Archives

Commentary

In case you missed it today over on the main NCPW site, this morning’s Weekly Briefing (“The growing momentum for tuition equity”) explains why the fights for LGBT equality and fair treatment for immigrant kids have a surprising amount in common.

“It may seem odd at first to compare the plight of immigrant kids with that of LGBT adults seeking equality, but when you take a minute to consider the matter, the parallels are striking. There’s the matter of being forced to live in hiding, the effort by society to punish and even criminalize the mere act of existing and, of course, the venom both groups have been forced for so long to endure from a lot of their fellow Americans.

And now, happily, there is also the rapidly developing common experience of a societal attitude overhaul. Where once the idea of marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans seemed unimaginable, it is now clearly here to stay.

And so, increasingly, it is with the matter of public policy solutions for undocumented kids (and maybe even their parents). Though still disparaged as ‘aliens’ and ‘invaders’ by a shrinking number of hard core nativists and paranoiacs, more and more undocumented immigrants – especially young people who have lived in the U.S. for big chunks (if not most) of their lives – are coming out and speaking out.

They may not have been born in the U.S.A., but millions of immigrant kids are, effectively, as ‘American’ as anyone else. The United States is the only country they know. Their friends are American, their schools and teachers and daily life experiences are American, the taxes they pay are American. Meanwhile, the notion of sending them elsewhere is widely and increasingly understood to be absurd.”

Click here to read the entire essay.

Commentary

equality overtonThe growing disconnect between the last gaspers in the far right anti-equality movement and the modern global business community is on full display this week.

Today, Raleigh’s News & Observer ran an editorial by Apple CEO Tim Cook that appeared in yesterday’s Washington Post in which Cook blasted the nation’s soon-to-dissipate wave of state discrimination laws masquerading under the banner “religious freedom.”

Here’s Cook:

“America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business. At Apple, we are in business to empower and enrich our customers’ lives. We strive to do business in a way that is just and fair. That’s why, on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation – wherever it emerges. I’m writing in the hopes that many more will join this movement. From North Carolina to Nevada, these bills under consideration truly will hurt jobs, growth and the economic vibrancy of parts of the country where a 21st-century economy was once welcomed with open arms.”

The message from Cook, head of one of the nation’s largest and most profitable companies, couldn’t be much clearer: “North Carolina: get you act together or be left behind even further than you already are.”

Happily, Gov. Pat McCrory seemed to echo Cook when he told an interviewer the bill “makes no sense” and similarly criticized the state Senate’s silly proposal to exempt magistrates from doing their duty to marry all couples who lawfully present themselves for marriage.

One word that was notably absent from the Guv’s statements on the issue thus far (at least in the reports I’ve seen) was “veto.” Let’s hope this was just an oversight and not another example of McCrory’s frustrating tendency to pontificate against controversial ideas and let them become law without his signature. If McCrory really wants to act like a leader on this matter, he should get out in front and nip it in the bud by sending a strong message to the members the General Assembly.

Commentary
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Image: www.thinkprogress.org

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Image: www.thinkprogress.org

The Charlotte Observer was actually quite moderate and restrained in its editorial over the weekend criticizing the latest dying gasp of the nation’s pro-discrimination movement. The editorial — “Indiana shows what not do” — highlighted the so-called “religious freedom” law enacted in Indiana. The law — which was designed by conservatives opposed to LGBT equality — has already set off a firestorm amongst more-forward looking corporate types who are rethinking their involvement with the Hoosier state. Here’s the Observer:

“Given the permissive definition of “religion” in the bills, though, the allowed discrimination would hardly stop with the LGBT community. Even if such cases are only episodic, even one is too many and the state’s image takes a hit.

[Indiana Governor Mike] Pence defended the Indiana law by saying he doesn’t think it legalizes discrimination, and N.C. legislators will say it is simply about freedom of religion. But in practice the bills undeniably open the door to discrimination against almost anyone….

Does North Carolina really want to go down this road? Do we want to sanction discrimination by letting anyone deny service to whomever they please? Do we want to jeopardize conventions, job growth and the ability to recruit?

Arizona was going to last year, but under pressure from the NFL and others, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill. If it reaches his desk, Gov. Pat McCrory should do the same here.”

And here’s another reason to be against the offensive, copycat legislation filed in the North Carolina Senate and House: It’s morally wrong, offensive and un-American. As Think Progress reported yesterday, the discrimination has already started in Indiana. And one doesn’t have to be a MENSA member to imagine the myriad forms of discrimination that some troubled souls in our state would readily engage in if given the green light by state government.

After all, it was the same talk about “religious liberty” that was frequently used as an excuse by those who refused to serve people of color and interracial couples back in the last century. Anyone who thinks that ugly beast wouldn’t reemerge is kidding themselves.

The bottom line: Let’s hope state political and business leaders nip this nonsense in the bud ASAP and that North Carolinians can avoid the ignominy of seeing their governor go on national TV to defend discrimination and hate.

Commentary

marriage amendmentYesterday afternoon, members of the public were given an opportunity to share their thoughts on Senate Bill 2 before the House Judiciary I Committee. The bill, which would permit magistrates and registers of deeds to recuse themselves from performing same-sex marriages due to their religious beliefs, has been hotly contested since it was first introduced in late January.

During the meeting, opponents of the bill stressed the difference between the civil duty of magistrates and the religious freedom of clergy. They also reminded the committee that government officials shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to perform a duty which is part of their job when it deprives the public of a right. However, disagreement between committee members on whether performing civil marriages is the duty of a magistrate or a power given to him provided evidence that many legislators are still missing the point.

Read More

Commentary

marriage amendmentThe Faytteville Observer published an op-ed over the weekend by reporter Paul Woolverton in which he critiqued the bill state Senators advanced last week to set up, in effect, “separate but equal” marriages for same sex couples. Interestingly though, his focus was not on the language allowing magistrates to opt out of marriage duties due to “sincere religious beliefs.”

Instead, Woolverton flew up to a slightly higher altitude and rightfully asked: Why in the heck are magistrates even involved in officiating marriages?

“Lawmakers who say they want lower taxes and smaller government dropped the ball Wednesday.

Their missed opportunity was glaring when the Senate voted to create a law to let magistrates opt out of conducting any weddings if they have a religious objection. This issue has surfaced since gay marriage became legal in the state.

No one in the debate questioned the underlying premise that a magistrate or clergy member is necessary to seal the marriage contract.”

Of his local lawmakers who supported the bill, Woolverton said this:

“As fiscal conservatives, they could have said to themselves: A man and a woman pay the government $60 to get a government-approved marriage license. Why should they then have to visit another government office and pay the government another $20, or hire a government-designated third party for a fee or ‘donation,’ to finalize their marriage contract?”

He sums up this way:

“If it’s good policy for the government to be involved in marriage, then the government should make its involvement the least intrusive it can be. It should record marriages when couples visit the Register of Deeds to buy their marriage licenses. The staff at that office can handle the ‘I do’s.’ Read More