Bipartisanship Both Ways

by | Feb 26, 2015 | Carolina Strategic Analysis, Features, Gay Marriage | 11 comments

SB2 – allowing magistrates to not marry gay couples if they have religious objections – was an example of bipartisanship, both ways. In the State Senate, there was bipartisan support for the bill. There was also bipartisan opposition. It passed, 32-16, but it was not an exclusively party-line vote.

Two Democrats crossed over to vote for the majority. Two Republicans went against their party and ended up voting against it. Two more Republicans had excused absences and did not vote.

The two Democrats were Joel Ford, who represents part of Mecklenburg County, and Ben Clark, who represents Hoke County and part of Cumberland County. Both are black and represent majority black districts. Their votes for the bill could reflect the larger opposition to gay marriage among African Americans, as noted in the Elon poll analysis from yesterday. On Twitter, Ford called the bill “divisive” but voted for it anyway. He also received criticism from LGBT activists for retweeting a tweet from Sen. Buck Newton (R-Wilson) who said people are born into their race but not necessarily into their sexual orientation.

Both Senators were probably representing the views of their constituents. Clark’s district overwhelmingly voted for Amendment 1 three years ago. The vote in Ford’s district was probably closer. The Elon poll found voters in North Carolina are still opposed to gay marriage. I would imagine that a poll of North Carolinians on SB2 would find a majority in support of it, possibly a strong majority, depending on how the question is phrased. The constitutionality of the law is, however, up in the air.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have Republicans Jeff Tarte, of Mecklenburg County, and John Alexander, of Wake County, who opposed the bill. Tarte appeared to be in favor of the bill initially but apparently changed his mind. Alexander made no public comments on the legislation but his district, taking in the affluent North Raleigh suburbs, voted against the gay marriage ban and his vote on this issue probably reflected his constituents’ wishes.

Even though LGBT activists might be disappointed in Ford and Clark, they can be happy that Democratic defections weren’t greater. There are still a number of Democrats who represent rural districts where Amendment 1 passed in a landslide and opposition to gay marriage still runs deep, most of them voted against the bill. They can probably be most proud of Sen. Jane Smith, who voted against SB2 but whose district voted 86% for Amendment 1.

That’s not to say that any of these legislators will pay a price for their votes, however. In the end, the vote probably reflected legislators’ personal beliefs on the intersection of religion and gay marriage, not political calculation. More interesting will be to see what the House does with it, and especially the governor.

11 Comments

  1. THEODORE ZIOLKOWSKI

    THE DAY HELL FREEZES OVER, AND THEN THE SUPREME COURT WILL OVER-RULE THEM.

  2. Charles Hogan

    Perhaps the measure should be amended to allow a non-denominational priest or atheist official to step in and reside over the proceeding should a magistrates ops out of preforming his constitutional duty one the grounds of conscientious objections..

    • THEODORE ZIOLKOWSKI

      MAYBE THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO MANDATE THAT ALL MAGISTRATES BE NON-DENOMINATIONAL. AFTER ALL THE U.S. CONSTITUION STATES THAT THE STATE OR COUNTRY SHALL NOT ESTABLISH ANY RELIGION. THEREFORE; HE/SHE WHO FUNCTIONS IN A GOVERNMENTAL POSITION CANNOT AND MUST NOT IMPOSE THEIR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

  3. THEODORE ZIOLKOWSKI

    WHAT GOD HAS CREATED LET NO POLITICIANS STAND AGAINST OR LEGISLATE AGAINST. WHAT GOD HAS CREATED LET NO CLERGY STAND AGAINST.

    HE OR SHE WHO IS AGAINST WHAT GOD HAS CREATED IS AGAINST GOD.

    • wafranklin

      And how would you know? Visited by angel with flaming sword and sound effects, eh? As my sainted granny would say, “Enough to gag a maggot”.

  4. David Moore

    Floyd McKissick’s inability to hold his own African-American Caucus together aside, many of the special-interest activists forget or simply have no understanding of the hard fought win by Cassius Marsellus Clay Jr. (Muhammad Ali) and the black community in Clay v. United States in order to establish and validate “conscientious objector ” status in America.
    The legislature and the democratic Senators acknowledged and reaffirmed that Supreme Court landmark case in voting YES on SB 2.
    The narrow perspectives and feelings of the special interest activists aside, focus should be squarely on the counties in order to ensure they make ALL services available to all people, at all times, not an individual objector.

    • Troy

      That’s a bit of stretch, isn’t it David? In Clay v. US the issues were could you be forced to fight when you were conscientiously opposed to killing. Affecting the individual and the government as the parties. Here, magistrates are being allowed to selectively screen those that come before them as to whether or not they will perform a service. That’s subjective and not objective. In this republic, when your rights infringe on someone else’s, that is where your rights stop and that is precisely what Phil Berger has installed a revolving door for; and he knows it.

      The problem here is, it keeps people gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands over what is or essentially should be, a non-issue. Much ado about nothing. It serves to keep the focus on something trivial and on the budget, or the environment, or on something equally dire that will end up affecting the many adversely and the few favorably.

      The over-reaching law is the Constitution. Berger knows SB2 isn’t constitutional. If the magistrates don’t want to do their jobs, they’re appointees; replace them. But the law should apply equally without favor and at all political sub-division levels.

  5. larryt

    Sen Ford and Clark will find some opposition come primary time and should not be offended when they get zero support from the LGBT community on a civil rights issue when it is ask for or needed.

  6. Disgraceful

    Attention Joel Ford: You are not “born into your race.” Race is a social construct. Just ask someone who is born into Korea, emigrates to the U.S., and is reclassified as a generic “Asian.” Ford is a disgrace.

  7. Apply Liberally

    LOL! A partisan’s definition of a “bipartisan vote” is when 2 senators —out of a total of 48— don’t follow along with how the overwhelming majority of their party voted.

    John, your blogs almost always are great comedy. Of the twisted sort, but almost always great comedy!

  8. BlueNC

    The constitutionality is no “up in the air.” It is obviously not going to pass constitutional muster, which makes it an enormous waste of time and money.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!