers feel this was done in order to place the onus on Justice Kennedy to conform to his libertarian tradition in rulings related to the issue.

[Beau Dure]

Bubba -- Even if we assume for a minute that you're right about a fundamental right to gay marriage, there are other provisions and consequences of this amendment that no reasonable jurist would allow.

Sadly, we have a lot of unreasonable jurists these days, so it's up to the voters to pay attention.

And it's a newspaper's job to expose ignorance -- not convincing everyone that gay marriage is a good thing but pointing out the basic issues of civil rights, for homosexuals and heterosexuals, on which this amendment impinges.

[Roch]

Can Saul look his gay employees in the eye now?

[bubba]

"Even if we assume for a minute that you're right about a fundamental right to gay marriage, there are other provisions and consequences of this amendment that no reasonable jurist would allow.there are other provisions and consequences of this amendment that no reasonable jurist would allow."

Such as?

Before you answer, don't repeat the misapplications, misrepresentations, outright lies, and the over the top hysteria that the antis have promulgated here as fact. They've all been thoroughly discredited, whether they like it or not.

You can drop the "assumption" bit about the lack of a "right' for gay marriage. It's the law of the land, as decided indirectly by Supreme Court summary affirmance in the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Nelson. Additionally, in the 9th Circuit's decision on Proposition 8 could not rule that same sex marriage was a fundamental right because of the SCOTUS decision on Baker v. Nelson.

Those are the facts.