NCGOP Leaders Having Second Thoughts on Amendment OneBy
dKos has a roundup of shifting momentum on Amendment One. Miles to go before we sleep, but still…
The city of Greenville, NC became just the latest to pass a resolution opposing Amendment One in a 5-1 vote.
The campaign also secured a great dual endorsement, and it’s been released on a web video (for now) seen above.
As reported by dKos, Protect ALL NC Families believes “The conservative coalition is breaking down, with many prominent, respected NC conservatives speaking out against this bill’s passage.” North Carolina Speaker of the House Thom Tillis (R) among them.
Pam Spaulding reminds readers that marriage equality is not on the ballot on May 8:
Amendment One is about denying any legal recognition that municipalities and counties would like to extend to same-sex couples, and will actually nullify the domestic partnership measures in place. It will create legal chaos over its muddy language when it comes to any private arrangements.
Pam reports that two prominent California Prop 8 supporters, David Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt — both southerners and opponents of same-sex marriage — have spoken out against Amendment One in the News & Observer:
[W]e believe that the cause of marriage is hurt, not helped, by gratuitously linking it to the cause of never under any circumstances helping gay and lesbian couples.
In the California “Prop 8” case, David felt that he could testify on behalf of traditional man-woman marriage in good conscience, in part because California some time ago passed domestic partnership legislation to extend legal recognition to same-sex couples. He argued in favor of domestic partnerships, more commonly called civil unions, while also insisting that marriage, because of its unique role in uniting biological, social and legal parenthood – a great gift to our children – is its own institution, deserving of its own name, and should remain, as it has always been, the union of a man and a woman.
Do we suggest that North Carolina must rush out and pass civil unions? That’s not our argument. Our argument is that you should not amend your constitution in order to ban even the future consideration of this, or any other, idea for aiding gay and lesbian couples and their families.
I have made the same argument, that (for some, at least) opposition to same-sex unions is not opposition to their legal recognition, but more of a Tevye reaction. Marriage is not just a word, but a foundational mental construct, and those aren’t readily bendable. I surmised that same-sex union advocates might have an easier time winning support if man-man and woman-woman unions had unique names. This is the first time, I think, I’ve actually seen someone else make that case. (Notice, Blankenhorn and Marquardt didn’t say one man and one woman.)
This is getting interesting. So now GOP officials are coming out against their own party’s proposal. Could change the momentum, but how many voters will hear about this before early voting starts on May 19?