Ambivalent Bev
October 11, 2011 - by
Now we see why it took Governor Perdue so long to come out against the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
First, she was waiting to put it out Friday afternoon – in hopes nobody would notice. Not just any Friday afternoon, but the one right before the Columbus Day-fall break weekend.
Second, it took that long to construct her tortured, 166-word, one-step-forward-one-step-back statement:
|
“My top priority is creating jobs. Too many people are out of work and I’ve heard from several business leaders who’ve told me that the proposed constitutional amendment will harm our state’s business climate and make it harder to grow jobs here. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman: That’s why I voted for the law in 1996 that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and that’s why I continue to support that law today. But I’m going to vote against the amendment because I cannot in good conscience look an unemployed man or woman in the eye and tell them that this amendment is more important than finding them a job. In addition, a number of legal experts have argued that this amendment, if passed, could eliminate legal protections for all unmarried couples in our state, regardless of sexual orientation. Right now, my focus, the General Assembly’s focus, and North Carolina’s focus needs to be on creating jobs.”
Even Renee Ellmers had a crisper explanation for why she opposes the amendment.
Here’s what the Governor should have said:
“I’m going to vote against the amendment because it could harm our state’s business climate and make it harder to grow jobs here. Also, it could eliminate legal protections for all unmarried couples in our state, regardless of sexual orientation. ”
That’s 41 words. Strunk & White would be happy. And it doesn’t antagonize Democrats by trying to have it both ways.
|
Ambivalent Bev
October 11, 2011/
Now we see why it took Governor Perdue so long to come out against the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
First, she was waiting to put it out Friday afternoon – in hopes nobody would notice. Not just any Friday afternoon, but the one right before the Columbus Day-fall break weekend.
Second, it took that long to construct her tortured, 166-word, one-step-forward-one-step-back statement:
|
“My top priority is creating jobs. Too many people are out of work and I’ve heard from several business leaders who’ve told me that the proposed constitutional amendment will harm our state’s business climate and make it harder to grow jobs here. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman: That’s why I voted for the law in 1996 that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and that’s why I continue to support that law today. But I’m going to vote against the amendment because I cannot in good conscience look an unemployed man or woman in the eye and tell them that this amendment is more important than finding them a job. In addition, a number of legal experts have argued that this amendment, if passed, could eliminate legal protections for all unmarried couples in our state, regardless of sexual orientation. Right now, my focus, the General Assembly’s focus, and North Carolina’s focus needs to be on creating jobs.”
Even Renee Ellmers had a crisper explanation for why she opposes the amendment.
Here’s what the Governor should have said:
“I’m going to vote against the amendment because it could harm our state’s business climate and make it harder to grow jobs here. Also, it could eliminate legal protections for all unmarried couples in our state, regardless of sexual orientation. ”
That’s 41 words. Strunk & White would be happy. And it doesn’t antagonize Democrats by trying to have it both ways.
|