Gov's vote on amendment a mystery

Posted September 16, 2011

If GOP gubernatorial hopeful Pat McCrory has been quiet about a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, incumbent Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue has been even quieter.

Perdue has arguably the state's biggest megaphone, and she hasn't hesitated to use it this year when she didn't approve of what Republican lawmakers were doing at the other end of Jones St.  But she stayed well away from this week's acrimonious debate over the amendment.  

Asked today whether the governor would or would not vote for the amendment in May, her spokeswoman Chris Mackey sent out this statement:

"The Governor’s top priority is jobs. Sadly, the Republicans in the General Assembly have been distracted all year by partisan issues that fail to grow jobs. For example, they intruded on a woman’s relationship with her doctor, and they tried to impose barriers to disenfranchise eligible and legitimate voters. Now the Republicans are distracted by an unnecessary, partisan exercise to ban something that’s already illegal in North Carolina. This amendment would not create a single job. The Governor is not going to waste any more time distracted by their partisan sideshows."

While the word "partisan" appears three times in that statement, there's no sign of "support" or "oppose."

A follow-up email asking again how the governor would vote on the amendment went unanswered. 

Perdue voted for the 1996 state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  

McCrory has said he supports the amendment.  


This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • matthewwood007 Sep 22, 2011

    Just like my last post, I described it as being a politcal ploy to move voters during a certain time frame, for specific reason. NC is part of it's national political use. The fact remains the tactics is a shallow one

  • marktroll Sep 21, 2011

    matthew as soon as you get some facts, your arguments will not recieve consideration from anyone. you said: "Isn't it an ammendment to our state constitution, with a vote scheduled when historically the voter turnout is low for Democrats?"
    well, you are talking about NC right? 08, 04, and 00 primary results all tell a different story about your turnout assumptions. and the fact that the measure will be in the primary is more beneficial to d's then r's (based on historical primary data) and also gives opponents to the measure a better chance at defeating the proposal.

  • matthewwood007 Sep 20, 2011

    a one year analysis in one state does not detract from the tactics applied across the country to drive voter turn out based on these socially devisive issues. Moving to the primary is a trade off... take the chance that the measure will pass in the primary versus propelling the turn out in November. And if ya dont think its a ploy to drive voter decisions than OOPS

  • marktroll Sep 20, 2011

    matthew the democrats suggested the compromise to move the measure to may instead of november. your party argument that this is a tactic "to sway religious persons, mostly African Americans of faith the not vote Democratic" is simply false. in fact, since the vote will take place in may, considering our primary process in NC, this will actually encourage voter turnout among blacks in their respective party, while untying the marraige amendment from any candidate or party.

    " Isn't it an ammendment to our state constitution, with a vote scheduled when historically the voter turnout is low for Democrats? "
    - i think what you mean to argue here is that primary turnout for Dems in NC is projected to be low in 2012. Why? because the top 2 on the ballot are incumbent Dems. Not becuase its "historically low" for Dems, thats just not true did you make it up? in 2008 517,583 voted for Republican priamry candidates while 1,580,726 voted for Democrat candidate.

  • matthewwood007 Sep 19, 2011

    Really....this measure won't drive the republican voters out? and why would it be invalidated because of when it happens? Isn't it an ammendment to our state constitution, with a vote scheduled when historically the voter turnout is low for Democrats?
    It's a socially devisive way to drive people to vote out of fear and determined by the trends of voter turn out...
    It's a tactic to win, not gain consensus
    Go back under the bridge troll and wait for the billie goats gruff...maybe they will be bemused by your suggestions.

  • marktroll Sep 19, 2011

    matthew the fact that the measure appears on the May primary ballot completely invalidates your political argument. again, the governor is supposed to be the voice of our state.

  • matthewwood007 Sep 19, 2011

    I think you guys are missing the point and that is the Gov. does not want to engaged in a socialy devise issue that is being used to generate voter outrage. This line of social argument is being used just like it was by the Bush Administration in 2004 to sway religious persons, mostly African Americans of faith the not vote Democratic.

    @SaveEnergyMan our country has produced a lot of wealth it just hasnt been for the benefit of us all. Be careful... a simple Tax policy might include Corporate America having actually to pay taxes instead of allowing them to act like the Darwinistic bullies they are.
    The lie of Trickle down economics. You can have as much supply as you want, but if people cant express demand for it then were do you go Milton Friedman?

  • SaveEnergyMan Sep 18, 2011

    Amen Redneck. A nation must generate wealth to be sucessful. That means grow it, dig it up, or manufacture it. All of that money that is going overseas is not being replaced. Domestic money supply and wealth are shrinking. There is less money for the service industry to push around.

    We need simple corporate tax policies, to enfore trade and copyright laws - particularly with China, and to tax imported parts made by American companies overseas that come here to be sold.

  • rednek Sep 16, 2011

    How are jobs going to grow without manufacturing? That is what has pulled us out of prior recessions, now most of what can be purchased if manufactured in other countries; and those companies do not pay taxes on the profits made by selling foreign manufactured items in the usa.