Skip to main content

View Diary: President Clinton: North Carolina's 'Amendment One is too big of a risk.' (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I suppose, politically, it's ok, but morally? (0+ / 0-)

    It's aimed at preventing boycotts of the state, it seems.

    "You don't want a boycott, do you? It could cost you money! No matter that the whole thing is immoral. I won't even mention it. In fact, I'll not only ignore it but I'll act like the problem is something else, entirely. Don't worry! Gays can't get married, thanks to your fine work. That's already the law. Just don't do anything to upset "them" and their supporters, who might not bring vacation money with them."

    Is that not what Clinton said?

    •  It's just facing the fact that . . . (6+ / 0-)

      it's very hard to get a majority of straight people riled up about the immorality of being unfair to gay people.  You need to tell them how this might adversely affect THEM.  That's what President Clinton is doing.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:20:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, I think you misunderstand. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Nephew, smiley7, bythesea

      If you're refering to Bill Clinton's jobs message.

      It's aimed at preventing boycotts of the state, it seems.
      I this it's aimed at preventing the state from passing a constitutional amendment that will telegraph to the next (gay) CEO of Apple computer Tim Cook, (gay) creator of Facebook Chris Hughes, that NC is a state where you are hated, and you'd be crazy to consider making it a start-up there.

      The amendment tells companies like Google, Starbucks and Barclays, who are all strongly LGBT supportive, "Don't set up here, your kind isn't wanted."

      "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:28:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that seems basically the same message (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Nephew, vacantlook, bythesea

        The idea is it will cost the state financially in some way, rather than "it's wrong!"

        I get the tactic. It might work for this measure but it doesn't deal with people's attitudes to what's in that measure.

        Again, I understand the reasoning and I think it's a shame. I especially dislike the reassuring message that "traditional marriage" is protected. That's how it comes across to me. I realize it's possible to look at the sentence

        So the real effect of the law is not to keep the traditional definition of marriage, you’ve already done that.
        and say that the former President is not expressing approval or disapproval, merely stating a fact. But I wish it weren't politically necessary to avoid the real issue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site