No-one is surprised the New York Times editorialized against the NC Marriage Amendment. Yawn.
The most important thing about the vote in North Carolina is that for opponents it's not a vote on gay marriage at all. They have given up the idea they can win a referendum on gay marriage and instead are pouring millions of dollars into persuading North Carolina voters that the amendment does bad things to opposite sex couples, like taking away domestic violence protection.
They've conceded that they cannot win on the marriage question.
But if their strategy of deception and misdirection succeeds look for the mainstream media to ignore these facts:
"...In their zeal, lawmakers got careless with the wording of the measure, known as Amendment One. It would constitutionally prohibit recognition not just of same-sex marriages, but of other legal arrangements like civil unions and domestic partnerships. That could harm all unmarried couples, imperiling some children’s health insurance benefits, along with child custody arrangements and safeguards against domestic violence.
...Polls suggest that defeating this measure remains an uphill struggle, but at least its approval is no longer an entirely foregone conclusion. Much will depend on turnout, especially by voters on college campuses, who will need to vote in larger-than-usual numbers to defeat this declaration of officially sanctioned discrimination." -- The New York Times
14 Comments
Uh-huh, they definitely said "marriage = bigotry" --- or perhaps, that's just your hyperbolic, exaggerated version of the truth. I think the latter.
The New York Times - blurring the line between opinion and fact. It's one thing to editorialize, quite another to write an opinion piece and present it as fact. Will they print another editorial pointing out that everything in this piece was made up? Don't hold your breath.
It's not difficult to make some calls, separate truth from fiction. But a modicum of curiosity and integrity is required. Hard to tell if the NYT staff is complicit, lazy or both.
And BTW, the amendment will appear on the ballot as "Constitutional Amendment," not "amendment one," something else the opposition made up.
Know what's ironic? The homosexuals fighting the amendment are doing so on the claim that it hurts STRAIGHT families, tee-hee.
How does that change the minds of people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? It doesn't!
This is a total waste of HRC and Tim Gill dollars on a losing proposition on all counts. I like it!
@Barb: it IS an editorial. Opinion, in other words. On the Opinion page. No lines were blurred. Anyway, the editorial, it argued that anti-SSM laws are bigotry. It never said a man and a woman getting married was bigotry.
Overcame:
You and I read this exactly right.
This whole NC campaign is a sign of real desperation on the marriage corruption side.
They now know- they themselves admit in internal communications- that they cannot possibly win in NC.
So they sell their billionaire backers on some cockamamie line that they can turn it into an election about...what? Violence against women??????
Yeah.
Right.
When they lose by 8-12 points, then it will be morning
if SSM supporters are so corrupt and wrong, why does NOM need to write these shockingly distorted, salacious, misleading headlines?
Nova:
Ummm, I believe the best answer to your.....question....is to google the term "non sequitir".
Good luck
The NY Times said this lie
.Editorial
Bigotry on the Ballot
North Carolina already has a law barring same-sex marriage, but the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature is not satisfied. It devised a measure to enshrine this obvious discrimination in the State Constitution and placed it on the ballot of the state’s May 8 primary election — a test of tolerance versus bigotry that ought to be watched closely nationwide.
As usual this untruthfull leftist rag brings no evidence that there is anything bigoted about making marriage between a man and a woman. While claiming the law already says so it ignores the fact that the homosexual advocates are judge shopping again looking for unelected activists judges to impose marriage corruption on the state. The amendment allows the people to decide this issue as they should.
They also spewed out this lie:
Opponents of marriage equality have never been able to show any evidence that any harm is caused to heterosexual marriages by granting all American adults the right to marry as they choose — because there is no such evidence
First of all American adults have the right to marry. Just find someone of the opposite sex and marry that person. The evidence is shown about the harm of marriage corruption but they ignore it.
Finally the homosexual advocates have not shown any evidence that endorsing their behavior by redefining marriage benefits society because they have no such evidence.
Very well put Barb and do not bother to hold your breath as they will continue to lie so save your life.
Barb also said this:
It's not difficult to make some calls, separate truth from fiction. But a modicum of curiosity and integrity is required. Hard to tell if the NYT staff is complicit, lazy or both.
It is not that the NYT staff is lazy or complicit, it is because they are extremely biased. They are hard core leftist propaganda. The head of the editorial board is writer Paul Krugman whose columns also appear in the newspapers in New England and elsewhere. He is always bashing conservatives and Republicans and thinks if the entire Congress was run by ultral liberal Democrats than all of Americia's problems would be solved.
Voting FOR Amendment One protects our right to vote to change our minds later. If we want to vote on civil unions, we can, same as we're voting on May 8.
But one judge could take away our right to decide for ourselves, forever.
"The most important thing about the vote in North Carolina is that for opponents it's not a vote on gay marriage at all."
I will match your "yawn" with a sigh.
Whoever wrote the NC amendment is the one who made it not about gay marriage. It extends beyond marriage.
I think some of you should look up the definition of bigot:
Bigot - A person who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance.
Having your personal opinoin of why same-sex couples shouldn't marry qualifies as bigotry.
Carlos -
Having your personal opinion of why opposite-sex couples shouldn't be exclusive to marriage qualifies as bigotry.
Why are homosexual couples so intolerant of heterosexual couples? Is it because they are the only combination of humans capable of reproducing? Is that why they condescendingly refer to them as "breeders?"
Carlos writes:
Not quite, Carlos. It is not bigotry to have an opinion. It *might* be bigotry if that is an ill-formed or irrational opinion - perhaps formed as a result of one's personal prejudice. It is certainly bigotry if its an ill-formed or irrational opinion that one holds on to obstinately, giving blind preference to the pre-formed opinion over facts and reason.
And that might accurately describe folks who fear possible adverse effects of marriage equality. The editorial asserts:
Only the voter knows whether or not they're clinging obstinately to an ill-formed opinion in spite of facts and reason.