Bill Clinton Opposes North Carolina Gay Marriage Amendment

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Former President Bill Clinton has recorded an audio advertisement opposing North Carolina's proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The ad will be pushed to the phones of hundreds of thousands of North Carolina voters beginning Monday. In it, Clinton urges voters to oppose the amendment, saying it won't change North Carolina's statutory ban on gay marriages.

But he says it will affect the state's ability to attract new businesses and will take health care from children. He says it also could diminish the state's laws protecting women from domestic violence.

The pro-amendment side also has its share of heavy hitters supporting it. The Rev. Billy Graham issued a statement supporting the amendment, saying the Bible is clear that God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

___

Related on HuffPost:

Comments

[mangotango]

04:35 AM on 05/08/2012

I actually watched a brilliant documentary last night (quite well known) called "Deliver Us From Evil".

I'd like any Christian posting here to watch it, then come back here and tell me that your religion is good for society in any way.

[desireewhyte]

07:36 PM on 05/07/2012

What I still don't understand is why bible verses impact laws and public policy. Separation of church and state anyone?

[nawseeya]

11:09 PM on 05/07/2012

there oughta be a law.

[Jack Hope]

05:43 PM on 05/07/2012

Slightly off topic but I want to wish all the opponents of this egregious amendment lots of luck in the vote tomorrow. Don't be discouraged by the polls, as north of the border we've experienced rather dramatically, modern polling is not all it's cracked up to be.

Good luck and don't let them tell you it can't be done!

[CantStopTheSignal]

06:00 PM on 05/07/2012

And how many words in that dictionary have meanings that have changed over time? Language is constantly evolving and definitions are always changing.

[AdamWest1313]

08:30 PM on 05/07/2012

Do you actually think that is an argument?

Do you want me to provide other dictionary definitions that don't say "man and a woman".

[Intelligenti Pauca]

12:55 PM on 05/07/2012

The Declaration of Independence states;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Please, point out exactly in that statement where it says that homosexuals are the "exception" that should NOT be granted the same inalienable rights as everyone else.

It clearly states "the pursuit of happiness", not "the pursuit of happiness based on what some people believe is 'traditional'".

[desireewhyte]

07:34 PM on 05/07/2012

Clearly the separation of church and state only applies when it is in favor of the bigots

[mangotango]

04:31 AM on 05/08/2012

'"unalienable" Rights'? Poor aliens.

[josie klapper]

12:05 PM on 05/07/2012

President Clinton's own actions in office are what brought about these hateful discriminatory laws and legislation. If he hadn't stabbed the gay community in the back with DADT, followed by the blatantly unconstitutional DOMA then we wouldn't be having these licenses to discriminate still going on.

[the crustybastard]

04:38 AM on 05/08/2012

Came to see if anyone said this.

Leaving satisfied.

/f/f, love the bio.

[jld1973]

09:00 AM on 05/07/2012

For Bill Clinton to speak to the institute of marriage in any way is ludicrous. That ship sailed during his presidency when he "did not have sex with that woman."

[Know-some-secrets]

06:43 AM on 05/07/2012

If Bill Clinton is $peaking out, someone is paying him well to do it. He never says a word these days unless he is paid.

[EvgenyLibek]

04:37 AM on 05/07/2012

When will the Republicans stand up to the religious bullies within their party?
All the talk about Democrats being weak jellyfish -- but just look at all the sheep in the GOP.
They don't even have the courage to stand up to nonsense religious dogma, anymore.

Moderate leaders have abandoned them, leaving an extremist wasteland -- as fertile as that place from which the Taliban & Terror took root.

Has the GOP become too weak (in the face of their internal jihad) to protect American's Civil Rights?
Wilard "Mitt" Romney signs every fanatic pledge the handlers put in front of him.
He wants to sign away the middle class.
Is he too weak to lead his party out of the age of darkness?

[josie klapper]

12:07 PM on 05/07/2012

Not a matter of his being too weak, it's a matter of he honestly doesn't get that they, and he, are in the wrong.

[Kodes100]

04:12 AM on 05/07/2012

I used to have some respect for Rev. Billy Graham but now he too cherry picks what he likes out of the Bible.
That is just sad Billy!

[the crustybastard]

04:39 AM on 05/08/2012

The Bible is clear on the subject of marriage: a virgin must marry her rapist.

We must amend the constitution to require this!

/no, not really.

[ZeraLee]

03:34 AM on 05/07/2012

What the Bible says is irrelevant. The marriage laws are not written to support the Bible, "Holy Matrimony", or "the sanctity of marriage".

They are written to support families. There are thousands of laws defining the rights and responsibilities of spouses, parents, and children. Laws of inheritance. Laws that recognize that a stable society needs a stable family structure.

Laws that have arisen to address the legal and financial problems that have evolved around the family unit.

None of which has anything to do with religion. The objections to same-sex marriage are contrary to the interests of the state in recognizing and supporting marriage.

[josie klapper]

12:09 PM on 05/07/2012

By that logic heterosexual couples over the age of about 45 shouldn't be able to marry since they will not be having children. Nor should couples where one party is infertile be allowed to marry.

[CantStopTheSignal]

06:02 PM on 05/07/2012

ZeraLee is talking about families. A family can be made up of only two people, thus including infertile couples or the elderly.

[ZeraLee]

01:51 AM on 05/10/2012

I never said that having children is a requirement of marriage, only that some laws regarding children (and parents) are tied to marriage. Reproduction has never been a requirement of marriage, though Christian conservatives frequently argue otherwise.

I have, at times, made the same arguments you have made here - and a whole lot more.

If you're interested, here is my analysis of the bill to repeal DOMA:
http://zerablog.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/112th-congress-hr1116-respect-for-marriage-act/
You might find more material to work with. d8-)

[Peacockjp]

02:51 AM on 05/07/2012

Your posts border on Brilliant. I can also assure you that Wicca - has no interest in anything political. We're much more focused on the Goddess and Gods - and in the energy we are putting out. Want an I Ching Reading?

[Intelligenti Pauca]

10:42 AM on 05/07/2012

I imagine you were trying to reply to my comment but just posted it in the wrong place. And believe me, I totally get it about Wicca. I studied for three years under a HP and learned a lot from her. In including Wicca in my post, I was trying to cover another type of religion, that's all. But maybe it's time to remove it & add some other religion.

[Peacockjp]

02:03 PM on 05/07/2012

I've been Wiccan - since I was about 14. I had been raised a Christian - but could never figure out what they were talking about. I had an aunt who was Pagan. I have been Many years a High Priest in a Coven in NYC - I moved down south - But my Coven - kept me in - so I'm still a member of my original Coven - My religion is very serious to me - I practice on a daily basis - In my tradition we believe in the Three-fold law - Whatever you put out - you get it back three fold. I often wish that some of the members of other religions believed the same three-fold law.

[Intelligenti Pauca]

10:45 PM on 05/06/2012

In US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy's opinion grounded the right of consenting adults to have sex on how intimate and personal the conduct was to those involved, not on the conduct being traditionally protected by society (as in Bowers), procreative (as in Eisenstadt and Roe), or conducted by married people (as in Griswold).

In other words - It's None Of Your D**n Business.

Christianity has as much "right" to legislate other people's lives, or dictate policy to the government, as Islam, Wicca, Mormonism or Judaism. Namely, ZERO.

Being a Christian doesn't confer any special "rights" or "abilities" on you. It doesn't make you any more competent to judge who is & who isn't deserving of rights in this country.

I'm a straight man who's been with the same woman for 20 years, happily married for 13 of them. Homosexuality in no way negatively affects my marriage or my life. I've counted many homosexuals as my friends over the years. It is unconscionable that in 2012 people are still trying to deny homosexuals the rights they've been guaranteed under the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers intended them to have, based on some antiquated, superstitious religious dogma.

[mrsm00the]

12:39 AM on 05/07/2012

I don't have a problem with your position; just your history. If you knew a whit about the Founding Fathers, you would know that they didn't intend for anyone to have any rights. The Bill of Rights were amendments made to the Founding Fathers' version of the Constitution. Those rights were forced on them by the people by way of the United States Congress. Even then, the people didn't object to slavery, didn't give the people the ability to elect Senators and didn't give women the right to vote. I doubt they held a much higher opinon of homosexuals.

[candcje]

12:51 PM on 05/07/2012

The Declaration of Independence (written by the Founding Fathers) specifically says this is to be a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. That explicitly gives RIGHTS to the people. Then they set up the government and set about outlining what those rights would and would not include - right to own property, no right to randomly k!ll people.....

[Intelligenti Pauca]

10:44 PM on 05/06/2012

Scientific research has already proven that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

If homosexuality is, as people like to keep saying, "unnatural", then by its very definition it wouldn't occur in Nature. And yet it does, hundreds of times over, in hundreds of different species. That is a known fact, that's not supposition or opinion. It has been scientifically proven.

Now, continuing down this logical path, and incorporating Christian beliefs into it; since "God" gave Man "free will", but not animals, then the FACT that homosexuality occurs numerous times in Nature, proves that the statement "homosexuality is unnatural", is not only false, but it also directly contradicts the idea that homosexuality is somehow a "choice".

[hippocritty22]

12:17 AM on 05/07/2012

Great comment, but surely you know most "Christians" and Republicans can't be swayed by well documented, scientific facts? They tend to just dig their heels in deeper, like the stubborn children they are. F&F.

[Intelligenti Pauca]

10:48 AM on 05/07/2012

Oh, I'm all too familiar with how most Christians & Republicans operate & that they will just gloss over what I'm saying & ignore it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop posting facts.

Fanned back.

[juliet marilynne]

12:27 AM on 05/07/2012

"That is a known fact, that's not supposition or opinion. It has been scientifically proven."

well you DO know that with that one sentence any republican christian stopped reading?

sad too since so many of them believe in something with NO PROOF whatsoever, and yet you offer them something with proof and *poof* no attention span.

[EvgenyLibek]

04:59 AM on 05/07/2012

They didn't pay attention in science class... that's why they're praying to alter genetic traits.
Maybe they're not praying hard enough... you know, a 20 Watt bulb would provide more enlightenment (wasn't prayers that took them out of the age of darkness).

If they would embrace the here & now -- they might remember that eternity is a conscious choice that passes with every blink of their eyes.
They would not be forever waiting -- they would already have attained salvation!!

[David Gilchrist]

10:30 PM on 05/06/2012

No matter how one votes on this, Bill Clinton as a spokesperson regarding any aspect of the worth of the marriage contract is without credibility. What can he really bring to the table here? "Oh, I just don't know why anyone would think allowing the Gay community to marry could possibly devalue marriage between a man and a woman! I know it could never devalue my marriage more than I have managed to devalue it by my own past behavior right?!"
The whole argument that marriage has been rendered meaningless (due to the bad behavior of those who can legally marry) therefore, it should be unrestricted, is a sad little logic, if not a cynical and nihilistic decent into meaninglessness. There are better arguments. And there are surely better spokespeople for such a cause.