On Friday North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue almost surprised us by saying that she would not vote for the marriage equality ban that will appear on her state’s ballot during the May Republican caucus vote. She said, “My top priority is creating jobs. Too many people are out of work and I’ve heard from several business leaders who’ve told me that the proposed constitutional amendment will harm our state’s business climate and make it harder to grow jobs here.” Awesome!
But before we could thank her for being a pro-gay conservative, she uttered, “I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman: That’s why I voted for the law in 1996 that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and that’s why I continue to support that law today.”
She continued, “But I’m going to vote against the amendment because I cannot in good conscience look an unemployed man or woman in the eye and tell them that this amendment is more important than finding them a job.”
She also added that several legal experts warned her that the amendment could eliminate legal protections for all of the state’s unmarried couples. But basically her rejection of the amendment boils down to this: “If the economy were better, I might join you in bashing gays. But since the economy sucks and I’m up for re-election I have to pretend that I stand for jobs, despite my lack of a concrete jobs creation plan.”
Give Beverly Perdue a break. She’s probably taking the best position possible. I congratulate her on having her priorities in the right order. We support you, Beverly.
Beverly, Jason speaks for nobody but himself. You’ve proved yourself a committed bigot already, so not signing the amendment proves nothing.
EABOD and DIAF.
I’m with you, Jason. She has to pander somewhat to the conservative ethos of NC. Plus, she’s proven herself a strong-willed and independent governor by thwarting the conservative agenda of the state legislature. I wish there were more governors like her in right/center-right states.
christopher di spirito
I guess the “new” south isn’t so new after all.
Why the fuck are you applauding her for implying that equality/civil rights can just wait on the backburner until the economy turns around? That kind of mentality is disgusting.
I think this story is not being placed in the proper context of what happening in North Carolina. The GOP launched a successful campaign to take over the state. It’s part of operation Redmap and is being funded by Republican millionaire Art Pope. Pope launched a stealth campaign to turn the formerly Democratic legislature to Republican. Pope poured millions into local races.
Perdue may not be a friend but she isn’t an enemy. The GOP plutocrats have a goal of imposing their warped view of theocratic corporacracy. They have the money and will to buy elections.
Read these articles to understand the situation in NC:
That’s funny, Ms. Perdue is a Democrat — and more weirdly, embroiled in a few scandals now developing, and more weirdly, she called for the US Congress to suspend, cancel, just abolish elections for awhile, so the government can lead by diktat, without silly things like oh, Congress. My my, I think I can do without a “friend” like this.
FTFA: “I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
“Perdue” is the name of her first husband, who she divorced. Her current husband’s last name is Eaves. So she really believes marriage is between TWO men and one woman.
Bev Perdue. Bigot, hypocrite, Democrat.™
There are two things that matter in politics, ultimately. I’m not saying for good or bad, I’m just saying it’s true. Money and votes.
If EQ-NC can get Bev Perdue’s no vote, her motivations are irrelevant. Would it be great if she were a true ally? Yes. Should LGBT people be jumping up and down at this? Absolutely not. But the support of a sitting governor, even for imperfect reasons, is a huge asset. If I were an organizer down there I’d be happy with it.
NC Gov. Beverly Perdue wants us to remain 3rd class citizens. Fuck her. She’s a small-minded bigot.
I agree with those who’ve posted that NC has got to be the silliest state in the country, with the worst people.
“If the economy were better, I might join you in bashing gays. But since the economy sucks and I’m up for re-election I have to pretend that I stand for jobs, despite my lack of a concrete jobs creation plan.”
Your journalism isn’t credible when you try to put words into someone’s mouth – it just makes you look like you’re trying to pass off propoganda.
Personally I’m against gay marriage, but I’m going to take it a step further back and say I’m against straight marriage too. Marriage has always been a religious institution (usually still has to be performed by a priest or similar) and should be restricted to those religions in my opinion.
Besides which it ruins prefectly good relationships by saying ‘hey there we need to pay money for someone else to say we’re together, now lets spend $10 grand on a big pointless day with cake and a dance – You might as well just throw a big party with cake and music.
In the long run it’ll probably cost you at least $9000 less at least.
I really wish gay men would actually READ a story and understand politics in this country instead of rushing away to demonize a person who is included in a sensationalist post.
If you looked at her poll numbers and the fact that REPUBLICANS took control of the house and senate in North Carolina this past election, she is actually the best vanguard we have against any conservative bombardments against us in the state.
I would love to see how you guys would react if this was a REPUBLICAN governor in this situation over a Democrat. If you also notice, this bill was passed in a way that over rode the governors power to sign or veto this bill and took it to the people of North Carolina. Which means that she has no power to stop or make this bill go forward, and since 2012 is an election year in a fairly social conservative state, endorsing gay marriage is basically calling defeat and instead of her we would have a nice Tea party conservative governor, better choice right?
@Tzi: Marriage has always been a religious institution (usually still has to be performed by a priest or similar) and should be restricted to those religions in my opinion.
Marriage has always been a legal institution. That’s why your in-laws aren’t called “in-Bibles.”
A legal marriage typically requires (1) parties with marital capacity, (2) a license, and (3) some sort of solemnized ceremony. The ceremony and solemnization don’t have to be religious at all. Clergy have customarily been granted the power to solemnize marriage ceremonies by the state, but the state could as easily grant that power to university professors or licensed cosmetologists. That’s what the sentence, “by the power vested in me by the state of ______, I now pronounce you….” means.
If a religion chooses to treat a marriage as a sacrament, they’re free to do so. That gives them absolute discretion over who is permitted to enter a sacramental marriage in their church. In no way does that give them the absolute discretion over who is permitted to enter a civil marriage in the United States.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Comments are closed.