Gay marriage ban cited poll

Why do liberals think they are part of the pro liberty crowd? Why do they call Republicans lunatics for disagreeing with them on certain policies. And why do they allow people to call others morons for believeing in the core values of marriage, gun ownership, and small government. All you have to do is log onto BlueNC and read the hate and smear campaign that the far left espouses. Juan Williams of NPR (not called conservative talk radio by any stretch) and I have something in common. When we try to put out our issues and debate them are we are atacked personally and smeared. And let's not mention that hate spewed at W's mother by the Democratic Underground and the Huffington Post when she had heart valve replacement surgery. That was just downright mean and childish. Please let me know if you EVER find that kind of hate in the conservative worlld so I can attack it.

James attacked Rush Limbaugh and myself with the same breathe in a previous posting. Thanks for the compliment. Both of us are out front with our views and we will not compromise our core values. People like George Soros however hides in the shadows throwing out millions for attack ads against Limbaugh, W. and many others. I do remember seeing BlueNC covered with ads paid for by MoveOn.org. during the previous election Come on James be upfront with who pays for your site before you start smearing upfront organizations like Civitas. The Civitas is afterall financed by people who support conservatism and all you have to do is look up who gives them donations. BlueNC is a limited liability corporation (for profit). Your a business who profits off of your opposition to groups like Civitas, they are again non-profit. Now who has no leg to stand on?

Added note: I do not deny James' right to make a living or voice his opinion. I just want all of the facts out there.
I work for a living and am involved in Republican politics. i volunteer for a committee created by the Wake County commissioners and hope to volunteer on another. I have not donated to Civitas or BlueNC. I am also a Endowment member of the NRA since I believe in the Constitution.

"While that may mean the same thing in layman's terms, it is technically and legally two different things."

No, you've got it backwards, Chris.

It technically and legally accomplishes the same thing, but it sounds different to a layman. Ergo, your layman may not be aware of the "conclusions drawn" from his (or her) vote in the poll itself. And now, the General Assembly may be misreading the desires of the public, as it is (mis)represented through your poll.

Look, we both know what's going on here, and so do many of the people reading this. Your polling is just one of the tools in your toolbox to further:

"The mission of the Civitas Institute is to facilitate the implementation of conservative policy solutions to improve the lives of all North Carolinians."

Now, you guys are pretty clever; I'll grant you that much. But you have to ask yourself: are we so clever that we not only know what is best for society, but are also justified in using deception to "improve the lives" of that society? There is very often a fine line between responding to the duty call of civic consciousness and vision-clouding arrogance.

On that note, I'll leave you with V.I. Lenin:

"The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive."

As noted on another post regarding the case cited for the notion that NC judges might overturn the ban, Doug Clark at the Greensboro N&R did some good analysis undermining (to say the very least) that idea:
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/offtherecord/archives/2009/03/our_courts_aren.shtml#more

for saving me the need to get uppity.

It seems to me that the anti-liberty crowd is able to be for something even while they're against it even while they're pretending that they're not really focused on the question they say they're focused on.

These contortions would be more welcome in a circus than in an honest political discussion.

Then what is the bill for, exactly? 

The other whereas clauses make it pretty clear that the purpose of the amendment is to make sure a North Carolina judge doesn't allow gay marriage here: 

Whereas, the California Supreme Court's May 15, 2008 ruling that recognized a constitutional right to same sex marriage in that state will have significant implications across the nation, although it was reversed in that state with a constitutional amendment approved by the voters; and

Whereas, the threat of similar lawsuits in North Carolina increased significantly in 2008 when the North Carolina Court of Appeals granted visitation rights to the estranged same sex partner of a lesbian woman who conceived a child through artificial insemination. (Mason v. Dwinnell.) In the introductory remarks to the opinion, Judge Martha Geer writes, "It is important to first observe that the factual context of this case — involving same sex domestic partners — is immaterial to the proper analysis of the legal issues involved." In other words, the court considers the "sexual orientation" of the parties involved in this child custody case to be irrelevant. This rationale is strikingly similar to that used by the California Supreme Court when they said, "Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation…";

— RTB 

You can't say something "undermines" when it doesn't even refer to the question being asked.

So when it snows in January, does that "undermine" the theory of global warming?

Our poll and Elon's asked two different questions.

That's semantics. 

The Elon poll specifically asked if people thought the constitution should prevent same-sex marriage. Half said it should not.

That complicates the bill's citation of polling data as justification, to say the least. 

— RTB

Which poll? The one in May 2008 or the one in February 2009.

There were two polls.

For the record, the bill states:
Whereas, of the 15 states in the Southeastern U.S., only one has failed to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as "the union of one man and one woman." Florida voters approved the question on the ballot in 2008, leaving North Carolina as the only state in the Southeast that has taken no decisive action to pass a marriage amendment; and

So I think I'm pretty well covered here.

Next.

You initially said you polled on "Do you support or oppose a constitutional amendment in NC defining marriage as between one man and one woman?" after your prejudicial preface statement, of course.

Now, you say you polled on the text of the amendment.

Which is it? They are not the same.

Ryan, I would not call that "undermined" since Elon did not specifically ask what the referendum was on.

The referendum in the bill is not on a "ban on gay marriage" it is on defining marriage as between one man and one woman. While that may mean the same thing in layman's terms, it is technically and legally two different things.

Does this mean I just "undermined" your post?