They try it every year. Last year it only took them until the 2nd day of the legislative session to introduce it. Now that they control the General Assembly they need to be talked out of doing this.

*Its a waste of government resources to spend time and money on this.

*It's mean spirited, and redundant with the law we already have banning gay couples from getting married in NC.

*The constitution shouldn't be amended lightly. The cause should be important and appropriate.

I fear that our step towards comprehensive sex ed (that still emphasizes abstinence only until marriage is best, & still gives parents an opt out) will be lost since it was unanimously opposed by the GOP. Although it would have to be repealed, so there is more inertia there.

I need to learn to speak Republican. I have no idea how to advocate against embedding social conservatism into the constitution to a Republican controlled General Assembly. Maybe some of you who speak GOP can help

11/3/2010 4:24:57 PM

Marriage is an issue of religion, not politics.

Lobby for the reasons necessitating gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter) to be changed (i.e. income tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc).

Take away the benefit of being married and voila, it is a non-issue.

I guess, what I am trying to say is achieve the same ends with different means. At that point, marriage wouldn't matter....unless you are religious, then that is between you and your pastor.

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ( * )( * )]

11/3/2010 5:09:49 PM

Lobby the GOP to get rid of marriage altogether? I think you're barking up the wrong tree. But if you can explain that strategy more I'll certainly listen.

I'm aiming much smaller. I'm wondering how to best advocate for the NC GOP to not write social conservatism into the constitution.

11/3/2010 5:33:23 PM

First I have to ask why you want to be married? Cui bono?

11/3/2010 5:40:00 PM

You can pm me that question if you'd like to discuss my personal life & feelings on the issue.

But this thread is for strategies to avoid this constitutional amendment. Now if you want to ask why do I oppose this more on a policy level, I think I've already answered that:

Quote :

"*Its a waste of government resources to spend time and money on this. *It's mean spirited, and redundant with the law we already have banning gay couples from getting married in NC. *The constitution shouldn't be amended lightly. The cause should be important and appropriate."

11/3/2010 5:55:18 PM

Quote :

"I'm wondering how to best advocate for the NC GOP to not write social conservatism into the constitution"

since when do the Rethugs listen to reason

11/3/2010 8:59:00 PM

The Republicans may try to get this out, but it won't get out of either the Senate or the House. It will require a super majority before it can even be put on the ballot. Don't worry, they'll just waste their time and political sway trying to do this.

Then again, it is the NC GOP and they are quite the incompetent bunch, so I could see them wasting time on this.

11/3/2010 9:02:16 PM

Quote :

"since when do the Rethugs listen "

Because they are the only ones who are there to listen. And we have to work with what's there.

Assuming the economy slightly improves over the next few years, the will tend to lock incumbents into place. Redistricting helps lock these results into place for the next 10 years. And the Citizens United ruling helps too.

^They made enough gains that 3/5ths in the Senate will be no problem. In the House the margin is a little tougher to make the 3/5ths, but maybe not so much once you count in all the conservative democrats. I think not having this happen within the next year is a long shot, but is still worth trying.

http://www.gaypolitics.com/2010/11/02/african-american-gay-man-wins-election-to-n-c-house/

Quote :

"African American gay man wins election to N.C. House Marcus Brandon has been elected to the North Carolina House of Representatives. He will represent the cities of Greensboro and High Point in the state legislature. Brandon will be the only openly LGBT state legislator in North Carolina, and one of just five openly LGBT African-Americans serving in state legislatures across the country (including Maryland House of Delegates candidate Mary Washington, who will also win tonight). Openly lesbian N.C. State Sen. Julia Boseman is stepping down at the end of this term."

At least if they do pass this discriminatory measure, they're going to have to do it to someones face. Julia has said before that she felt her presence helped temper some of the more radical social conservative venom from being spewed.

11/3/2010 10:29:32 PM

Sadly, I don't think there is any way you can reason with them on the issue. They're so locked in on trying to get this done that it's unlikely anything will dissuade them. We're still in the Bible Belt and most of the GOP people were probably raised to believe that homosexuality is a sin. No amount of reasoning with them is likely to change their minds, unfortunately.

11/3/2010 11:02:29 PM

For people who say marriage is an issue for the churches, and not the state, that is a falsity.

First, if I am an atheist, and actively oppose all churches, does that mean that I do not have a valid marriage? If the church has no place in my home, would anyone argue that I should not be able to get married? If you would allow me to do so, then isn't that saying that the church should not be allowed to determine marital status?

Also, marriages can be performed by justices of the peace. Remember, the state is who vests the power of marriage in ministers and priests, not the other way around.

More importantly, there are a tremendous number of rights and privileges in this country that are specifically granted by marriage. Whether we are talking about tax breaks, inheritance rights, health care privileges, and even duties the law says that you owe as a result of the special relationship existing to a spouse, all of these are legally recognizable rights and responsibilities associated with the relationship of marriage. To say that marriage is a classification and zone for the churches is to ignore that the government has more of a vested interest in marital relationships that any church does, because of the legal implications.

11/3/2010 11:19:57 PM

The numbers I'm seeing say that they need no Dem support in the State Senate to make this happen, and have a GOP to spare.

But in House, while they have a majority there too, they need 4 Dems to meet the 3/5ths requirement. I think you're right, religion will probably play a large role in what the law is.

But if we can convince almost all the Dems to take a page from the nation GOP and act in lock step, then maybe we have a shot, but I still think we'll need a cross over GOP or 2. Who, even if they wont vote against this measure, will abstain so that the GOP would be required to get more cross over Dems to make it happen. Unfortunately I think there are enough conservadems that more crossovers will go in that direction than the other way around.

11/3/2010 11:23:54 PM

Its never too early to start lobbying the Dems for support against the proposal. Get it on their minds now that they will have to deal with it early.

11/4/2010 12:03:29 AM

You're very right about that. And its something that will be done a great deal.

Lobbying a Republican is a new skill that those who oppose this measure are going to need too. And identifying which Republicans might be open to listening is a necessary exercise to begin now as well.

I don't know the current GOP incumbents well enough to identify who is best for targeting, but looking at those in the freshman class in the house that won with less than 10%, I figure that is where we might find cross overs if anywhere:

Quote :

"District 4 (Duplin, Onslow)- Jimmy Dixon District 6 (Beaufort, Pitt)- Bill Cook District 41 (Wake)- Tom Murry District 46 (Hoke, Scotland, Robeson)- Gaston (G. L.) Pridgen District 49 (Franklin, Halifax, Nash)- Glen Bradley District 51 (Harnett, Lee)- Michael (Mike) Stone District 77 (Rowan)- Harry Warren District 93 (Ashe, Watauga)- Jonathan C. Jordan District 116 (Buncombe)- Tim Moffitt"

(okay, that last one was just over 10%, but I made a judgment call on that one, with Asheville & all)

I may be asking y'all to help e-mail or call or mail or whatever your for doing if anything to help push this guy to not vote in favor of such an amendment (whether that means voting against it, but I'd settle for abstaining).

I'm going to have to learn more about the GOP incumbents too. I'll start off by asking y'all here. Does anyone know of any GOP House members with a reputation for moderation?

[Edited on November 4, 2010 at 12:32 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2010 12:31:43 AM

Quote :

"District 4 (Duplin, Onslow)- Jimmy Dixon - 2.92% District 41 (Wake)- Tom Murry – 7.38% District 46 (Hoke, Scotland, Robeson)- Gaston (G. L.) Pridgen - 4.5% District 49 (Franklin, Halifax, Nash)- Glen Bradley - 3.5% District 77 (Rowan)- Harry Warren – 0.94% District 116 (Buncombe)- Tim Moffitt - 11.64%"

I narrowed my list a little more, to under 5%, because as has been pointed out "Sadly, I don't think there is any way you can reason with them on the issue." I'm hoping there are a few though. Still keeping Asheville, and keeping the district with parts of Raleigh, Apex, Cary, and Morrisville because there are citizens on the ground willing to lobby their representatives in both those districts. I did have to take one guy off who was under 3% b/c he specifically ran on the issue of imposing this amendment.

I'd still like input on any incumbents who might be moderate leaning, or from districts that might be more about fiscal conservatism than social conservatism, if anyone can think of any.

[Edited on November 4, 2010 at 1:52 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2010 1:50:55 AM

Am I a fan of gay marriage? No.

Am I a fan of the government saying, "No gay marriage!"? Also no.

I don't think it will pass. I hope it won't pass. I will oppose it passing. If it looks close (and I don't think it will -- the issue is far more useful as a flag to wave than it is as an actual legislative victory), I will write my representatives in opposition.

11/4/2010 2:06:50 AM

Quote :

"I will write my representatives in opposition."

Thank you. I honestly believe it will come to that being necessary. But I guess we'll see.

11/4/2010 2:32:01 AM

My party, such as it is, likes making big deals out of things. I don't think they'll go through with it -- too much trouble. Making democrats look bad is easy enough. Just fail to ban gay marriage and blame it on the left. Zero cost, at least some benefit.

11/4/2010 2:41:21 AM

man if this repubs would drop this forcing their religion shit they would be damn awesome.

11/4/2010 7:36:59 AM

Minority House Leader Stam is a vocal proponent of this amendment. He's an obvious person to consider for getting the head house job now. But it looks like House Minority Whip Tom Tillis, who is anti-gay in other ways, hasn't made a quote on the marriage discrimination amendment (that I have found yet). And he wasn't explicitly for it on his website. He represents North Mecklenburg so maybe that constituency isn't as right leaning as a more rural place.

http://christianactionleague.org/news/alienation-of-affection-criminal-conversation-law-weakened-by-house-panel/

Quote :

"Rep. Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) agreed that the bill undermines the family. “There is no one that can dispute the value of a family that has a man and a woman in a home raising children,” Tillis said. “And to the extent that we have only a few laws on our books that really promote that, I think we have to take it very seriously when we start taking those things off the books.”"

Quote :

"Rep. Kelly Alexander (D-Mecklenburg) went so far as to say that maybe state law should be changed to eliminate the yearlong period between filing for separation and divorce proceedings and instead grant divorces 48 hours after couples separate. “These folks have said they cannot tolerate to be under the bond of holy matrimony for whatever reason,” he said. “Why in the world are we going to make it more difficult for them to move on with their lives …?” Rep. Tillis, married for 22 years, said he would not be a happily married father of two college-age children had N.C. had, when he was a newlywed, a “48-hour rule” as Alexander described. “I thank God that I didn’t have that option because I wouldn’t have the life I have today …” he said. “You can point to so many problems that we have today because of the erosion of the family structure and the erosion of this notion that marriage should literally be – if you live up to something you said on the altar – something that is only going to end with your death.”"

If NC hadn't forced him to stay married, he wouldn't be, but he thinks NC was right to do so, and should keep doing so? If I read that right (and I'm not sure I did).

Even so, he seems worlds less socially conservative than Stam maybe. Forrester is the guy who introduces this measure in the Senate every time, and I believe Stam is his counter part in the House. So anyone but Stam might be an improvement.

Does anyone else know of likely candidates for new House Majority Leaders? I'll be happy to research their positions... I just don't know of any obvious choices beyond Stam & Tillis... I'm still having to learn a lot about the NC GOP. Just saw some guy name Steen ran against Stam before. I should find out more about him.

[Edited on November 4, 2010 at 8:12 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2010 8:08:03 AM

Darn.

Senate Sponsors

Quote :

"Forrester Austin M. Allran Tom Apodaca Philip E. Berger Stan Bingham Harris Blake Andrew C. Brock Harry Brown Peter S. Brunstetter Debbie A. Clary Don Davis W. Edward (Eddie) Goodall David W. Hoyle Neal Hunt Jim Jacumin Ed Jones Jean Preston David Rouzer Bob Rucho Larry Shaw John Snow Jerry W. Tillman"

House

Quote :

"Sponsors Lewis Crawford Burris-Floyd Hill Allred Avila Barnhart Bell Blackwell Blackwood Blust Boles Braxton Brisson Brown Brubaker Burr Cleveland Cole Current Daughtry Dockham Dollar England Folwell Frye Gillespie Grady Guice Gulley Hilton Holloway Howard Hurley Johnson Justice Justus Killian Langdon McComas McCormick McElraft McGee Mills Mobley Moore Neumann Parmon Pierce Randleman Rhyne Sager Samuelson Setzer Spear Stam Starnes Steen Stevens Stiller Tillis West Wiley Williams Wray Yongue"

There went that hope. Is there anyone not on that list, who isn't cosponsoring this bill every time, who has a chance at leadership?

11/4/2010 8:15:55 AM

Pulling from Wikipedia on some leadership positions in the house for the GOP

Quote :

" * Minority (Republican) Leader: Paul Stam (37th district) * Minority (Republican) Whip: Thom Tillis (75th district) * Deputy Minority (Republican) Whips: Carolyn H. Justice (16th district), Fred Steen II (76th district), Nelson Dollar (36th district) * Republican Freshman Leader: Justin Burr (67th district) "

Rats. They're all on the list. None of the newbies will have I shot I expect, so it'd have to be a powerful GOP person, who wasn't in a leadership position. Well not that way anyways. Maybe on an important committee. Education is where a lot of the money is at. Health has its fair share too right?

Education Standing Committee
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Committees/Committees.asp?sAction=ViewCommittee&sActionDetails=House%20Standing_17

Quote :

"Rep. Adams, Rep. M. Alexander, Rep. Avila, Rep. Blackwell, Rep. Blackwood, Rep. Bordsen, Rep. Brown, Rep. Bryant, Rep. Burris-Floyd, Rep. Carney, Rep. Cleveland, Rep. Dockham, Rep. Dollar, Rep. England, Rep. E. Floyd, Rep. Folwell, Rep. Gill, Rep. Glazier, Rep. Goodwin, Rep. Hall, Rep. Hilton, Rep. Holloway, Rep. Hurley, Rep. Iler, Rep. Insko, Rep. Jackson, Rep. Jeffus, Rep. Johnson, Rep. Langdon, Rep. McCormick, Rep. McElraft, Rep. McLawhorn, Rep. Michaux, Rep. Mills, Rep. Parfitt, Rep. Rapp, Rep. Rhyne, Rep. Ross, Rep. Samuelson, Rep. Stam, Rep. Stewart, Rep. Tarleton, Rep. Tillis, Rep. Tolson, Rep. E. Warren, Rep. R. Warren, Rep. Whilden, Rep. Wiley, Rep. Wilkins, Rep. Yongue"

Does anyone jump out here as a prominent republican, who also isn't on the list of earlier sponsors? I notice that list before is longer than the number of Republicans that were in the House at the time. Which means there are Dems on that list too. I need to find out who.

11/4/2010 8:28:57 AM

Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

Quote :

"The sponsors include 14 Democrats and all 52 Republicans."

There goes a shot at having leadership that doesn't support this measure.

This was the last session. That's 68. They need 72.

Interesting coincidence that 68 was the number of people who supported this before the election w/ GOP & Dem, and 68 is the number of GOP now. I wonder where the dems that lost seats stood on this.

For the Senate, cosponsors:

Quote :

"5 Democrats and 17 Republicans."

There were 20 republicans at the time. That means there were only 3 republicans out of the entire General Assembly counting the House & the Senate who weren't actively sponsoring this measure (to say nothing about voting). I wonder who the 3 lone wolves are and if they're still around.

I'll have to come back to this later and finish doing the math for the House & Senate if I can find the info I need. But with near unanimous GOP sponsoring of this bill, the math is going to be hard.

[Edited on November 4, 2010 at 8:43 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2010 8:38:39 AM

something about religion not fucking it up for the rest of us.....

11/4/2010 9:11:40 AM

Only religion that's been "hijacked by the extremists," am I right?

11/4/2010 9:18:24 AM

In the Senate lobby Richard Stevens and Fletcher Hartsell. They are Republicans who did not sponsor the bill last year. Don East didn't sponsor it either, but I don't know how friendly he would be toward your position.

11/4/2010 9:43:55 AM

It looks like Dem sponsor Nelson Cole lost to Unaffiliated Bert Jones.

Quote :

"# I support enforcement to end illegal immigration. Such practice will dramatically decrease when we stop giving illegal immigrants handouts in the form of free government services. I support legislation to discourage illegal aliens, such not allowing them a driver’s license, and penalizing businesses that knowingly hire them. I am opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens. # I oppose any efforts to redefine marriage, which is only between one man and one woman. # I support the God-given right to life for all, including the preborn child. I oppose government funding for abortion. I support adoption for unwanted children, and orphanages led by caring adults when necessary. I believe government should encourage adoption instead of making it more difficult and expensive. # For those that would unwittingly argue “we should not legislate morality”, that is exactly what we do by legislating against murder, rape, violence, theft, etc. A foundational purpose of human government is to protect the integrity of a society against those that would destroy it."

But from his website, Bert isn't going to stay out of this fight. I can't imagine that any right leaning dem will have lost their election to someone who is more left leaning.

Okay, from counting so far there are 7 to 9 Dems still around in the House that cosponsored this measure. I couldn't find a complete list with parties marked. Add that to unanimous GOP support and that's 75 to 77. Either one is over the 72 needed. The only hope is that the GOP isn't as unanimous about this as it has been in the past in the House. And I don't see the incumbents reversing their long held previous positions. So it comes down to peeling off 4 to 6 of these 6 newbies:

Quote :

""District 4 (Duplin, Onslow)- Jimmy Dixon - 2.92% District 41 (Wake)- Tom Murry – 7.38% District 46 (Hoke, Scotland, Robeson)- Gaston (G. L.) Pridgen - 4.5% District 49 (Franklin, Halifax, Nash)- Glen Bradley - 3.5% District 77 (Rowan)- Harry Warren – 0.94% District 116 (Buncombe)- Tim Moffitt - 11.64%"

For the Senate, after doing some tedious cross referencing process of elimination, I think these are the only 3 GOP not to sponsor this measure:

Quote :

"* District 17: Richard Stevens (Rep) – Wake * District 30: Donald East (Rep) – Stokes, Surry, Yadkin * District 36: Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr. (Rep) – Cabarrus, Rowan "

And they all 3 won re-election. Which takes it down from 31 votes in favor of the measure to 28. 3 of the Dems in favor of this measure are still around by my count, so back up to 31 which is above the necessary 30. Are there any Senate newbies who might oppose this, or at least not go as far as supporting it?

Having done the math, everything depends on the new republicans in the House & Senate. If they support this measure it easily passes. If the oppose it, it doesn't. With nearly unanimous support in the House & Senate from the GOP and a handful of Dems still around on both sides to support it.

There is just no way to make the math workout unless new wave of GOP isn't looking to rewrite the constitution. I've already figured out the "potentially persuadable" new GOPs, time to look into that category for the Senate.

11/4/2010 9:54:12 AM

Okay, so the potentially persuadable GOPs for the Senate are:

Quote :

"District 9 (New Hanover)- Thom Goolsby – 14.88% (Boseman’s former district) District 10 (Duplin, Lenoir, Sampson)- Brent Jackson – 4.78% District 19 (Bladen, Cumberland)- Wesley Meredith – 2.36% District 24 (Alamance, Caswell)- Rick Gunn – 11.08% (minus the libert. = 6.1%) District 50 (Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain, Transylvania) - Jim Davis - 0.3%"

Again I limited it to those newbies who won with less than 5% victory margins save for special circumstances. District 9 had an openly Lesbian senator who eventually retired. District 24 had a Libertarian candidate do alright which speaks to the districts social values a little bit, and Alamance county which not an urban oasis, isn't a middle of nowhere super rural place. I need to check their websites next, see if I can rule anyone out on the basis of their statements there.

11/4/2010 10:00:57 AM

I saw lots of values talks and crosses on the websites and the importance of bible values in our government, traditional values, family values, and nearly universal mentioning of which churches they don't attend, but nothing more explicit than that.

My research is done. This is the team where the cross overs have to come from. We need 3 from the first box & at least 4 from the second:

Quote :

"District 9 (New Hanover)- Thom Goolsby – 14.88% (Boseman’s former district) District 10 (Duplin, Lenoir, Sampson)- Brent Jackson – 4.78% District 19 (Bladen, Cumberland)- Wesley Meredith – 2.36% District 24 (Alamance, Caswell)- Rick Gunn – 11.08% (minus the libert. = 6.1%) District 50 (Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain, Transylvania) - Jim Davis - 0.3%"

Quote :

"District 4 (Duplin, Onslow)- Jimmy Dixon - 2.92% District 41 (Wake)- Tom Murry – 7.38% District 46 (Hoke, Scotland, Robeson)- Gaston (G. L.) Pridgen - 4.5% District 49 (Franklin, Halifax, Nash)- Glen Bradley - 3.5% (wants NC constitutional abortion ban) District 77 (Rowan)- Harry Warren – 0.94% District 116 (Buncombe)- Tim Moffitt - 11.64%"

11/4/2010 10:21:47 AM

Now that I know who the primary targets are, I need a convincing message.

Quote :

"*Its a waste of government resources to spend time and money on this. *It's mean spirited, and redundant with the law we already have banning gay couples from getting married in NC. *The constitution shouldn't be amended lightly. The cause should be important and appropriate."

That's my starting point. This isn't the fiscally conservative thing to do, this measure is redundant & unnecessary & a waste of time, and the constitution shouldn't be amended lightly.

But many of these people, while not coming out and making marriage an issue directly, did make religious values in the government a part of their campaign. What can I say to them.

Those of you who consider your self religious, and consider yourself moderate on social issues, and who aren't in favor of this amendment. Can you explain why? How you came to that conclusion? And what you might say to help someone with similar values to yours otherwise come to that same conclusion?

11/4/2010 10:39:28 AM

Don't waste your time on Jim Davis. He is a fundamentalist Christian and the person he unseated was a sponsor of the Marriage Amendment (John Snow).

It's a battle not worth fighting with him.

don't waste your time on anyone else. I gave you the names of the two people you need to focus on. Richard Stevens and Fletcher Hartsell.

11/4/2010 10:59:02 AM

That isn't enough to stop this. Only 3 GOPs in the entire general assembly didn't sponsor this bill last time they were given the chance. Those were 2 of 3. For my math to work, we'd need to win over some newbie fiscal conservative focused GOPs AND those you've mentioned would have to continue to not take sides.

Focusing on keeping 2 of the 3 who haven't taken sides to keep them from taking sides is probably something we have to do, but its meaningless without the rest.

11/4/2010 11:52:21 AM

Quote :

"District 10 (Duplin, Lenoir, Sampson)- Brent Jackson – 4.78% District 19 (Bladen, Cumberland)- Wesley Meredith – 2.36% District 24 (Alamance, Caswell)- Rick Gunn – 11.08% (minus the libert. = 6.1%)"

Quote :

"District 46 (Hoke, Scotland, Robeson)- Gaston (G. L.) Pridgen - 4.5% District 49 (Franklin, Halifax, Nash)- Glen Bradley - 3.5% (wants NC constitutional abortion ban)"

Found another source for amendment support, took off a good chunk of my list, I'm going to have to go back and re-examine every freshman GOP coming in, and not narrow it down to those district that only swung a little right, I'll have to include hugely right too, b/c right now, these numbers don't add up.

11/4/2010 12:53:14 PM

I don't know that you can get through to the representatives this way, but you can appeal to the voters sense of distrust for the government. Remind them that an amendment to the constitution which defines marriage simply opens the door for further chances for politicians to define sacred institutions. Ask the baptists if they would be keen on the ever growing number of catholics in the state (yankees from up north) redefining marriage as only between a "catholic man and a catholic woman". The biggest flaw in a democracy is that you can give the government whatever power you want, but your enemy will be the one controlling that power.

It may also be worth reminding the newly elected GOP that if they believe it was the Tea Party and backlash against the DNC that got them elected, then a large part of that was opposition to the ever expanding reach of government. Amendments interfering in religious matters are the very definition of expanding government reach

Quote :

"To say that marriage is a classification and zone for the churches is to ignore that the government has more of a vested interest in marital relationships that any church does, because of the legal implications."

Generally, those that feel marriage should not be in the domain of the government also feel that there shouldn't be any legal implications beyond that of any other contract.

11/4/2010 1:38:19 PM

^Thanks. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. Different ways to make the case for preventing this amendment.

I've got a new list now. Once I realized that if I cut it down to narrow races (in the hope those places didn't lean strongly right) that I wouldn't have enough people left, I decided to just make a comprehensive list of everyone who isn't on the record in favor of this amendment:

Quote :

"District (location) - Candidate - Victory Margin% House - Not on the record in favor of amendment: New: District 46 (Hoke, Scotland, Robeson) - Gaston (G. L.) Pridgen - 4.5% District 49 (Franklin, Halifax, Nash)- Glen Bradley - 3.5% District 51 (Harnett, Lee) - Michael (Mike) Stone - 7.3% Incumbents: None Senate - Not on the record in favor of amendment: New: District 8 (Brunswick, Columbus, Pender) - Bill Rabon - 26.96% District 10 (Duplin, Lenoir, Sampson) - Brent Jackson – 4.78% District 11 (Nash, Wilson) - E.S. (Buck) Newton - 6.06% District 19 (Bladen, Cumberland) - Wesley Meredith – 2.36% District 24 (Alamance, Caswell) - Rick Gunn – 11.08% (minus the libert. = 6.1%) District 43 (Gaston) - Kathy Harrington 39.1% Incumbents: District 17 (Wake) - Richard Stevens District 30 (Stokes, Surry, Yadkin) - Donald East District 36 (Cabarrus, Rowan) - Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr."

It maybe that one of these people has gone the record for this amendment somewhere I just missed. So its possible the list could get shorter. But it can't get longer. I've checked all incumbents and all newbies against several sources.

I'd also add that no GOP as far as I could tell was on the record against the amendment, these are simply the people who haven't commented, and thus would hopefully abstain.

[Edited on November 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2010 5:22:47 PM

Quote :

"the ever growing number of catholics in the state (yankees from up north)"

More like "Beaners from down south"

11/4/2010 5:27:07 PM

the fucking cons do this every time. win an election based on advocating fiscal responsibility, less taxes, smaller government...then start to pull this social bullshit, which flies in the face of the whole 'small government' idea.

fucking irritating.

11/4/2010 6:08:07 PM

In fairness they won advocating this too. The local nc family whatever group (anti-gays/abortion) questionnaire helped me narrow down the list a lot. As did candidates campaign websites that took stands on this issue.

The NC GOP was nearly unanimously advocating for this position as an election issue. This isn't a surprise in the slightest. Only 9 GOPs running this time didn't make it an election issue. The 9 may still oppose it, they just didn't do it vocally enough in the election for me to have found out yet.

Also, I found some a fiscal impact note from the fiscal research division suggesting this will cost $5,726,500+ and yet it is still widely supported by "fiscal conservatives"

Some other issues from the questionnaire:

Should an unmarried couple be allowed to adopt children?

Should students have access to contraceptives, including condoms, at school?

Should the General Assembly remove the cap on the number of charter schools allowed in the state?
(I'm not sure what their interest is here? Is it to have more religious schools? Other than more religion in schools & less sex ed I'm not sure why they'd care about education)

Should parents who educate their children in non-public schools be eligible for a voucher, tax credit, or tax deduction from the state?

Should an individual's personal religious beliefs influence the decisions he or she makes while serving in public office?

Should abortionists be required to supply women seeking an abortion with information explaining the risks of and alternatives to the procedure?

Should human embryos be used for research purposes?

Should it be illegal to allow the withdrawal of life-sustaining medications or food and water from a person who is in a vegetative state?

Should a woman have the right to conceive and carry a child to term for the purpose of selling that child to another individual or couple?

Should the current purpose of the state's Alcohol Beverage Control System to limit the per capita consumption of hard liquor be retained?

[Edited on November 5, 2010 at 2:37 AM. Reason : .]

11/5/2010 2:32:16 AM

I'm mostly conservative (probably just fiscally these days though...) and I in no way agree with this amendment. It is purely religious based and that has no place in our government.

Let's see how I do here...

- Should an unmarried couple be allowed to adopt children?

Yes

- Should students have access to contraceptives, including condoms, at school?

Sure, but by donations only; waste of tax money.

- Should the General Assembly remove the cap on the number of charter schools allowed in the state? (I'm not sure what their interest is here? Is it to have more religious schools? Other than more religion in schools & less sex ed I'm not sure why they'd care about education)

Sure

-Should parents who educate their children in non-public schools be eligible for a voucher, tax credit, or tax deduction from the state?

Hell no

-Should an individual's personal religious beliefs influence the decisions he or she makes while serving in public office?

Hell no

-Should abortionists be required to supply women seeking an abortion with information explaining the risks of and alternatives to the procedure?

The risks and alternatives to ANY surgery should be explained by the doctors... I don't see why abortion is different

-Should human embryos be used for research purposes?

Yes

-Should it be illegal to allow the withdrawal of life-sustaining medications or food and water from a person who is in a vegetative state?

No

-Should a woman have the right to conceive and carry a child to term for the purpose of selling that child to another individual or couple?

No

-Should the current purpose of the state's Alcohol Beverage Control System to limit the per capita consumption of hard liquor be retained?

Hell no

[Edited on November 6, 2010 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2010 4:24:05 PM

Now that I've narrowed down where support might come from, I've started the process of trying to get some potential allies (or abstainers) on the record. I'm starting with the house b/c that's the best chance to stop it.

If I can get enough people on the record that it can't pass without them flip flopping, and then write a thousand stories about it on every local blog, letter to the editor, political site, and everywhere else I can think of then maybe I can stop this or at least delay it.

Quote :

"District (location) - Candidate - Victory Margin% House - Not on the record in favor of amendment: New: District 46 (Hoke, Scotland, Robeson) - Gaston (G. L.) Pridgen - 4.5% District 49 (Franklin, Halifax, Nash)- Glen Bradley - 3.5% District 51 (Harnett, Lee) - Michael (Mike) Stone - 7.3% Incumbents: None Senate - Not on the record in favor of amendment: New: District 8 (Brunswick, Columbus, Pender) - Bill Rabon - 26.96% District 10 (Duplin, Lenoir, Sampson) - Brent Jackson – 4.78% District 11 (Nash, Wilson) - E.S. (Buck) Newton - 6.06% District 19 (Bladen, Cumberland) - Wesley Meredith – 2.36% District 24 (Alamance, Caswell) - Rick Gunn – 11.08% (minus the libert. = 6.1%) District 43 (Gaston) - Kathy Harrington 39.1% Incumbents: District 17 (Wake) - Richard Stevens District 30 (Stokes, Surry, Yadkin) - Donald East (found info, he supports amendment) District 36 (Cabarrus, Rowan) - Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr."

11/6/2010 5:53:32 PM

it's nice to know our gov't spends time on issues that actually matter

11/6/2010 6:21:12 PM

Hey, it keeps them from planning to build sea walls.

11/6/2010 6:51:30 PM

I got one on the record against the amendment in the house!!!!!!!!

I just need one more. And then they'll only be able to reach 71 of the 72 votes needed in the House short of any flip floppers.

11/6/2010 6:58:37 PM

Grats dude! While I can't begin to compare with the personal stake you have in this I can at least appreciate when someone is standing up for something just and proper.

11/6/2010 8:39:50 PM

I'll check into mine and maybe send a message... though they're probably religious freaks and won't listen. while personally I don't care much for your cause ( ), I recognize when the government is overstepping its boundaries and attempts to deny citizens basic rights... and nothing pisses me off more/scares me more than this. The ban on gay marriage is nothing but an establishment of religious principles upon the public, which is in every way unconstitutional... and I in no way can support any policy in direct violation of the constitution (and the current law banning gay marriage is just as unconstitutional).

11/6/2010 9:20:21 PM

Quote :

"Marriage is an issue of religion, not politics."

WINNAR WINNAR.

Take away the word marriage and separate the union completely from religion, and they can have all the unions they want and benefits.

11/7/2010 5:46:58 PM

Are surrogate mothers really becoming a political issue?

11/7/2010 7:12:33 PM

With most surrogates the conception happens outside the womb. I don't think the question is directly referring to that since the woman wouldn't be conceiving.

11/7/2010 7:18:20 PM

I honestly think that you are overreacting to this. I don't like Stam, but I don't think that he is willing to throw a lot of vulnerable members under the bus by forcing them to vote on this. I think he is far more concerned with continuing to have a majority. You probably aren't on his (or the GOPs...I don't even know what list I'm on that I get his e-mails, but anyways...) e-mail list, but here is the latest e-mail he sent on election night.

Quote :

"100 Days that Will Change North Carolina North Carolina's state government must reduce costs and regulation on business, large and small, so that they can create jobs and prosperity. If the people of North Carolina entrust Republicans with a majority in the General Assembly on November 2, 2010, we commit to govern the State by focusing on these priorities: 1. Years of overspending by Democrats have given North Carolina the highest tax rates in the Southeast and a budget deficit of at least $3 billion; we will balance the State budget without raising tax rates. 2. High taxes are killing jobs. We will make our tax rates competitive with other states. Within the first 100 days you will see us: 3. Passing The Healthcare Freedom Protection Act, exempting North Carolinians from the job-killing, liberty-restricting mandates of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care). 4. Fighting to protect jobs by keeping our Right to Work laws. 5. Reducing the regulatory burden on small business. 6. Funding education in the classroom, not the bureaucracy. 7. Eliminating the cap on charter schools. 8. Passing the Honest Election Act, requiring a valid photo ID to vote. 9. Passing the Eminent Domain constitutional amendment to protect private property rights. 10. Ending pay-to-play politics and restore honesty and integrity to state government."

Also, I'm guessing the one who said he wouldn't support the amendment was Glen Bradley. He's a big Ron Paul fan, and I've actually posted on the same forum as him since 2007, but only met him for the first time a couple of weeks back when I helped him campaign. He's an unapologetic Ron Paul supporter, and will have no qualms about breaking with the GOP.

Lastly, Richard Stevens is a great guy. I'm really glad he is my state senator. I had a chance to intern with him, but the state went on a spending freeze shortly after my interview

11/7/2010 7:25:58 PM

#1 - Good, but you'll need to run a surplus and then continue to trim expenses and cut fat in order to get state government back to where it should be.

#2 - Agreed.

#3 - A good, but potentially meaningless plan. We'll see what happens with SCOTUS and other state's challenges to federally mandated health care.

#4 - God yes. I'm so glad that the Democrats in DC never got around to trying to force EFCA through, it would have been a disaster. We need to protect our non-union workers and do everything we can (outside of corporate welfare) to make NC a destination for businesses.

#5 - Agreed. We need to reduce a lot of regulations. Is there really any reason that people like barbers or florists should need a state issued license? Won't the shitty ones more or less fail due to word of mouth? Furthermore, we need to make it easier, not harder to start a business. Generally speaking, the amount of paperwork required to open a business is inversely proportion to how economically free a state is.

#6 - Again, agreed, but good luck. Once bureaucracy is entrenched it is almost impossible to root out.

#7 - Agreed, but good luck doing both 6 and 7 without a huge fight from "educators."

#8 - I'm not sure if I like the idea or hate it. We definitely need something a little more stringent than just a list of names with no proof required, but I'm hesitant to require a state issued photo ID unless they make them free.

#9 - Good luck with all of that, SCOTUS has already shit all over that one.

#10 is just laughable, that'll never happen as long as it's the same douches from the same two douchy political parties being funded by corporations, unions, and "special interest" groups.

11/7/2010 7:53:09 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8609861/

Quote :

"Conservatives hope for gay marriage ban in N.C. RALEIGH, N.C. — The economy dominated the fall campaign, but leaders among North Carolina's social conservatives believe the Republican sweep at the Legislature should finally permit a vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that hasn't approved an amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Democratic leadership in the Legislature have refused to consider GOP-penned bills on the issue for several years, and gay rights organizations have offered strong opposition to what it called imprinting discrimination permanently into state law."

Quote :

"But Rep. Justin Burr, R-Stanly, an amendment supporter, said many Republican voters want action on social issues after seeing Democrats push through laws last year such as anti-school bullying law designed in part to protect gay and lesbian students and a school sex education law that teaches more about contraception. "If you look at the last two years when the Democrats and the liberals here have pushed their ultraliberal social agenda in Raleigh, that's what really pushed the grass roots to fight back here and helped us win a majority," Burr said."

Quote :

"Democrat Marcus Brandon, who won a House seat in Guilford County last week and is the second openly gay lawmaker elected in North Carolina history, said the tea party Republicans who talk of protecting personal liberties is incongruent with efforts to restrict marriage. "I would like them to know that I don't want the government in my life, just like they don't want the government in theirs," Brandon said Thursday."

It looks like they're gearing up to fight for a constitutional amendment and to get rid of contraception being a part of sex ed.

11/11/2010 4:49:30 PM