Posted on 05/06/2012 8:18:39 AM PDT by Libloather
Bill Clinton records robocall opposing NC anti-gay marriage amendment
By Meghashyam Mali - 05/06/12 08:02 AM ET
Former President Bill Clinton recorded a new robocall urging North Carolina voters to reject a proposed state constitutional amendment which would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The call will be pushed to voters beginning Monday, the Raleigh News & Observer first reported.
"I’m calling to urge you to vote against Amendment 1 on Tuesday May 8. If it passes, it won’t change North Carolina’s law on marriage. What it will change is North Carolina’s ability to keep good businesses, attract new jobs, and attract and keep talented entrepreneurs," says Clinton in the call.
"If it passes, your ability to keep those businesses, get those jobs, and get those talented entrepreneurs will be weakened. And losing even one job to Amendment 1 is too big of a risk. Its passage will also take away health insurance from children and could even take away domestic violence protections from women.
"The real effect of the law is not to keep the traditional definition of marriage, you’ve already done that. The real effect of the law will be to hurt families and drive away jobs. North Carolina can do better," Clinton says.
Same sex marriage is already outlawed in North Carolina, but the referendum on Amendment 1 could also ban marriage equality under the state constitution. Critics of the proposal say it would also bar heterosexual domestic partnerships and civil unions.
Polls show that a majority of North Carolina voters oppose the amendment.
President Obama criticized the measure last month as a "divisive and discriminatory effort" to take rights away from the gay community.
From a FREE local paper -
Amendment One
Much has been written about what could happen if the so-called marriage amendment, which is on the May 8 ballot, passes.
One fact that is universally agreed on is that same-sex marriage in North Carolina is currently illegal and will remain illegal whether or not Amendment One passes. But according to articles, editorials and letters to the editor, there are a host of dire possibilities that might happen if the amendment passes. Many of these dire consequences come from a report written by Maxine Eichner, a professor of law at the UNC School of Law.
Other attorneys agree that the problems with domestic violence prosecution and other problems could occur if the amendment passes. However, dire consequences could occur as a result of many of our everyday activities. Every time we cross the street we could be hit by a car and seriously injured or killed. When we go for a run or walk the dog we could die of a heart attack. When we swim in a pool with a lifeguard we could still drown. When we eat we could choke on our food and die. When we climb on a ladder we could fall off and break our necks. And one dangerous activity most of us engage in every day is taking a shower. The list continues endlessly.
The odds of all those things happening can be calculated, and most of us take what we consider are the necessary precautions and go on with our lives. In the case of amendment one, we have a good idea, not what could possibly happen but what will actually happen because the State of Idaho passed exactly the same constitutional amendment in 2006. The wording of the Idaho amendment is identical to the one on the North Carolina ballot on May 8. None of those possible dire consequences have come to pass in the six years the amendment has been in the Idaho constitution.
At present 30 states have similar constitutional amendments, and 17 of those states have amendments that are very similar to the amendment being proposed in North Carolina. The dire consequences written about by Eichner have not come to pass. In some states there have been some legal issues as a result of the amendments. but not to the level that Eichner suggests are possible, although they are indeed possible.
The idea being promoted all over North Carolina by opponents to Amendment One is that this amendment is somehow out of the mainstream and is just wrong. All the states adjacent to North Carolina have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The reason that proponents believe a constitutional amendment is necessary is because of activist judges. A constitutional amendment makes it far more difficult for a judge to decide to create laws on his or her own, and we have liberal activist judges who are doing just that.
Many of the opponents of Amendment One say they believe that marriage is between one man and one woman but that they don't feel that a constitutional amendment is necessary. But in 30 other states the majority of the population believed it was necessary and the majority of the North Carolina General Assembly, by a bipartisan vote, expressed a belief that putting it on the ballot for a vote was necessary.
What the opponents have done a great job of doing is making it appear that voting for the amendment is an oddity, when in fact if North Carolina passes the amendment we will join the majority of the states. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman has been on the ballot 31 times, and it has passed 30 times. The amendment failed the first time it was put on the ballot in Arizona, but the second time it passed.
The far-left mainstream media have done a great job of portraying this amendment as something discriminatory that is not consistent with today's world, and it simply isn't true.
Three Campbell Law School professors have written an excellent rebuttal to the piece by Eichner, which seems to be quoted everywhere.
On a local level, I am a big fan of Rabbi Fred Guttman and respect him for what he has done for the community. However, the editorial column he co-wrote with Rev. Julie Peebles went too far. To imply that those who favor Amendment One are taking the first step down the path of exterminating homosexuals is so far from true, it is insulting to those like me who have studied the issue and simply disagree.
If passing legislation to define marriage as between one man and one woman is so awful, why in the more than 100 years that the Democrats controlled the entire North Carolina state government didn't they define marriage differently?
There is so much incorrect information about this constitutional amendment out there that it is sad. Guttman and Peebles chose to add to that misinformation rather than giving people a well-thought-out reason to vote against the amendment.
It is absurd to say that the state doesn't have the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman. One because the state has already done so with statutes, and 30 states have felt it necessary to put it in their constitution because of activist judges.
Also marriage is highly regulated and defined already. With or without the marriage amendment a person cannot marry a person who is married to someone else, even if they have not seen their spouse in 50 years. Until a person is legally divorced from their spouse a new marriage is invalid. In North Carolina you have to be separated for a year before you can get divorced, which means for a year not only can you not marry anyone you want, you can't marry anyone at all. A person cannot marry two other people. In some countries a man can have two, three or four wives, but not in the United States; that is illegal as defined by our laws.
Two people cannot get married unless they first obtain a marriage license from the county, and they must be married by an official recognized by the state. They cannot be married by a friend or their next door neighbor unless that person has an official office recognized by the state.
The opponents of Amendment One act as if the only regulation on marriage is that same-sex couples cannot get married, but that is just not the case.
What Amendment One will do is prevent a liberal activist judge from deciding that he or she can ignore the laws of North Carolina and marry anyone they please to anyone else they please.
The Campbell law professors note that Eichner concentrates on the word relationship when they feel that "union" is the more defining part of the constitutional amendment.
The constitutional amendment in its entirety is: Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.
We recommend that you vote for Amendment One and have North Carolina join the majority of states in defining marriage.
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Articles-c-2012-05-02-211732.112113-2012-Primary-Endorsements.html
Can someone explain how having a marriage amendment keeps a state from attracting enterpreneurs? Are large numbers of enterpreneurs homosexual? Or are large numbers of homosexual enterpreneurs?
Have we seen enterpreneurs avoid the 31 other states which have these amendments on the law books???? Does it really drive away business if you have an amendment defining marriage?
Bill is lying by saying that North Carolina has already defined marriage in the traditional manner. It’s only defined that way until some judge overturns it.
What. North Carolina’s home-grown, lying, philandering sack of carp was unavailable to make the calls so Bubba has to come in to pinch hit?
More left-wing propaganda. In any case Blow-Job Bill doesn’t have much credibility in these parts.
” The impeached *Perjurer really should keep is rather large nose out of other people’s business. “
You forgot rapist..
” The impeached *Perjurer really should keep is rather large nose out of other people’s business. “
You forgot rapist..
The Clinton’s are like a case of the Herpes. You can never get rid of it.
I don’t know if there is anything to that claim or not. The majority of states with marriage Amendments are similar to NC’s in that they also ban civil unions as well, and I haven’t ever heard of a company deciding not to locate operations in a state because of this.
Consider Texas and Apple. I’m sure Apple’s corporate culture is a liberal as they come, but they are eager to expand their operations in Texas. And Texas’ marriage Amendment is a comprehensive one in that it bans gay marriage and civil unions. Still, I do think economic coercion will eventually be used by the Left if they are denied a Sup Court imposition of gay marriage/civil unions.
But as of now, no, there is likely nothing to Bill Clinton’s warning. This is typical of the Left’s entire campaign against Amendment One. They simply lie and deceive. They make claims and warnings about domestic violence protections, insurance for children, and now economic growth, that have no basis in reality. The one domestic violence example they use to back up their warnings was based on a state court decision in Ohio; what they neglect to say is that the decision was overturned by the Ohio Sup Court.
They also say that the Amendment isn’t necessary because state law already bans gay marriage, while they again neglect to say that they are the very ones who will seek to have state courts strike that law down.
Just once it would be nice if the opposition would run an honest campaign. They should say that the real reason they oppose these amendments is because they want state courts to impose gay marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.