View Article
28
Has public opinion – and politicians – ever shifted so fast on an issue as on gay marriage?
 
A year ago, 60 percent of North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Yesterday, a U.S. Senator in a tough reelection fight endorsed gay marriage.
 
Yes, Kay Hagan is one of a lengthening list of moderate Democrats who recently changed her position. Like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jon Tester and Mark Warner. And one doubts they recently changed their minds; they probably had come to that conclusion long ago but were wrestling with when to go public.
 
In a way, they have no choice. A rising tide of young people is moving Democratic, attracted by President Obama and repelled by Republican meanness. For this generation, ending discrimination against gays is their version of Vietnam, civil rights and women’s rights. They know gay teens who were and are bullied. (We all did; we just kept quiet or joined in the harassment.) They believe it’s wrong, and they won’t stand for it. Good for them.
 
They, in turn, are moving their parents and grandparents. A lot of people who are coming around now long ago concluded the gay-bashing and discrimination is wrong, but they couldn’t get comfortable with gay marriage. What clinches them is a simple argument: You should be able to marry the person you love.
 
Just for the hell of it, why don’t Democrats in the North Carolina legislature put in a bill calling for another statewide vote on the constitutional amendment? It will go straight to the Republican trash can. And that’s the point.
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (7) RSS comment feed |

Comments

clarence swinney
# clarence swinney
Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:32 AM
-------------------- SHOCK & AWE------------------------
----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS-----------
1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,200---Republicans 856,400.
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months.
7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R.
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats.
9.Income Growth—1948-2005--each increased (percentagewise)under D presidents over R presidents by these numbers-- Quintiles--(Top-10%)--(2nd-71%)-(third-127%)-(fourth-212%)-(fifth-550%) wow
Add on Bush horrid numbers it is much worse
Increased Spending by 90% (1800 to 3500); Debt by 112% (5800 to 11,900;31,000 measley net jobs per month;
Surplus to 1400B Deficit
source--TimothyNoah-- Nov. 2010 in Slate magazine
Question—Why would a working person vote for a Republican for President?

Chris
# Chris
Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:07 PM
Problem, though, is that gay couples can already get married -- there are a few dozen churches in NC who will perform the ceremony.

Now, the problem then is that there are certain legal benefits to marriage (and some legal responsibilities) that you don't get if the only thing you have is a religious marriage. For example, a husband cannot disinherit his wife, but a gay partner can easily be disinherited.

There are thousands of provisions like that in law which evolved over the years because of a need to fix some problem. For example, wives inherit part of their husband's estate because there were cases of husbands leaving wives penniless on the streets.

The problem with the whole gay marriage debate is that it treats all of those thousands of provisions as if they should apply equally to gay couples as to straight couples. But, is that true? Do we want to make it so that a member of a gay couple can't disinherit the other member? Is there a history of gay people leaving their partners penniless on the streets? If not, does it make sense to extend that right to them, just because straight couples also have it?

Of course gay couples should be legally recognized -- they exist, and turning a legal blind eye to that fact is idiotic. The real question, however, is whether gay couples should have those thousands of legal rights and responsibilities thrust on them to the same extent as if they were straight. And, won't there be situations where a gay couple should have some right or responsibility that just doesn't apply to straight couples?

Of course there should be some sort of legal recognition of gay marriage -- not doing so is idiotic. But, it's equally idiotic to say that gay marriage should be treated identically in law. (And, no, we don't treat Men and Women precisely the same in law -- consider, for example, the "Violence against Women Act").
dap916
# dap916
Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:16 PM
This issue is front and center all around the country, no doubt. Almost every poll is showing that the majority...as slim as it it...is for allowing gays to "marry". Politicians are moving their stances in that direction in a big way...Kay Hagan, Barack Obama, many other of note. In 2008...just 4 years ago...Obama said he's for "marriage" being between a man and a woman. Hagan was in that mix as well. Now? Well, polls have changed and so these people along with others we'd never think would give up their principles on this are all about gays being able to "marry" and changing the meaning of the word "marriage" as between anyone save parent and child, two siblings and such. Time will tell what this will progress into, of course, but for now, we'll most certainly see SCOTUS sanctioning "same-sex marriage" just as they did abortion. It's just a small gain for those that want to see our country go progressive. And, eventually, it's going to see us go a lot farther in that direction.

Civil rights? Just how far will that this go?
Choo
# Choo
Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:35 PM
Good try but I don't think you can goad them into another repeat of the last vote. Don't worry, what you can't get by the will of the people you can get forced by the 9 lawyers in robes.
dap916
# dap916
Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:11 PM
Gay marriage is not just "gay marriage". By that I mean that it is more about the word "marriage" than just two homosexuals being able to "marry". This is more about the word "marry" because in almost every state, gays that file for a "civil union" get every kind of "benefit" that married people get.

This is all about the word "marriage". Nothing more. These people want to be "equal". It's the liberal/progressive....democrat mantra. Make no mistake about that.
clarence swinney
# clarence swinney
Friday, March 29, 2013 10:40 AM
The GW BUSH LIBRARY is opening. Wonder if it contains my list on his Lies and 60 waffles? google-clarence swinney + Bush 254 Lies and + 60 waffles

C. W. S winney is a retired business executive who lives in North Carolina.  He voted for Nixon, Carter, Reagan twice, and then G.W.H. Bush. 

He says he was "apolitical" until 1991, when he " happened on Haynes Johnson Sleepwalking Through History book in a local library." 

He was shocked at what he learned about Reagan, and has since become enthralled with Bill Clinton and become a historian of 1980's and 1990's.  He has a library of over 100 hours of Clinton speeches, including all his state of the union addresses, has collected over 200,000 pages from print media and has purchased over 500 books on the 1980's and 1990's. His library contains 200 Notebooks of Data such as budgets-debt-deficits, etc.
He is now considered a Political Historian, of 1980’s, 1990’s and Bush Administration, for Lifeaholics Of America.

 Mr. Swinney has been cataloguing the endless stream of lies of the George W. Bush administration, which is up near the 200 mark as of May 22, 2003.
        Here is his list.  Everybody might not agree about every last item, but anybody who thinks that this President is honest and/or trustworthy is smoking something illegal!
----------------------- BUSH & STAFF LIES& DISTORTIONS----------------------
In 2008 the non-partisan Center For Integrity In Media—released a study showing Bush plus 11 of his staff had told 935 LIES on Weapons Of Mass Destruction.
Think the public cares? Think my Minister and others who backed the awful war will care? Huh!
Each item is sourced. They can be attained by asking. I have them but there are so many that it would require many times this space.
I Define a Lie—INTENT TO DECEIVE—some are not-- many are. You decide
A Game—Get a group and find which are Blatant Intent To Deceive LIES. How many?

I passed a Patients Bill Of Rights as Governor. This was awesome but typical. He told this LIE many many times in 2000. He vetoed the bill. It re-passed with a veto-proof majority and he refused to sign it so it went into law without his signature. How could he do such lying? How could he get by with it? It has been typical.
Karl Rove taught him-- Goebbels—“Tell Big Lies and never back down they will become truth”
Choo
# Choo
Friday, March 29, 2013 11:56 AM
Once you change the definition of marriage you can begin the destruction of the family. The traditional family will no longer be. This will also lead to a man and several wives, a wife and several men, and whatever combination you can think of. We are getting there slowly. Just hope we like what we have when we get there.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.
Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :  DNN Hosting  :  Terms Of Use  :  Privacy Statement