I am phone banking against the amendment tomorrow, and it irks me that I have to do this.

[yardwork]

In North Carolina we're in early voting between now and primary day on May 8 on a constitutional amendment that would make marriage between one man and one woman the only legally recognized relationship in the state. Marriage for gay people is already illegal in North Carolina by statute. This amendment is much more sweeping. It would drop legal recognition of all domestic partnerships, straight or gay. It would drop legal protections, access to health care coverage, and other benefits for children of those couples. Domestic violence protection for unmarried couples would be difficult or impossible to obtain. In other words, this constitutional amendment won't make a difference one way or the other to me but it will make things much worse for hundreds of thousands of families, most of whom are straight.

If the amendment passes - and polls show that it probably will - then perhaps two dozen gay couples who are employed by local or state governments will lose benefits for their children and partners. Hundreds of thousands of unmarried straight couples, many of them affluent retirees, will lose benefits such as access to housing, health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. Straight people and their children have a lot to lose if the amendment passes. They're the ones who should be out phone banking and telling their church congregations not to vote for the amendment.

Instead, gay people like myself are out phone banking and contributing money to defeat a constitutional amendment that is homophobic in intent but hurts children and many straight people as collateral damage. If by some miracle the amendment is defeated, I'm sure that dozens of people on DU will run around talking about what a wonderful thing it is that so much progress is being made on gay rights and isn't it a shame that gay people are still so ungrateful.

And I will have exactly the same number of rights I had before in North Carolina, which is not very many, and certainly no right to marriage.

But I'll be out phone banking tomorrow for the children.

[DURHAM D]

1. Well said yardie. nt

[MuseRider]

2. Sucks doesn't it?

Thank you for being so committed. You are working for all the people, sadly something that can't be said for most straight people.

I want to thank you for busting your butt (or ear) for this.

[yardwork]

8. Thank you. I know that you are a steadfast ally.

[MuseRider]

12. It is interesting

but I find the people who have something against them all the time are the people who do the most work and it is almost always for others, not just for them. When the time comes that they need help for themselves very few people return the favor. I guess it is just the way our society is these days, hate to say it.

We are working on a nasty one here too. Defeated it last year but it raised it's ugly head again as we figured it would. Legislature is back in session and we are waiting for it to come up for a vote in the Senate. It passed our teabagger House handily. We are very close to winning, maybe.

Good luck and again, thank you for this. I teach phone banking and have done a lot of it. I hate it with a passion but there is no denying it's effectiveness. Keep a big smile on your face .

[Bluenorthwest]

3. And yet the President can not manage to speak out against it....

I find it disgusting that he claims it is Christian to strip people of rights and insurance. I think it is morally corrupt and without any form of honesty or honor.
Silence = Death

[customerserviceguy]

4. Thanks for your work

Freedom isn't free, and you're certainly putting in the time. I persuaded my friends to tell our NY legislators to be strong when marriage equality was being debated here. Unfortunately, most of them already had legislators who were already on our side, it was those like me who worked on GOP assembly members who really did the hard lifting in the key districts.

No, you won't gain the right to marry if this thing goes down, but imagine the signal it would send across the country if a state from the Confederacy were to say, "No, we're not going there." Even Oregon couldn't do that when it was on the line some years ago.

I moved here from Washington state five years ago this month, and I surely hope that the signature drives to repeal marriage equality there go down to defeat. It never looks good for any civil rights movement in the beginning, it takes a lot of time, effort, and education to produce results.

[yardwork]

7. Thank you for working the GOP in New York and congratulations on your win there.

This constitutional amendment in North Carolina is brought to us by our newly elected Republican state legislature and probably ALEC.

[customerserviceguy]

14. We'll eventually prevail

Even youth that identifies as conservative doesn't share its grandparents' homophobia. In another generation, as a society we may all pretend that we didn't know what all the fuss was about. It will be important for you to tell your story at that time, so people don't ever forget.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Everything you have said is correct,

if the amendment is interpreted literally. I made pretty much the same list in Ohio in 2004 when we passed a very similar amendment. Thank you for putting up a good fight! Unfortunately, in 2004 I had to choose between a disorganized to non-existent campaign against the marriage discrimination amendment and Kerry. I decided it would be worse to have another 4 years of Bush - and it was.

But, the reality is that, once it passed, those with good intentions found ways around the amendment which did not require recognition of the relationship in order to provide benefits.

State schools still provide domestic partner benefits (I'm still scratching my head on that one, but no one is making a big stink about it), people living together (whatever the relationship) are still benefit from domestic violence laws (although within a month or so of passage some straight guy claimed the law didn't apply because he wasn't married the woman he was beating up; he lost), and just a month ago I defeated the marriage discrimination amendment bogeyman in connection with my own personal health care (resulting in a state-wide change that permits domestic partners to be enrolled as a family rather than as two singles - making a difference in the deductible if either or both have children).

So, it is now sometimes a two step process - convince the holder of rights or benefits to want to offer them, then figure out why the amendment doesn't prohibit it. But so far, any entity intent on doing the right thing has been able to figure it out - and the others were just looking for an excuse not to anyway.

I wish you, and your state, well.

[yardwork]

6. It took millions of dollars and years of litigation to begin to get clarity in Ohio.

North Carolina can't afford to spend the money that the state will have to spend defending and clarifying this amendment if it passes. It would be much better if it doesn't pass to begin with.

Thank you for your good work and fight on behalf of equality in Ohio. I'm glad that you won and congratulations on creating a statewide change for the better!

[Ms. Toad]

9. The cost in time and money was actually

far less than I would have expected. Most of it was done fairly quietly by those people intent on doing the right thing. I'm not arguing that passing this idiotic amendment is innocuous. Unfortunately, it appeals to small minded people and there are far too many of those still around. Just trying to reassure you that if the almost inevitable happens, based on the experience in Ohio, it probably won't have much more much real impact than the equally stupid marriage discrimination statute.

[yardwork]

10. That's not what I'm reading. You do seem to be trying to downplay the impact of this.

I'm not sure what your purpose is in assuring everybody reading this thread that the amendment is no big deal in North Carolina. We're trying to defeat it right now.

I am certainly not deliberately exaggerating what I've read about it's likely impact. I feel that you are insinuating that.

[Ms. Toad]

13. That is not what I am intending.

I went through all the legal analysis in Ohio before it passed - and I knew that if the amendment passed and was literally interpreted its impact would be significant and devastating not only on the LGBT community, but heterosexuals who were not in formally recognized relationships either.

Election day rolled around, Kerry was defeated in Ohio in large part because far more Ohioans trooped out to the polls to spit on all of the gay couples, and mostly they cast a vote for Bush while they were there. So I woke up the day after the election, having worked my tail off to defeat Kerry, figuratively covered in spittle, and wound up being spat on again by DU folks who accused me (gays in general - not me specifically) of losing the election because we were too impatient to wait our turn at the civil rights table.

It was not a pleasant time. The advance polls in Ohio polls significantly underestimated the support for the amendment - which passed with around a 62% vote. Even having been braced for defeat, the emotional impact of not only the voters in Ohio - but people who ought to be on my side - kicking me in the gut was pretty hard to take.

Truth be told, once it passed I really hoped the amendment would be interpreted literally because that would generate a lot of support from a much larger and more politically powerful community - and short term, that is the only way I see these amendments and statutes being killed off. After the election, I even encouraged any LGBT group I had contact with to write an amicus brief seeking its literal enforcement in the first case which popped up (which was the heterosexual domestic violence case).

They chose a different tactic. Rather than seeking the outrage (partly out of fear that it might just be be modified to only apply to same gender couples), they worked behind the scenes to undermine the law by appealing to entities which were inclined to ignore it anyway to find ways around it - starting with heterosexual cases where there is more support. They reasoned that because the law is orientation neutral, once they undermined the law, the interpretation would be applicable to everyone. I'm still not sure how I feel about that choice because it did significantly minimize the impact of the amendment, resulting in less outrage about it after it passed than before (and less motivation outside the LGBT community to get it overturned). But like it or not, that is the tactic chosen by all of the big name national LGBT groups which the state groups turn to for legal assistance - and it isn't likely to change if one more state is added to the roster of shame.

At the moment, the polls put support in North Carolina at 58% (if I am remembering the number correctly) - the lowest it has been. And since I expect the small minded people will prevail, as they have in virtually every other jurisdiction in which they have pedaled their hatred, it seemed to me it might be comforting to know that even if you lose, from a practical standpoint, it isn't likely to have the devastating impact that anyone reading the amendment literally would legitimately expect it to have.

Which brings me to the reality of Ohio today. The things I hoped for/feared about the amendment didn't pan out. It is an abomination that should never have passed. But it did.

I guess I don't know if I would have found it comforting in advance of the election to know that even if we were stuck with the amendment it was probably not going to mean my spouse (who has racked up $3000 in medical expenses already this year) would not be kicked off of my insurance plan (she has no other options), or that we wouldn't be barred from visiting each other in the hospital, or that our living wills and durable powers of attorney would still have legal effect. But I think I would have found it comforting to at least know that much.

I hope you have better success than Ohio - but if you don't, I hope you can come back to this discussion after the election and not feel so scared or helpless about the future under the amendment.

[yardwork]

19. Thank you for this clarification, and for your hard work on behalf of the people of Ohio.

I went to a presentation by a law professor about the North Carolina amendment. The language is even broader and more sweeping than the one in Ohio that was passed in 2004. Apparently ALEC is refining its products. There is very real concern on the part of legal experts that North Carolina's amendment, if passed, will be interpreted broadly and will therefore strip the rights of a great many people. We have a Republican legislature in power for the first time in 100 years, and they are ripping and tearing everything in sight. They would be delighted to strip legal protections from everybody but themselves if they could get away with it.

I have also read that the Ohio amendment resulted in some domestic abusers being released from prison and having charges dropped against them, allowing them to return to their homes and continue beating their victims. We were given this information when I phonebanked on Sunday.

[Ms. Toad]

21. I would be cautious about what they are telling you about Ohio

Some of the stuff I'm seeing which is written for N.C. voters about Ohio is not accurate. In a quick search, looking for stories about real people, I found two pieces (at least one written in 2012) which cited lower court cases from 2005-2006 ruling that the amendment prohibited domestic violence laws from applying to unmarried couples. What neither of those pieces mentioned was that the Ohio Supreme Court overruled those lower courts in July 2007. I don't know the status of the people involved in the cases which led to the decision - I do know that it was one of the first attempted uses of the amendment and that the first lower court decision was that the amendment did not change domestic abuse laws (the first case may even be the case that wound up at the Supreme Court - the name is very familiar, and I was quite heavily involved in forming state-wide strategy in the immediate aftermath of the amendment).

If I were you, I would focus on the analysis of what the law, interpreted literally, would mean for North Carolina - without relying on what they are telling you about Ohio (or other states). There are good solid arguments for how bad it would be if literally interpreted. Since it hasn't been adopted yet, whatever you are saying can't be proven wrong - unlike at least some of what they are telling you about Ohio. I know that when I am trying to make up my mind, if someone tells me something which I can easily find out is incorrect or misleading (like citing the lower cases without mentioning that they were reversed) I tune out anything else the speaker has to say.

Good Luck - and keep up the good work.

[yardwork]

22. I think that the intentions of the authors of this amendment are different from the intentions in OH

In Ohio in 2004, as you say, it was all about using homophobia to get out the vote for Bush. In NC in 2012, the intention is different. The vote is during a primary. The Republican nominee is already chosen. Marriage for gay folk is illegal in North Carolina and there is no organized effort to change that and zero chance of it succeeding. What's the real point of this amendment? I think it is actually the supposed "unintended consequences." The Republicans want to strip all public funding in the state. They are attacking public education, environmental protection, and all public benefits. The intention of this amendment is precisely the so-called collateral damage - it's an opportunity to strip benefits from all unmarried couples and their children. I am certain that the state will go right to work implementing that if the amendment passes.

See my post in another thread about a revealing statement made by the wife of one of the amendment's authors:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113711006#post6

[GodlessBiker]

11. It should irk you, and thank you very much for your work.

[Fearless]

15. Keep up the good work!

With more people working as hard as you, we could defeat this attempt to discriminate further against us in NC!

[Duncan Grant]

16. Thank you, with you in spirit!

This evolution into modernity is so f*cking painful. Take good care of yourself, too.

[MuseRider]

17. How did it go? n/t

[RetiredTrotskyite]

18. Praying To the God and Goddess for You and all GLBT People Out There...

that this Amendment will be defeated. Sad, though, that all this work has to be done, both on our behalf and on that of straights who are too dumb or lazy to help even though this law will be a disaster for unmarried straight couples as well as GLBT people.

[yardwork]

20. Thanks to everyone for your good wishes. It was an interesting experience.

I phonebanked in the fellowship hall of a local church for two hours. There was a female minister next to me wearing a clerical collar. The room was full of phonebankers and staff of the effort to defeat the amendment. I was given three pages of phone numbers and told that they were people who had either already promised to vote against the amendment, or were very likely to do so based on research.

My very first call was to a man aged 65 (they gave us a list with people's names, addresses, phone numbers, and ages). He grumpily told me that he hadn't decided what he was going to do, and he didn't want to talk about it anymore. Not a great way to begin my phonebanking afternoon.

Aside from two hangups, everybody else I talked to assured me that they were going to vote against the amendment. Most of the calls were "no answer." One memorable call was to a woman in her 70s. She told me that she had decided to vote against the amendment. It was clear that this had been a struggle for her, and that many people had talked with her before me. She was interested to hear about early voting and glad to know where she could vote early. I felt that my call made a difference.

My favorite call was to a 92 year old woman. I was reluctant to call her. I was tempted to skip her name. I was glad that I didn't. When she came on the line she sounded sharper and more with it than anybody else I had spoken with all afternoon. She informed me quite firmly that she was voting against the amendment. She was glad to hear that she could vote early at the senior center. She's my inspiration forever.

[yardwork]

23. I phonebanked again today. It was even harder.

Today we phonebanked people across North Carolina. It was hard. About half the people I reached were mean. One woman said "I'm voting for this because I hate gay people" and then hung up. A man said that he had already voted for the amendment and that he would continue to tell his family, his friends, his neighbors, and everybody he knows to vote for it, so I should "have a nice day" and then he hung up.

Another man said he was voting against the amendment because "it doesn't go far enough." I thanked him for his vote against. He slammed the phone down.

And there were wonderful, kind people as well. There was the older man who sounded like he is African American who said that he was voting against it and that his whole family would vote against it too. He was very soft spoken and sounded kind. Another older man said, "It's mean spirited, it goes too far, I'm voting against it." One woman said that she and her husband had voted against already, but "we're doomed, I tell you, we're doomed." I urged her to encourage others to vote against and get out the vote. I told her that polls show that when people understand what the amendment really says, a majority are opposed.

A couple of people didn't know what it was about, and when I explained, they said that they were opposed and would definitely vote against it. They didn't realize there was an election on Tuesday and wondered if anything else was on the ballot. I explained that this was their chance to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate, etc.

I got one weirdo who launched into a bizarre discussion about how Ezekiel was a pornographer and that "most of these churches don't understand the consecration of the wine during the marriage ceremony...." He was, in fact, voting against the amendment (I guess because they're doing it wrong). I got off with the phone with him as quickly as possible. It was clear that he was prepared to spend Sunday afternoon discussing pornography in the bible on the phone with this nice young woman.

Win or lose, it will still be illegal for me to marry my partner of seven years. She said that was why this work is valuable to my soul.

Now I am going to go cry a little bit. This took a lot out of me.