I continue to be impressed with the campaign against Amendment One ... and dumbfounded by the breathtaking incompetence of the Republicans who crafted this piece-of-crap legislation.
I, too, am impressed with the campaign against Amendment One, but only up to a point. No matter the importance of the internet, a lack of ads on television, where they can reach the vast majority of North Carolinians who won't be checking online for anti-amendment ads, is a glaring, potentially fatal flaw in the campaign. I love the new ads, my yard sports a yard sign, as do several others in the neighborhood, but it's past time for a wake-up call: Groovy progressives such as regular readers of this valuable blog, including yours truly, are nowhere near being able to kill the amendment by ourselves. The base of support has to be widened, and TV ads, like it or not, are the one proven way to do so. Protect NC Families is still begging every day via the web for money for TV ads.
My question is: Has the campaign tried to tap into the pockets of establishment / business leaders who publicly oppose Amendment One? Seems like a great time to reach out for help from those guys, expand the coalition, or however you want to look at it. Here in Charlotte, Jim Rogers of Duke Energy, former mayors Richard Vinroot and Harvey Gantt, plus a major player at Bank of America, Cathy Bessant, have all publicly opposed the bill. Those folks have a LOT of money. I think it is a fair question to ask Protect NC Families whether they have reached out to them. Which is what I've been trying to do as a journalist/columnist for a few days. Good luck, however getting someone from Protect etc. to return messages or answer questions. Flat-out ignoring supportive journalists? I'm not impressed, nor is this vocal LGBT rights supporter particularly hopeful at this point. I'm praying that I'm wrong.
What's "over the top" is the wording of this absurd amendment.
The experience in Ohio suggests that the risks to children are absolutely real, and likely far beyond those mentioned here, spilling into everything from custody disputes, hospital visitation, insurance coverage, parent-teacher interactions, and more.
In my experience, thinking folks respond more favorably to reason over ranting and this particular approach to defeating the amendment is going to lose reasonable, thinking voters. The words are inflamatory ("will harm children") unfounded and distasteful in my opinion. This is Beck/Limbaugh style and I find it distasteful. Out of 50 people in my Deocratic meeting only one took the "harms children" sign - the rest did not want them in ther yard. My sign says I am against Amendment One and I stand proudly by it.
The mind is like a parachute - it works best when it is opened!
Jan Orey
James, I would much appreciate a link to help me be better informed on how this amendment would harm children. The video didn't contain info on exactly what might happen.
The mind is like a parachute - it works best when it is opened!
Jan Orey
Even anti-gay zealots like Skip Stam openly admit that Amendment One will strip benefits from partners and children.
Wake up, what-I-think-is-really-a-concern-troll!
If you work for a municipality that offers domestic partner benefits (and some do in NC), this amendment screws you by taking away benefits based on domestic partnerships.
Ok let me get this straight, domestic partnerships is a nice word for living
together out of wedlock , (you choose it)... further these people who enter into
domestic partnerships expect the rest of the community, employer's, welfare to
pay for their and their kids health insurance?... am I missing something here,
This website is most likely one that does not support amendment one, so I do
expect to be called a nut .So what....lol....
I honestly feel if it means that much to you to stop a few people from getting health insurance Because. You feel cheated that they aren't married and screw up young childrens health care than fine...but think if straight couples were denied health insurace how would you feel? Your child is sick and you can't afford complete out of pocket..does the child just die all over who the parents are sexually attracted to? You guys should attack porn rather than same sex equality....but hey we still have racism in this world do we deny racists health insurance also...but typical white people always take from others..AMERICA for example. God said LOVE.. its his job to judge..not a cracker's.
I have had several conversations regarding Amendment One in the last couple of weeks. I can assure you that the only way this amendment has even an outside chance of being defeated is by approaching it from the angle that it is harmful to women and children. When the question is simply same sex marriage the majority of North Carolinians will vote yes for the amendment. Most people are very uncomfortable with gay marriage. Many, many people sat down last Sunday to a sermon about the sanctity of marriage and I suspect that has made more difference in this campaign than all the signs, commercials or news reports you can name. After church, standing in the sanctuary, my father-in-law and I discussed it. I explained that I had already voted and I voted against it. Then I told him why. He listened but I don't know how he and my mother-in-law ended up voted on Monday. I think my wife was swayed by the sermon and will vote yes. There were probably 100-150 people in the pews of my church that morning. How many of them, on the drive home or at the dinner table, do you think engaged in a reasoned discussion that offered an alternate view to what they just heard? My guess is not many. Now multiply that by half the churches in the state.
Even after reading up on the amendment, I do not see how it can harm children. Sure there are flyers and info on how it harms a child. It says they won' t have the same rights. Not really seeing how they won' t have the same rights. A child' s parent is still there parents even if they sren' t married. They still will have health care. The only one that is affecting is domestic partnership or civil union. So the parents of the child cannot share healthcare unless there married. If they need healthcare that bad the csn either get married or get insurance on there own.
...when I am married to one person or even if I am not married. For whatever reason, marriage or living together doesn't work. There may or may not be child-support.
I get into a relationship with someone else and for whatever reasons I decide not to get married. Maybe I don't want to end the alimony or child support. But my partner has a good job with health insurance that neither I nor my partner have through our jobs. So my partner wants to add both me and my kid to their policy.
Before the passage of Amendment One, I could get on their policy without getting married. Now I cannot do that. In order to get the insurance, we'd have to get married, which would cut off the alimony and possibly even the child support.
Yea I see how that harms you and your greedy pockets. If you want the insurance get married. Not getting married and denying the child of health insurance so you can still rceieve alimony checks is just as bad if not worse than the laws inmposed by this amendment.
Children can still have health benefits, they will just have to come from the Parent....wether that be through their job, paying for it themselves, or getting help from the government(medicad)
The only way this will harm children is if the PARENTS want to avoid the inconvenience of providing for their own child. Most of the people against the amendment have been frightened by propagada introduced by the intrested parties.
I wasn't referring to alimony only - I was also referring to child support. And many parents who are eligible for both alimony and child support sometimes get neither because the other parent is a deadbeat.
The same thing can go at the other end of life. Seniors often lose benefits when they marry, so they live together to get better benefits. Since the benefits don't really cover the actual costs of living, to tell them to marry and suffer the loss is cruel and often subjects the seniors to severe cuts in their standard of living.
Comments
Good stuff from Protect All Families
I continue to be impressed with the campaign against Amendment One ... and dumbfounded by the breathtaking incompetence of the Republicans who crafted this piece-of-crap legislation.
Campaign needs to tap into business leaders who oppose amendment
I, too, am impressed with the campaign against Amendment One, but only up to a point. No matter the importance of the internet, a lack of ads on television, where they can reach the vast majority of North Carolinians who won't be checking online for anti-amendment ads, is a glaring, potentially fatal flaw in the campaign. I love the new ads, my yard sports a yard sign, as do several others in the neighborhood, but it's past time for a wake-up call: Groovy progressives such as regular readers of this valuable blog, including yours truly, are nowhere near being able to kill the amendment by ourselves. The base of support has to be widened, and TV ads, like it or not, are the one proven way to do so. Protect NC Families is still begging every day via the web for money for TV ads.
My question is: Has the campaign tried to tap into the pockets of establishment / business leaders who publicly oppose Amendment One? Seems like a great time to reach out for help from those guys, expand the coalition, or however you want to look at it. Here in Charlotte, Jim Rogers of Duke Energy, former mayors Richard Vinroot and Harvey Gantt, plus a major player at Bank of America, Cathy Bessant, have all publicly opposed the bill. Those folks have a LOT of money. I think it is a fair question to ask Protect NC Families whether they have reached out to them. Which is what I've been trying to do as a journalist/columnist for a few days. Good luck, however getting someone from Protect etc. to return messages or answer questions. Flat-out ignoring supportive journalists? I'm not impressed, nor is this vocal LGBT rights supporter particularly hopeful at this point. I'm praying that I'm wrong.
Really?
Perhaps you could expound on that a bit for those of us not clear on these ramifications? This strikes me as a little "over the top."
The mind is like a parachute - it works best when it is opened!
Jan Orey
Passionate progressive
What's "over the top" is the wording of this absurd amendment.
The experience in Ohio suggests that the risks to children are absolutely real, and likely far beyond those mentioned here, spilling into everything from custody disputes, hospital visitation, insurance coverage, parent-teacher interactions, and more.
A quick Google search would provide all the evidence you'd need to examine both sides of the debate. This flyer summarizes some of the arguments. (pdf)
Over the top
In my experience, thinking folks respond more favorably to reason over ranting and this particular approach to defeating the amendment is going to lose reasonable, thinking voters. The words are inflamatory ("will harm children") unfounded and distasteful in my opinion. This is Beck/Limbaugh style and I find it distasteful. Out of 50 people in my Deocratic meeting only one took the "harms children" sign - the rest did not want them in ther yard. My sign says I am against Amendment One and I stand proudly by it.
The mind is like a parachute - it works best when it is opened!
Jan Orey
Yard signs
Jane and I bought 50 "harms children" yard signs to give away and ALL of them were taken and put up in less than a week.
Amendment One would harm children. That's a fact.
Harming children
James, I would much appreciate a link to help me be better informed on how this amendment would harm children. The video didn't contain info on exactly what might happen.
The mind is like a parachute - it works best when it is opened!
Jan Orey
Good grief
Even anti-gay zealots like Skip Stam openly admit that Amendment One will strip benefits from partners and children.
Wake up, what-I-think-is-really-a-concern-troll!
If you work for a municipality that offers domestic partner benefits (and some do in NC), this amendment screws you by taking away benefits based on domestic partnerships.
Ok let me get this straight,
Ok let me get this straight, domestic partnerships is a nice word for living
together out of wedlock , (you choose it)... further these people who enter into
domestic partnerships expect the rest of the community, employer's, welfare to
pay for their and their kids health insurance?... am I missing something here,
This website is most likely one that does not support amendment one, so I do
expect to be called a nut .So what....lol....
I honestly feel if it means
I honestly feel if it means that much to you to stop a few people from getting health insurance Because. You feel cheated that they aren't married and screw up young childrens health care than fine...but think if straight couples were denied health insurace how would you feel? Your child is sick and you can't afford complete out of pocket..does the child just die all over who the parents are sexually attracted to? You guys should attack porn rather than same sex equality....but hey we still have racism in this world do we deny racists health insurance also...but typical white people always take from others..AMERICA for example. God said LOVE.. its his job to judge..not a cracker's.
I have had several
I have had several conversations regarding Amendment One in the last couple of weeks. I can assure you that the only way this amendment has even an outside chance of being defeated is by approaching it from the angle that it is harmful to women and children. When the question is simply same sex marriage the majority of North Carolinians will vote yes for the amendment. Most people are very uncomfortable with gay marriage. Many, many people sat down last Sunday to a sermon about the sanctity of marriage and I suspect that has made more difference in this campaign than all the signs, commercials or news reports you can name. After church, standing in the sanctuary, my father-in-law and I discussed it. I explained that I had already voted and I voted against it. Then I told him why. He listened but I don't know how he and my mother-in-law ended up voted on Monday. I think my wife was swayed by the sermon and will vote yes. There were probably 100-150 people in the pews of my church that morning. How many of them, on the drive home or at the dinner table, do you think engaged in a reasoned discussion that offered an alternate view to what they just heard? My guess is not many. Now multiply that by half the churches in the state.
I'm a moderate Democrat.
Even after reading up on the
Even after reading up on the amendment, I do not see how it can harm children. Sure there are flyers and info on how it harms a child. It says they won' t have the same rights. Not really seeing how they won' t have the same rights. A child' s parent is still there parents even if they sren' t married. They still will have health care. The only one that is affecting is domestic partnership or civil union. So the parents of the child cannot share healthcare unless there married. If they need healthcare that bad the csn either get married or get insurance on there own.
OK - if I have a child...
...when I am married to one person or even if I am not married. For whatever reason, marriage or living together doesn't work. There may or may not be child-support.
I get into a relationship with someone else and for whatever reasons I decide not to get married. Maybe I don't want to end the alimony or child support. But my partner has a good job with health insurance that neither I nor my partner have through our jobs. So my partner wants to add both me and my kid to their policy.
Before the passage of Amendment One, I could get on their policy without getting married. Now I cannot do that. In order to get the insurance, we'd have to get married, which would cut off the alimony and possibly even the child support.
See how that might harm the child?
Chris Telesca
Wake County Verified Voting
http://noirvnc.blogspot.com
http://statewideirvnc.blogspot.com
Yea I see how that harms you
Yea I see how that harms you and your greedy pockets. If you want the insurance get married. Not getting married and denying the child of health insurance so you can still rceieve alimony checks is just as bad if not worse than the laws inmposed by this amendment.
Children can still have health benefits, they will just have to come from the Parent....wether that be through their job, paying for it themselves, or getting help from the government(medicad)
The only way this will harm children is if the PARENTS want to avoid the inconvenience of providing for their own child. Most of the people against the amendment have been frightened by propagada introduced by the intrested parties.
You have to weigh the costs
I wasn't referring to alimony only - I was also referring to child support. And many parents who are eligible for both alimony and child support sometimes get neither because the other parent is a deadbeat.
The same thing can go at the other end of life. Seniors often lose benefits when they marry, so they live together to get better benefits. Since the benefits don't really cover the actual costs of living, to tell them to marry and suffer the loss is cruel and often subjects the seniors to severe cuts in their standard of living.
Chris Telesca
Wake County Verified Voting
http://noirvnc.blogspot.com
http://statewideirvnc.blogspot.com