BREAKING: Cowardly Senate leadership tries to hide marriage amendment debate slated for Monday (insurance, credit)

[Jaymax]

Here’s some jaw-dropping cowardice at work in the North Carolina Senate. At the 11th hour — of course in the dead media zone of Friday afternoon — Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (@SenatorBerger, Phil.Berger@ncleg.net, 919-733-5708) and staff are not only trying to hide the fact that they will bring a marriage amendment bill up for debate on Monday, but they are trying to do it in a stealth fashion that is completely disgusting. Berger and his fellow elected Bigots to Kill NC Business don’t want the public to know about or participate in the debate.

"According to the public notices released today, the Senate Judiciary 1 committee will be meeting Monday (12th Sept) on H61, “Speaker/Pro Tem Term Limits” – a proposal to limit the numbers of years House and Senate members can serve as leaders of their chambers.

But a new version of the bill leaked to WRAL Friday night shows the bill the committee will take up Monday has absolutely nothing to do with term limits. The new H61 is an amended version of the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

You can try to look it up at the legislature’s website, but you won’t find it there"

BREAKING: Cowardly Senate leadership tries to hide marriage amendment debate slated for Monday

[box_of_zip_disks]

It's pretty funny how the gay marriage amendment thing came almost immediately after their voter disenfranchisement scheme seemed to fizzle out for the time being. You gotta hand it to 'em they just don't quit.

[Francois]

All of this just shows that the "Jobs and Economy" platforms that the current Republican majority won on in 2010 was just a Trojan Horse to get to their real mission, divisive social issues that are anything but "smaller government influence in people's lives". How much taxpayer money is is costing to have this special session over a mostly redundant amendment (redundant because state law already says basically the same thing, though this amendment goes even further by forbidding even domestic partnership agreements, which will likely forbid companies such as SAS Cisco, Blue Cross, etc from offering insurance to domestic partners of employees.

So much for "less government oversight".

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by Francois

...though this amendment goes even further by forbidding even domestic partnership agreements, which will likely forbid companies such as SAS Cisco, Blue Cross, etc from offering insurance to domestic partners of employees.

The next step being to shift those companies and employees who have a choice elsewhere. And of those who do have choice most tend to be the highest paid (read: highest taxes paid) and least consuming of public services.

Does anyone on the right ever bother think these things through?

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

"According to the public notices released today, the Senate Judiciary 1 committee will be meeting Monday (12th Sept) on H61, “Speaker/Pro Tem Term Limits” – a proposal to limit the numbers of years House and Senate members can serve as leaders of their chambers.

But a new version of the bill leaked to WRAL Friday night shows the bill the committee will take up Monday has absolutely nothing to do with term limits. The new H61 is an amended version of the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

You can try to look it up at the legislature’s website, but you won’t find it there"

BREAKING: Cowardly Senate leadership tries to hide marriage amendment debate slated for Monday

I'm sorry but they piggyback WAY more important and consequential stuff than this....

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by Francois

(redundant because state law already says basically the same thing, though this amendment goes even further by forbidding even domestic partnership agreements, which will likely forbid companies such as SAS Cisco, Blue Cross, etc from offering insurance to domestic partners of employees.

So much for "less government oversight".

If this is true, then that is a shame.

If the purpose of banning same sex marriage was to preserve the integrity of the "church" without severely infringing on personal liberties, that's one thing...

But to ban civil unions...it doesn't make sense to me. I can't even begin to think of the logic.

[Francois]

Originally Posted by Hot_Handz

But to ban civil unions...it doesn't make sense to me. I can't even begin to think of the logic.

The "logic" with controversial ballot initiatives is often "to get more arch-conservative voters to the polls in 2012." The anti-same-sex marriage in Ohio is 2004 is often credited with making the difference in voter turnout and outcome in that state, which just so happened to be the state that decided the election.

NC is already being called "one of the big states to watch" in 2012 [slimmest margin of all the Obama states in 2008, and the Democratic convention is being held here], though our 15 electoral votes are on par with Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004. As usual, politics is politics and wreaking havoc on everyday people's lives is typically at the bottom of the concerns of the politicos that choose the policy and platforms.

[box_of_zip_disks]

Originally Posted by Hot_Handz

If this is true, then that is a shame.

If the purpose of banning same sex marriage was to preserve the integrity of the "church" without severely infringing on personal liberties, that's one thing...

But to ban civil unions...it doesn't make sense to me. I can't even begin to think of the logic.

It has nothing to do with banning same-sex marriages as they're already not recognized by the state. The whole point is to put the amendment on the ballot next year to drive up Republican votes in what might be a close election. Basic wedge issue strategy. The Republican parties in a number of swing states put gay marriage initiatives on their ballots in 2004. Back in the 90s they used anti-abortion amendments for the same purpose, and immigration issues are exploited from time to time as well.

[Jaymax]

This is what Senator James Forrester (R) wants for Nth Carolina. To make it a far right Christian Theocracy with laws based on the Bible:

The Dominionist Agenda of NC State Senator James Forrester

[Francois]

though our 15 electoral votes are on par with Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004

Oops, I meant to say NOT on par with...