The video of one of his constituents confronting State Rep. Jim Crawford for his support of the marriage discrimination amendment is already going viral thanks in large measure to Katy Munger of Progress NC who posted it on Blue NC. It’s now available on WRAL.com also.

For many, the most interesting thing is Crawford’s mumbled and disingenuous explanation. He claims he’s against it despite the fact that he voted for it on the floor of the state House…twice. 

For me though, the best and most inspiring thing is watching Elaine McNeill’s passion and courage in speaking up. If you haven’t done so already, check it out. It’ll bring a lump to your throat…

In case you missed it, the students at Campbell University Law School (who, ironically enough, study in a building supported by Art Pope) have offically weighed in against the marriage discrimination amendment. Here’s an excerpt:

“WHEREAS, Amendment One, if approved by a majority of voters, will void the benefits of domestic partner registries currently offered by local municipalities and cities throughout North Carolina to same sex and opposite sex partners who are in committed, long term relationships but who are unable to marry or otherwise have not married.”

Here’s a link to the actual resolution:  http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Amendment-One-Resolution.pdf

Wow. When even the conservative Burlington Times-News speaks out against the marriage discrimination amendment, you know a seismic shift in public attitudes is taking place before our eyes.   

The paper cites with approval the recent video made by former Charlotte mayors Harvey Gantt and Richard Vinroot:

“In an advertisement placed on the internet for Protect All NC Families, an anti-Amendment One group,  Vinroot says Amendment One is ‘unnecessary and may have unintended consequences.’

And Gantt follows with ‘those consequences may harm women, children and families throughout North Carolina. And, even worse, the amendment will write discrimination into our constitution.’

Both are alluding to the threat the amendment poses to civil unions in general — not to mention that it’s a government intervention into an area where government has no right to be — the freedom of individuals and churches to make their own decisions.

It’s interesting to note that one rule of medical ethics is this one: ”Do no harm.’ In the video, Vinroot states, ‘If we defeat Amendment One on May 8, it will not cause any harm at all.’

Maybe state lawmakers should adopt the same code.”

You can read the entire piece by clicking here.