Lack of voter understanding about how far reaching the amendment is continues to be the biggest obstacle for those hoping to defeat it. 55% of voters in the state support some form of legal recognition for gay couples in the form of either marriage or civil unions to only 41% completely opposed. But at the same time 55% of voters plan to support the amendment that would prohibit any legal recognition for same sex couples while only 41% are opposed.
The problem for opponents is that only 40% of voters actually know that the amendment bans both gay marriage and civil unions. With those voters the amendment is failing by a 60-38 margin. But with voters who think all the amendment does is ban gay marriage, 27% of the electorate, it's passing by a 72-27 margin. And with voters who admit they don't actually know what the amendment does, 26% of the electorate, it leads by a 64-28 margin. The more voters understand the full implications of the amendment the less likely they are to support it, but the clock is ticking.
When we informed poll respondents the amendment banned both gay marriage and civil unions and then asked how they would vote, only 38% continued to support it with 46% opposed.
"we don't make the rules; god makes the rules"
Do you believe—especially in The South with all of our ugly history—in The South, where if we had had to vote on the laws that protect us today—in The South—and some of them if we probably put them up for a popular vote today. If we put the Voting Rights Act up for a vote today in The South. If we put the Civil Rights Act of '64 up for a vote today in The South. If we put the Fair Housing law up for a vote today in The South—it would probably be defeated. And you believe in The South we ought to be putting people's rights up for a popular vote?
Scientist: It's kind of like the difference between a William Carlos Williams poem and a crude penis drawn on the wall of a public restroom.
I have doodled
that were on
the stall wall
you were probably
they were sophomoric
and so crude
Reporting from Black Mountain, NC. It didn't hit home until last night when my wife came back after seeing a vote Amendment One sign stuck on the corner of the street where our two friends and their two children live. I can't imagine how hurtful it is to have one of your direct neighbors advocating publicly that you can't marry the person you love. My first thought was to kick over the sign, or add a sign stating, "I am a prejudice bigot." Instead, my wife and I have been texting and calling our friends to make sure they are voting today. Not sure it will make a difference.
I would like to add one thing to your discussion on gay marriage: I think you are missing some of the framing by people against gay marriage.
Here in rural North Carolina they have managed to convince themselves and their congregations that they are under attack, that they are the victims, that this is not about gay people as much as it is an attack on their culture, their churches, and their god by outsiders. The campaign against Amendment One has been poor in response - as opinion polls show that there is confusion about what people are exactly voting for. There have been some positive signs of religious coalitions speaking out against the amendment. Asheville is known as a progressive center for the Southeast. We have a large and open lesbian population, and for the first time last weekend I saw a male couple on the streets of Asheville being openly affectionate.
These battles against gay marriage will eventually be defeated, but they are very painful now, especially to our friends and neighbors and their children.
Of course they are screaming 'socialism'. They've been doing that since the 50s at least. They're not talking about economic redistribution of wealth - they never have been. They've been talking about redistribution of privilege this whole time. They called MLK a communist because he wanted blacks to have the same rights as whites, and to them that was a redistribution of the privilege that whites had 'earned'.
There are so many people here saying stuff like "marriage comes from god" and "we don't make the rules; god makes the rules".
The question that should have been raised is do you want to go against constitutional history. That is, since the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments, we have always expanded rights, we have never decreased rights.
If this passes I know this heterosexual will be packing up and leaving for a state with more rational people. Like South Carolina.
"We've seen political party observers who are not precinct officials. They can ask to be observers. They want to challenge and confront and it's a problem for our precinct officials."
He said the reason for the confrontations varied, from calling up the board of elections to complain that there wasn't a chair for them to sit on to pushing officials to get people to show ID at the polls.
"They have been clogging up the phone lines and getting mad at us," said Sims. "People have to state their names and addresses and we check them. But they are challenging officials to make them show ID. They have an agenda, the ones that we've been getting trouble from."
When asked whether the trouble was coming from the groups for or against Amendment 1, Sims said: "Put it this way: we had zero Democratic party observers." He added: "I've probably said more than I should."
The Myth About Marriage
Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives, as the church has done ever since the time of Aquinas. The myth of the sacrament should not let people deprive gays of the right to natural marriage, whether blessed by Yahweh or not. They surely do not need—since no one does—the blessing of Saint Thomas.
« Older The Avalanches are back are back with a new, ether... | Kitty Cat Sings the Blues (SLY... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt