E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Stephen Chernin / Getty Images
President Bill Clinton and evangelist Billy Graham have lent their voices to opposite sides of North Carolina's gay marriage debate. Here, they are shown together during Graham's Crusade at Flushing Meadows Corona Park June 25, 2005 in Queens, New York.
As North Carolina prepares to vote on a controversial amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, both sides are making their final push, including enlisting high-profile backers -- such as former President Bill Clinton and evangelist Billy Graham -- to their cause.
The amendment, also known as Amendment One, would make marriage the only domestic legal union that would be valid in the state. Opponents say the measure is unnecessary since North Carolina already has a statute in place banning gay marriage, and it could jeopardize domestic violence protections for women and affect health benefits for domestic partners. But backers say those fears are overblown.
Voters head to the polls on Tuesday to cast their ballot on the amendment and candidates races in the 2012 primary, but 508,000 people already have participated through absentee ballot, according to the State Board of Elections. That record turnout surpassed even the 2008 primary, which included Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot, according to Democracy North Carolina.
On Sunday, hundreds of thousands of North Carolina homes received an audio recording of Clinton encouraging people to vote against the amendment. In it, he raised the health care and domestic violence concerns, and also said it could hinder efforts to lure new business to the state.
"So the real effect of the law is not to keep the traditional definition of marriage, you’ve already done that," Clinton says in the recording. "The real effect of the law will be to hurt families and drive away jobs. North Carolina can do better."
“Somebody like Bill Clinton doesn’t just come out on anything and speak against it,” Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager of Protect All NC Families, which is against the amendment, told msnbc.com on Monday. “His office looked at this for a very long time before they decided they even wanted to get involved.”
President Barack Obama’s campaign office in North Carolina has released a statement saying he opposes the amendment, too, Kennedy said.
On the pro-amendment side, Billy Graham and former Republican presidential candidate and House Speaker Newt Gingrich have given their support.
"At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage,” Graham said in a full-page ad that was to run in 14 North Carolina newspapers. “The Bible is clear -- God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment on Tuesday, May 8. God bless you as you vote.”
Rachel Lee, a spokeswoman for pro-amendment Vote For Marriage NC said his endorsement was exciting, noting, “He rarely speaks on political issues but he did offer support.”
Obama's education secretary: I believe in gay marriage
Related: The life and times of Billy Graham
She also said they have more than 6,000 churches, a number of policy organizations and state civic groups in their corner.
Of Clinton’s robocalls and Vice President Joe Biden’s comments on Sunday backing gay marriage, she said: “They certainly have a right to their opinion. However, I would say that they are misguided as to what they claim the consequences of this amendment would be. This amendment is very simple and straightforward. It preserves marriage between one man and one woman in our state constitution. It will in no way impact on domestic violence protections, child custody or end of life desires. So these claims brought on by the other side are simply false.”
John Dinan, a professor of political science at Wake Forest University, said the issue has really "polarized the state," with city councils and county commissions taking a stance for or against the initiative.
“We’re in the midst of a serious campaign that has all the trappings of … a national campaign,” he told msnbc.com, referring to all the attention from outside groups and national figures.
If the North Carolina amendment passes, the state would join 30 others that have passed similar amendments. Recent polling by Public Policy Polling, a group that works for Democratic candidates and progressive causes, finds the amendment has the support of 55 percent of the state's voters, with 39 percent against.
"Opponents of the amendment had an uphill battle in convincing voters that it was anything other than a referendum on gay marriage, even though it does go a lot further than that," said the firm, which has done some private polling for the anti-amendment campaign but whose public polling on the issue isn't sponsored by anyone.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan told a Morning Joe panel that he agreed with Vice President Joe Biden's stance on same-sex marriage. That was the first time Duncan announced his views publically. Duncan also talked about Teacher Appreciation Week and explained the government should keep interest rates on student loans down because going to college remains "an important part of the American dream."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Amendment X, United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
The People of North Carolina have the constitutional right to regulate marriage in their state. Period! Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it is their right to regulate marriage. If gays don't like it they are free to move to a state that does allow it. The federal government has no legal standing to interfere in this matter.The liberals can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution they want to abide by.
Well said B.Black and thats exactly where I stand. I will vote for the amendment on May 8 and if it fails to pass then I will accept it and move on. But you will have a hard time convincing those against it that the state and its people have this right.
I will always go with God's definition of marriage. When God was looking for a suitable mate for Adam, he didn't bring another man, He brought a woman.
no one is stopping YOU from doing whatever YOU want. Why do you want to limit the freedom of OTHERS?
It was great when "God" raped "The Virgin Mary" and Joseph had to watch his wife being soiled. Nine months later she bore a little b@stard. I also believe Jesus was gay.
Terry, us gays are NOT looking to have children the same way heteros do, its obvious we just love someone and want to have that sense of bondage and security if something were to happen to either of us. And even more importatly, why are you bringing up God and religion in a government matter? Church and state DONT relate! We don't have a national church due to you "God hates homosexuals" telling us were going to hell, Since when are you God to tell me my fate?
Cody: you need to read my response again. No where did I tell you you're going to hell. You must have gotten that from God's word. So I would suggest you take that up with Him, not me.
Gid: Ignorance deserves no response!
vermontguy: My agreeing with God Word has no impact on your freedom. God has given you a free will to do what ever you want too. It doesn't mean that He agrees with your choice though.
It is hard to imagine homosexuals could do anything to destroy the sanctity of marriage more than heterosexuals already have.
A lot of people here are citing Old Testament laws rather than New Testament ideas such as "Do unto others". The western, liberal, world has a defining social philosophy based on the New Testament. There is a very significant difference.
Marriage is, and was, a sacrament of the church, not unlike communion. There are 3 reasons why the courts allowed states to intervene in marriage requirements. In historical order they are: opposition to LDS polygamy, blacks marrying whites, and cousins marrying cousins. Those legal incursions naturally over time lead us here. Since gay divorce is not yet widespread, they don't realize how fortunate they are to NOT have the state arbitrating their relationships.
Since states have inserted themselves into the marriage definition game long ago, then it becomes simply a matter of equality under the law. All marriages have long been simply a contract and you cannot prevent people from voluntarily entering contracts.
I am not trying to be preachy here. I am simply trying to point out the historic differences between the covenant and the contract of marriage.
It is curious that people like Gingrich who thinks that marriage is more like casual dating than a life-long commitment, feels qualified to speak about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and the abomination of homosexual marriage.
The amount of time and resources wasted on these non-political issues is unconscionable. No one is telling anyone not to be religious yet these people walk around and shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats. If you want to be religious shut up and go read your bible. When you get to this verse try to remember it:
2 Corinthians 13:11 Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another,agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.
But I'm sure thats the same god who hates fags, right?
TGOPP It's easy to blame believers in Jesus when you disagree with what the Word of God says. Trying reading the whole council of God instead of picking verses that you agree with. God doesn't hate anyone and He doesn't want anyone to perish. That's why He sent His Son Jesus to die for the sins of the world. You must accept that gift to be forgiven of your sins though. He is a righteous God and He is going to judge the world in righteousness.
ROFLMAO! Seriously?! So, your wife.... what color pigeons does she sacrifice when she is on her period? Or does she use turtles?
Some day, America WILL be the land of the free again.
For now, America is a nation where some have rights and consider themselves above those who they deny rights to.
America is NOT the land of the free. People are not equal here. But some day that will change.
I support LGBT rights but I thought that NC already had a const. amendment? WAAHT happened.
My guess this will pass about 87% to 2% right?
I guess they weren't comfortable that the first law would absolutely, undeniably, unequivocally prevent homosexuals or lesbians from enjoying the same civil rights as straight citizens do.
After all, they are lesser citizens than we straight citizens, right?
No... they have legislation that bans. I guess they like to waste taxpayer money for political grandstanding.
rLets go with the guy who had sex in the white house and demeaned the office of the presidency and embarrased his wife, daughter and his country. Now there is a real man.
yeah, newt is a real saint, lets go with him instead (sarcasm).
QUOTATION OF THE DAY
"I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties."
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, on NBC's "Meet the Press."
NO MENTION OF REPUBLINO MARRIAGES BEING ENTITLED TO THE SAME EXACT RIGHTS, ALL THE CIVIL RIGHTS, ALL THE CIVIL LIBERTIES. Inbreeding leads to right-wing nut jobs.
"These types of marriages are abominable. If allowed they would pollute America."
"Such unions are not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results, such as increased effeminate behavior in the population."
"They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good in accordance with the God of nature."
The first quote is taken from Virginia law. The other two are taken from Georgia. All three are responses in the mid 1960s to interracial marriage. In fact, when Loving v Virginia was decided, it was against public policy.. most especially in the South. And yet, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Constitution over the "will of the people" because the "people" are notoriously fickle.
NC already has a law banning same/sex marriage. What they are attempting to do is thwart the right of other States to decide for themselves. The "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution has been interpreted as the founders attempt to keep one state from being able to dictate to other states how the law is to be applied. This political ploy of the right in NC will not only violate that clause, it will drive citizens from the state who will be affected by the change. This WILL have economic repercussions.
Preventing gay marriage does not prevent, or even dissuade, people from being gay. What it does is place an unfair burden on a segment of the population. Those who are in favor of this change should ask themselves what possible good could come from the amendment. They should also read it very carefully... because it also bars civil union contracts... for everyone, not just gays.
we've had gay marriages/civil unions for years now, can anyone point to the evil of them? anyone? crickets...
you do not teach nor indoctrinate innocent children into immorality through social engineering via the public schools that have gay teachers. That is evil.
Dennis Parker what immorality are you talking about? The immorality of a group of hateful bigot trying to tell others who they have nothing else to do with how to live their lives?
The only evil here is the evil of the same group of people that used and fought for slavery.
No. I think it would be the group of average citizens that don't believe that incentives meant to encourage people to pro-create, build families, and stay together, should apply to same-sex couples. Although same-sex couples can, in fact, take similar steps through artificial means or via adoption and can build a family (though gender and role models will likely be confusing) and can certainly stay together, it does not seem like a good idea to many people.
Right... but those "many people" are the very group of hateful bigots that are being discussed. lol
If you want "fairness" as you claim, you would insist these er... incentives (which is not what they are) should be denied to ALL people who do not have children - whether gay or straight.
Many people have a hard time admitting to their own bigotry. They try to couch it in "logical" sounding arguments that have nothing to do with the fact that they simply don't like homosexuals. Below is a link to a video made about a man who was raised by two moms. Does he seem confused?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/06/a-tale-of-two-moms-a-teenage-son-and-a-video-that-wouldn-t-die.html
bite it haters, you are going to lose just like you lost on slavery (by getting your A55E5 KICKED!)_, and on interracial marriage.
Hate loses, and we gay people WILL LAUGH LAST.
wow, that came fast!
That's what she said.... (sorry couldn't resist...)
Marraige is a legal contract between two consenting adults. We go to the court to obtain a license, pay a clerk, sign a contract, and then the judge signs as well. In a democracy, where all persons are deemed to have been "created equal, with equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", where there is a constitutional separation of church and state, this is all that should be required to be recognized as "Married", regardless of sex, race, religion or nationality. If God has an objection to the match, He will make His objections known is His own way and time.
There is God's law and then there is Man's law.God's law suspercedes man's law and has always been that way. GOD instituted the union of man and woman when he created them and out of that union they were to produce children that he instructed the man and wife to train them up to know him.He likened 'marriage' as to him and the church as his bride.Now we live in a society that defines what they think a marriage is and how we are to train our children.It is not 'man' we will answer to when we pass this Life but Almighty God and we will give an account of our lives and how we lived it according to his Word.It will not be to "mankind' who we listened to,who gave out laws and decreeds they made up.Amen to Rev.Billy Graham.He never failed to speak of Christ's love for his ppl and ppl turning away from their sin back to God and he stands on God's word concerning marriage.
How do you think God is going to feel about man trying to take his job and force people to "give account" to the police instead? How do you think God is going to feel about YOU telling people what he thinks instead of allowing Him to speak for himself? How do you think God is going to feel about YOU telling people that Christ did not die for them... because they were gay?
By the way, Adam and Eve were not married. Who would have performed the ceremony? God did not institute marriage... man did.
It never ceases to amaze me that when issues like this come to the forefront of our political debate, the RWNJ conservative Christians always pull out the "The BIBLE says..." Line.
If in a similar debate, arguing a political position, a Muslim were to bring into the arguement "The Q'uran says..." The RWNJS would have the hair on the back of their necks standing straight up, their heart rate would double, they would become short of breath, and you could see their face flush. The first words out of their mouth would be to the effect of "How DARE you bring your holy book into this and attempt to circumvent our civil lawes with your Sharia Law! This is America, ther eis no place for that here!"
It amazes me that these same RWNJ/Conservative Christians cannot see that they are doing the exact same thing, using their holy text. A text, mind you, that not all who call themselves Christians can even agree on the meaning of certain passages.
This should not be a debate on what a religion says is right or wrong. America is a civil secular society. One group's religious text (or any religious text for that matter) should have no standing in the formation or enforcement of our laws.
Pretty much exactly how I would have responded. It's okay if we use God's law in our public policy as long as it's the right God....right?
Here we go again, having people vote about an issue that really doesn't concern them. Get your noses out of peoples bedrooms, and worry about your own house. And quit forcing your religeous beliefs on other people. America has gone from an all inclusive place to only those that fit certain parameters, and I am sure that is not what the founders wanted.
Clinton's weighing in? Oh, because he's the pillar of morality... You can disagree with Billy Graham all you want but in the end he'll be proven correct.
Newt is No pilar either. Sorry but pot calling the kettle black there
Let's see...
End of days I think I will take my chances with Billy Graham not Bill Clinton or Joe Bidin time. Love you guys and gals on the left but what "seems" Right unto you is wrong (In God's eyes).
KMartin-655763 - I find it interesting that all of you think you know what is right in God's eyes - all you need to do is think about what was done back then - he wants equality for everyone - it is only man's interpretation that is wrong.
Another important reason not to allow Romney to ever be President of this country. He made it clear with a gay staff member recently who quite. Romney cannot be trusted, he will take away all abortion rights for women, all rights for gays, will destroy middle americans and will give only to the rich. He is a danger to this country's freedom and so are all of his followers.
Don't be knee-jerk, party-line, stupid. Romney will not have the authority to do those things. We are not voting for Emperor.
Has anyone else mentioned yet that the right to marriage equality is doomed whenever it is put up to a vote? Because the majority of people don't care about civil rights, or even the concept of freedom. They care only about their own freedom to live their own lives on a basis in which they're not restricted, and to retrofit their lifestyles onto everyone else, because God tells them it's a good idea.
Which is exactly why the Courts will strike it down. Sadly, the average American has an IQ of 98. They have trouble with abstract concepts and cannot accurately predict the consequences of their actions. The founding fathers knew this... and the idea of Supreme Court and electoral college were born. The average citizen cannot see the "big picture" and so they tend to be reeds in the wind. Our government was set up to allow "learned" individuals to make decisions for the rest. Unfortunately, those "learned" people became corrupt and so we decided to elect the "average" people who don't know what they are doing.... and it turns out, they are just as susceptible to corruption. <sigh>
Just what we need: Ol' Bill Clinton pontificating on sexual morality matters. Isn't he the guy who bit his lip, pointed his (index) finger at the camera and assured us with typical democrat confidence, saying, "I didn't have sex with that woman"? Pardon me, but I'll trust the counsel of Billy Graham over Bill Clinton any day of the week.
You trust someone who thinks he talks to God? Not me.
At least Clinton can logically argue his case, Graham cannot.
Be careful, the Republicans have plenty of Skeletons in their closet too. What is more Important to me is that we make it more affordable to start raising American Families again and a lot of the Divisive issues will melt into the background.
China 1.5 Billion People and counting
India 1.5 Billion People and Counting
U.S. 350 Million people and Marriage Rates at 50% and falling. Americans just can't afford Kids anymore. I think that is Way more important!
He isn't discussing "morality." He is discussing civil rights. YOUR rights should end where mine begin. And it does... when we are talking about things YOU want. How does two men marrying affect you in any way?
Oh, please. This is not a sexual morality issue. It's a legal issue. It's an issue of discrimination.
I am looking at the Picture of Bill Clinton with his hand clasped over the top of Billy Grahams hand and I am wondering what is really going through Billy Grahams mind at this moment.
Bill Clinton telling people to not enforce traditional marriage while he in the past was getting his penis sucked on by a few women while married to Hillary. Bill Clinton, who lied under oath about being a womanizer. Bill Clinton being the consumate bullsh**er who thinks he can redefine the word "is". Duck him and the horse he came in on too.
Ever stopped to think that if Hillary would have sucked on Bill penis, that Bill wouldn't be getting it done by someone else?
And somehow the irony of Newt Gingrich saying something on this issue is lost on you?
Clinton says banning gay marriage will "hurt families". What does that mean? A family is a man a woman and their children. Not two mentally ill people of the same sex saying they're equal.
Banning gay marriage is a violation of civil rights.
So.... divorced people with kids are no longer families? Widowed spouses with children are no longer families? Single people who are adopt children are not families?
Chris your a sick ill person to believe that. Family is a bond with people who love each other, since when does a penis or vagina have to make a difference in that. You need to read the bible some more cuz I read that the key to salvation is faith in my lord and that he loves all his children... Did you know throwing stones (figuratively) is a sin? I'd go repent if I were you
I will support Rev. Graham on this one. He doesn't use a cigar.
Religious folk do not have the right to meddle in politics. Period. If they do, their tax-exampt status should be eliminated. End of story. Shut up, old man!
junganimus,
Well said!
Equal rights for all to have and publicly express their opinions. Even you are allowed to vote.
Not the end of story, Mr. Junganimus -
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are
absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or
intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any
candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds
or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the
organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office
clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating
this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the
imposition of certain excise taxes.
Open discussion of issues is allowed and encouraged.
Too bad. Of all the self appointed "spokespeople" for "God," I actually thought Billy Graham was with the parameters of the true meaning of Jesus, love not distance, inclusion not inclusion, acceptance not isolation...BUT, religion, at best, is ideological and exclusive. Anyone different or anyone of a different class in "not" like us. Ask the American Indian, Ask the blacks, Ask the women. I guess when they were all for "equality, justice, freedom, BUT once you get what you want, well, the other people are just going to have to understand "this is different." As much as I always thought Bill Clinton was a snake oil salesman and I never voted for him, at least he's doing the right thing now. Notice how the democrats are trying but the republicans could care less. Tells you who I will vote for. And, as far as relgion goes, it seems more and more irrelevant every day.
I am not for Gay marriage but then I am not Gay .
I'm not gay either... And I support everyone's right to equal treatment under the law. I am also not black - but I am against racial discrimination. I do not own guns - but support the second amendment. I am not a child - but I support protective measures for children. I do not work in a mine - and yet I support the safety standards applied for the benefit of the workers. I am not Jewish - and yet I support their right to worship (or not) anyway they choose. I have never been the victim of a violent crime - and yet I support the criminal justice system. I am not YOU... and yet I would be the loudest supporter of your rights.
Your myopic view of the world is exactly the reason civil rights laws are necessary in this country. Because if you do not support equality for people who are different from you... they will not support you.
It would be hard for you to be me.
I have no interest in being you. I am perfectly comfortable being me. Why would you think I would need to BE you in order to speak up for your rights? If you were arrested, and you have no idea why... if you were not allowed to speak with a judge, but instead locked in a dungeon somewhere... I would be the FIRST person on the picket line out front. I certainly do not need to BE you to do that.
Sounds to me like you have a real boring life.
Ah... so you are 12. My mistake. Carry on, if you like, but trolling WoW is a lot more fun than trolling news sites.