EdCone.com

We tried to find a CEO who supports Amendment One to interview. We worked with the two lead organizations campaigning for it, the North Carolina Family Policy Council and the NC Values Coalition. They could not find a pro-Amendment CEO willing to be interviewed for this documentary.

Our economy is not good, and there seems to be some consensus among business leaders that A1 could make it worse.

Based on our professional expertise, the language of the proposed North Carolina amendment is vague and untested, and threatens harms to a broad range of North Carolina families. The amendment is phrased more broadly than most similar amendments in other states, and would therefore likely be construed by courts more broadly than in other states.

Full statement here.

Teevee time ain't cheap, please do what you can to help get these on the air.

Join Rev. Pam Strader at West Market Street United Methodist Church on Sunday, April 29, 2012, at 7:00pm in Room 415 to learn more about the issues around Amendment One, the proposed North Carolina constitutional amendment that voters will decide on May 8th.

More here.

Looking at Amendment One through the lens of local religious leaders is OK for a Sunday feature, but it's just a start...good that the N&R is covering this issue after ignoring some notable local news about it this past week, but there are many other aspects of the story to tell, and not a lot of time left before the vote. 

Meanwhile, here's an op-ed piece against the amendment from the Fayetteville paper, another from Hendersonville, and, from Burlington, a breakdown of the amendment and the campaigns for and against it.

Thanks, Rebecca. More here.

A live performance of "Vote Against Amendment One" at the College Park Baptist Church rally on Monday night; more here.

A photo from yesterday's early-voting rally against Amendment One at city hall plaza; much more here.

Love is the Answer: Rally Against Amendment One

Saturday, April 28

Governmental Plaza, downtown Greensboro

Games and food from 11AM-1:30PM

Rally at 2Pm

Music by Ivy Sky

A second significant public event against Amendment One has come and gone in Greensboro without a single word or photo in the News & Record. 

That's twice in four days that the local daily has completely ignored meaningful local news about a hot-button statewide issue.

As reported yesterday, people are floating various theories about the paper's lack of coverage. I tend toward my usual explanation: they fired too many people and lack the reporting muscle to do anything close to comprehensive daily journalism anymore. 

Depressing in any case. 

A bunch of college students showed up at the Guilford County Courthouse this afternoon to vote against Amendment One. Groups from Bennett and A&T rolled in just after I finished voting.

Having the chorus of "Vote Against Amendment One" in my head was helpful as I pondered the ballot.

At the rally outside in the plaza, I spoke to some people about the N&R's complete lack of coverage -- zero, zip, nada -- of Monday night's big rally against A1 at College Park Baptist Church. I heard theories (the publisher nixed it, they don't want to cover one side unless the other side has a comparable event, Gauger just blew it). Let's see if the large crowd of young people gathering right down the street from their offices makes tomorrow's paper.

Four construction workers and I had a good talk by the plaza. One was firm in his belief that the Bible ruled out gay marriage. I talked about the civil union ban. I don't know that anyone changed their minds but it was a conversation, not an argument.

I hear teevee ads are on the way, and a serious GOTV effort is happening as well.

Luck Davidson took this pic today at the Guilford County Courthouse, where early voting for the May 8 primary (including the awful Amendment One) has, in theory, begun. 

Things should be more lively this afternoon, when students are scheduled to arrive en masse from UNCG [update, per Luck: the voting event includes other local colleges too].

Dear Pat McCrory,

Do you oppose civil unions for same-sex couples in North Carolina, now and forever?

Because the constitutional amendment you say you'll vote for next month would take the possibility of civil unions off the table in North Carolina.

You believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But Amendment One goes far beyond a ban on gay marriage. It rules out civil unions as well.

You don't want to talk about this amendment, but voters deserve an answer from the man who would be Governor.

Please talk to us, Pat. 

Do you oppose civil unions for North Carolinians, now and forever?

Pat McCrory says he'll vote for Amendment One, that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that he doesn't want to discuss the issue any further.

That's not good enough.

Does McCrory support a ban on any kind of civil union other than marriage between a man and a woman?

Because that's a clearly-stated objective of this amendment.

The presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee needs to be just as clear with the voters of North Carolina.

Does he oppose any sort of civil union law? And is he comfortable with the amendment's wording as written, and the possible outcomes that are headlining political discussions across the state?

We deserve firm answers, Pat. I hope what's left of the political press in North Carolina will push hard to get them.

Two new versions of Vote Against Amendment One, by Evan Olson.

You've got your spiritual, and your rock. Tasty.

Big rally against Amendment One last night at College Park Baptist Church. 

I figured on linking to the N&R coverage this morning. But there isn't any coverage of the event in the local daily.

Photo here of state NAACP president William Barber joining a group singing Vote Against Amendment One.

Here's some footage from a Winston-Salem teevee station.

Not Right NC has one simple mission, to defeat Amendment One at the polls on May 8, 2012. It's not consistent with Republican values, and it's just not right.

Republicans Against NC Amendment One.

 “Our Constitution is for guaranteeing rights, not taking them away."

-- Bev Perdue, speaking out against Amendment 1, which would make civil unions unconstitutional in North Carolina.

Thnx to KG for the pointer.

The Mississippi personhood vote showed how quickly public opinion can shift on a hot-button cultural issue.

It could happen with North Carolina's bad Amendment 1.

But where's the big campaign to jumpstart the movement?

Word-of-mouth and word-of-web are powerful stuff, but some big media and GOTV effforts could make a real difference in the next three weeks. 

Tick, tick, tick...

Invoking tradition when discussing marriage is a dangerous game, because social norms and legal rules change over time. 

Traditional marriage in the United States once deprived women of rights we now take for granted.

Biblical marriage often was polygamous.

And then there's this NC marriage amendment from an earlier era: "All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the third generation, are hereby forever prohibited."

Fortunately, "forever" did not turn out to be forever.

Even a major supporter of Amendment 1 sees a limited future for the proposed ban on civil unions. So why bother with it in the first place?

Allen Johnson's column today is headlined "Gay marriage debate may signal shift in black attitudes." 

This is an article of state-wide importance, but it's hidden in the Google-proof vault. That limits distribution and also keeps readers from across North Carolina -- people who are never going to subscribe to the GSO paper, in print or online -- from noticing the N&R website. What a waste.

North Carolina is competing with the world for business, he said, and "we have to be inclusive and open."

Speaking this morning in Charlotte, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers compared Amendment 1 to Jim Crow laws.

Jeffrey Dean Foster covers Vote Against Amendment One.

I'm looking forward to the rap, soul, and punk versions. 

Also: polka, metal, glam, and plainsong.

A forum on Amendment 1, Tuesday 4/17, at Greensboro College.

A cover version of the song Vote Against Amendment One.

And another big media view of the NC vote:

[T]he passage or defeat of marriage equality isn’t just about weddings. It’s about worth. It’s about the message a society delivers to men who love and pledge commitment to and maybe start families with other men, and to women who love and pledge commitment to and maybe start families with other women.

Against gay marriage and against Amendment 1: 

If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.

Author bios here.

The NC GOP primary will be less interesting sans Santorum, which should should be good news for opponents of Amendment 1. 

TPM takes a look at NC: Beyond Gay Marriage: North Carolina Amendment Carries Massive Implications.

Vote Against Amendment One, recorded March 27-28 in Greensboro.

Produced by Laurelyn Dossett and Ben Singer.
Video by Monkeywhale.

Musicians in order of appearance:

Laurelyn Dossett: acoustic guitar and vocals
Pat Lawrence: bass
Scott Manring: banjo, dobro
Sam Frazier: vocals, electric guitar
Molly McGinn: vocals
Logie Meachum: vocals
Daniel Yount: drums
Ben Singer: keyboards
Robin Doby Easter: vocals
Martha Bassett: vocals
Rhiannon Giddens Laffan: vocals

More here.

Mileah Kromer is a poly sci professor at Elon and assistant director of the Elon University poll. I asked her about voter turnout and Amendment 1, e.g., what would the impact be if Santorum bows out after PA, what's the overall relationship between turnout and the fate of Amendment 1, and so on?

She replied:

My general thought is this: Citizens use what political scientists call the "calculus of voting" when deciding if and when they will vote. Part of this decision is determined by the probability that their vote will "matter"...so in that case, Santorum/Paul/Gingrich all bowing out could potentially suppress Republican turnout.

That being said, Santorum has done really well with church-going, evangelical Christian voters, who are the core demographic that support same-sex marriage bans. With Santorum out, this could keep some voters home, but at the same time, these voters may be coming to the polls to vote for Amendment 1 independent of any presidential or gubernatorial race.

Amendment 1 will be decided by which side gets their voters to the booth in May. This is a true "get out the vote" situation for both proponents and opponents the amendment. It is time for both sides to start the political "full court press"--phone banking, door-to-door, yard signs, and ramping up all tv/radio/print advertising.

Emphasis added.

A potential game-changer on Amendment 1:

"The NAACP strongly urges you to reject the so-called same sex amendment and any other present or future proposals of constitutional amendments that would permanently deprive any person in our great state of his or her inalienable rights."

Democrats may enjoy the GOP primaries, savor the thought of a convention fight, and dream of a Santorum nomination, but opponents of North Carolina's Amendment 1 probably should be rooting for a Romney win in Pennsylvania later this month and subsequent tent-folding by Santorum. 

Putting this amendment, which would make civil unions unconstitutional in NC,  on the primary ballot seemed like a bad thing back when state Democrats had an incumbent governor and the GOP presidential race was up in the air. Republicans seemed to have a big advantage in the turnout game.

Now we could have all-but-settled Republican contests at at the state and national levels, while the Democrats will be trying to decide on a gubernatorial nominee. That might change the GOTV math to some meaningful degree.

A new Elon poll shows growing opposition to the awful Amendment 1.

Unsurprisingly, opposition is even stronger when people are asked about civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Which, given the wording of the amendment, is the right question to ask.

Caveat: North Carolinians ≠ registered voters ≠ likely voters ≠ voters. 

Lots of work to be done, but remember the Mississippi personhood amendment, which seemed quite likely to pass right up until the end, when it didn't, as many people who supported the core concept grew uncomfortable with the scope of the actual law.

A rally against the awful Amendment 1 will be held on Monday, April 16 at College Park Baptist Church on Walker Ave.  State NAACP president Reverend William Barber and UNC law prof Maxine Eichner will be among the speakers.

This bad amendment is about more than gay marriage. As one of its champions, house majority leader Skip Stam explains, "Domestic partnerships or civil unions, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, would not be valid or recognized here."

Word of mouth matters. Tell your friends. Defeating this change to our constitution is not a gay or straight thing, or a liberal/conservative thing, just a good thing.

NC House majority leader Skip Stam on the intended impact of Amendment 1:

Domestic partnerships or civil unions, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, would not be valid or recognized here.

This fact, if widely understood, could go a long way to defeating the amendment.

Stam's legal arguments are questioned by some experts.

And as always I'm puzzled by the argument that marriage should be limited to "channeling procreative sexual activity" -- if that's true, why do we allow people with no intention or ability to procreate to marry?

On May 8, everybody should vote against the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in North Carolina – even including those who want same-sex marriage to continue being banned in North Carolina. The proposed amendment is so poorly worded and so unnecessary that its adoption would actually increase the probability of a federal court invalidating its ban on same-sex marriage...The amendment would also have other unintended consequences that would hurt everybody in our state.

One of the state's most respected legal minds, Russell M. Robinson II, speaks out against the awful Amendment 1.

The Mississippi personhood law was defeated, despite strong polling numbers right up to election day, as voters who supported the idea in principle grew uneasy with the full implications of the bill.

With less than six weeks left before the NC primary, there is hope that the same thing could happen here.

Tillis, who voted to pass the amendment, believes it won’t remain long.

"If it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years," Tillis said.

So let's skip the political gamemanship, and save ourselves time and money by defeating it now.

Another country heard from: 

Former Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, the former executive director of the conservative North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, said the fate of such an amendment may end up out of the hands of voters and legislators.

"My sense is that the federal courts will ultimately resolve this," he said.

Orr, a Republican, also questioned the need for the amendment.

"Any provision that has to be put into the ‘miscellaneous’ section of the constitution immediately raises questions about whether it should be in the state constitution," he said. "It’s probably not a provision that ought to be in."

John Hood:

I think amending North Carolina’s constitution to forbid gay and lesbian couples from receiving any future legal recognition, including civil unions, is unwise and unfair.

Which brings a challenge from James Protzman: "It's time to put the weight of your leadership, and Art Pope's money, behind those words, Mr. Hood."

The AP article in the N&R about the John Locke Foundation blog fiasco says, "The image accompanied a post by Servatius titled 'Obama Goes Pro Gay Marriage to Get NC on Election Day.'"

But that's the headline on the scrubbed version of the post.

The original read, "Obama Goes Gay to Get NC on Election Day."

For all the justifiable anger over the racially-charged imagery, let's not lose sight of the nasty gay-baiting angle.

Meanwhile, the Meck Deck post still carries no indication that it's been altered, or why. JLF should add that information.

This illustration of Obama in showgirl drag with a bucket of fried chicken ran alongside an article on Amendment 1 published at the John Locke Foundation's Meck Deck blog.

The illustration has been scrubbed from the post, and the headline changed from "Obama Goes Gay to Get NC on Election Day" to "Obama Goes Pro Gay Marriage to Get NC on Election Day." Both revisions were made without comment.

The writer, Tara Servatius, seems to have gone to ground, and I can't find anything about the post or the image at any JLF sites. I'll send this post to John Hood for comment.

Bill Maher is right that the collective rush to the fainting couch over every barbed remark is tiresome, but wrong to lump all perceived offenses into the same get-over-it category.

Intent, content, and context matter. Hard to see how this one ends well for Servatius or JLF.

UPDATE: Via Facebook, John Hood says Servatius "is no longer a contributor to our site...I would have made that decision for her, but she beat me to the punch by ending her role."

He writes that he "is embarrassed and angered today."

Earlier this week, a freelancer who blogs at the John Locke Foundation's Charlotte site posted a piece about President Obama's opposition to North Carolina's marriage amendment. It included an illustration that was offensive and utterly inappropriate for our blog or anyone else's. A reader brought it to my attention yesterday, and I had it removed immediately, but the damage was done. I'm sorry I didn't see it earlier and I'm deeply sorry it was our site for any length of time. The political discourse in our state and nation has grown increasingly coarse, unnecessarily personal, and destructively vitriolic. This is the kind of episode that can only make the situation worse. We should be able to disagree about controversial issues without it coming to this.

An appropriate response, although three days after the post ran. Still nothing about the issue at the Meck Deck, Hood's page, or any JLF site I can find, though.

UPDATE II: Jon Ham posts about Servatius' resignation and her ugly work at Meck Deck; the same message should be added to the original post. JLF has handled this well today, but clearly oversight of blogs published under its banner needs some fixing.

UPDATE III, 5:15 PM: Servatius apologizes, after a fashion. "It was meant to illustrate Obama's southern political strategy, nothing more."

Still nothing added to the original post, would be a blogging best practice, or to any other JLF site I could find.

Alert reader MF tells me that Ted Olson's visit to GSO has been canceled. 

Eichner is still scheduled for 4/16. 

“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples,” said Cameron French, the Obama campaign’s North Carolina spokesman, in a statement. “That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do — it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples — and that’s why the president does not support it.”

Helpful to the degree it helps get black voters out in opposition to this awful amendment. 

NCCJ says, "We're bringing lawyer Ted Olson, former Solicitor General, to Greensboro to talk about a conservative's take on Amendment One. Maxine Eichner, professor of law at UNC, will join Olson to give perspective on the North Carolina proposal."

Sunday afternoon, April 1, location TBA.

Eichner, previously.

Word is that Ted Olson will be in GSO soon to speak about the awful Amendment 1. Details coming soon.

54 percent of respondents said they would oppose an amendment to the North Carolina constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. Thirty-eight percent support it.

..."Compared to this time last year, far more citizens are supportive of giving at least some partnership rights to gay couples..."

One poll matters, and that's the one where people vote in May.

But the trend looks friendly.

Nate Silver breaks down Super Tuesday:

If you were expecting the kind of dominant candidate who could win North Dakota and Tennessee despite once having governed as a moderate in Massachusetts, you will have been disappointed in Mr. Romney. You would also have been paying very little attention to national politics for the past year. Dominant candidates do not trail people like Herman Cain and Donald Trump in the polls...

If instead you were expecting the kind of candidate who is very likely to win the Republican nomination despite losing North Dakota and Tennessee, you would have found your man.

North Carolina is not Tennessee, but if we'd voted yesterday I'd guess Santorum would have done better here than he did in Massachusetts or Idaho, and also assume a lot of his potential supporters will turn out to vote for the awful Amendment 1 even if he washes out by early May, so the campaign against the amendment had better stay sharp.

"This amendment would prevent NC from making even civil unions legal, and also nobody knows what some key parts of the amendment mean and so we can look forward to years of expensive legal wrangling if it passes." 

That's one way the Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission might have worded its official explanation of Amendment 1, but this is how it actually reads:

A current North Carolina law enacted in 1996 says that marriage between individuals of the same sex are not valid in North Carolina. This amendment would make that concept part of the North Carolina Constitution. If this amendment is passed by the voters, then under state law it can only be changed by another vote of the people.

The term “domestic legal union” used in the amendment is not defined in North Carolina law. There is debate among legal experts about how this proposed constitutional amendment may impact North Carolina law as it relates to unmarried couples of same or opposite sex and same sex couples legally married in another state, particularly in regard to employment-related benefits for domestic partners; domestic violence laws; child custody and visitation rights; and end-of-life arrangements. The courts will ultimately make those decisions.

The amendment also says that private parties may still enter into contracts creating rights enforceable against each other. This means that unmarried persons, businesses and other private parties may be able to enter into agreements establishing personal rights, responsibilities, or benefits as to each other. The courts will decide the extent to which such contracts can be enforced.