April 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Primary election results | Main | Gauger's disaster »

May 08, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Patrick Eakes

Now, Ed, you already know the answer to your question. Trudy Wade doesn't vacate a seat until multiple judges have instructed her to do so.

I know it can't happen, but it would sure feel right to let John Parks serve out her term and reclaim some of the time she stole from him.

Ryan Shell

Ed, re: Trudy.

I asked that question in November of 2010 - http://greensboropolitics.com/tick-tock-is-trudys-seat-on-the-block.



North Carolina Amendment One: Shame on us


Bill Bush

A piece on DKos said that our last state constitutional amendment was the one forbidding interracial marriage. We all know where that went.

I attended the Haw River Ballroom concert Sunday night. It was clear that a new generation will be the end of this foolishness. Anything that has to be sneaked by like this cannot stand for long.


We've had 200 years of watching the power given to states by the Constitution has been used to rollback, rather than advance, democracy.

Democracy doesn't work when members of the dominant tribe don't want members of other tribes to be free. Yesterday's vote on the amendment was very tribal, indeed.

I hope people have the courage and means to push back against this travesty.


I was briefly happy thinking that at least Guilford County voters were sane and voted against the amendment, and then I looked at the map. Guilford County, according to the map, voted for the amendment. I hope the map is wrong. I am very embarrassed to live in this state. http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80741/en/md.html?cid=425000010


Resounding win for our state yesterday as they voted 61 percent in favor of the marriage amendment!
Thank you to all those people who stood up for traditional marriage and hundreds of years of tradition.

Now, let the teeth gnashing begin.


Not to mention the lawsuits.

Handy clip 'n' save reminder: When the courts remind you that the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a real thing, that is not "judicial activism" and it is not "legislating from the bench" and it is not "making up rights out of thin air."


Lex, does the equal protection clause extend to all forms of marriage? If not, why ?


Spag, I would think that if the state is going to be in the marriage business -- a debatable proposition in and of itself -- any civil benefits of marriage must extend to all forms not already designated criminal because of the harm done to individuals and/or society by them. And while that may make you feel all icky, that's the thing about freedom. It means some people are gonna do things that harm no one but piss you off. It also means you do not have the right not to be pissed off.

The burden is on Amendment One proponents to prove that their measure provides social benefits that outweigh the real harm imposed on people who otherwise would enjoy the benefits of marriage and/or civil unions. They haven't come close to meeting that burden. Moreover, Amendment One unconstitutionally restricts the free-expression rights of churches -- yes, churches -- that wish to marry gay couples.


What do you do in states that have different criminal prohibitions on marriage? Can it not be argued that the criminal prohibitions themselves are unconstitutional? I will ask you the same question I asked Roch- what is the difference Constitutionally between a criminal prohibition and a non-criminal prohibition? If for example, polygamy is criminalized because the majority of people think it's "icky" or harmful to society, why can't same-sex marriage be similarly criminalized or merely banned if enough people think the same way about that? Conversely, if "icky" isn't a Constitutionally valid reason to ban something, then criminal prohibitions and bans against polygamy and other types of "icky" marriages would also be unconstitutional, would they not ?

There is also no basis for your claim that "Amendment One unconstitutionally restricts the free-expression rights of churches -- yes, churches -- that wish to marry gay couples."


I'll take your second point first: In a society that allows the sacrificing of chickens and the smoking of peyote as religious expression, and actually is considering silly-assed conscience clauses about whether one may receive SERVICES FROM AN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR WHICH ONE HAS PAID, same-sex marriage clearly falls within the bounds of free expression.

As for the rest, you merely reinforce my point: The state needs to be out of the marriage business.

The comments to this entry are closed.