NC Amendment One passes--a follow-up

Wow, what a news day, yesterday. North Carolina passed Amendment One (defined in my last post as stipulating that marriage between one man and one woman will be the only legally recognized relationship in the state) and President Obama finally made a definitive statement on the subject.

Coincidence? Probably not. Although the state’s fourteen electoral votes don’t constitute a huge number, they could make a critical difference, and after months of reports that North Carolina seemed very winnable to the Obama campaign (with many visits scheduled, to that end) more recent rumors have been that they are wondering whether they should expend the effort. One has to wonder if the timing, partly, is a message to the base and to undecided, socially liberal independents.

The pronouncement was a gamble, and carefully calibrated, I think, to try to do three things: reassure and appeal to the two groups just mentioned, and at the same time, not lose undecided independents who are more socially conservative and/or consider the 10th amendment an important issue. This tightrope-walking consisted of voicing a definite personal opinion in favor of gay marriage while maintaining that it’s still an issue for individual states to decide. Whether this works or backfires is yet to be seen.

I am not overly critical of the political opportunism involved; Mr. Obama is, after all, a politician, and one who had to get elected and is trying to be re-elected by a center-right country. Obviously, Mr. Romney—who was against gay marriage, then for it when he was running for governor of the most liberal state in the union, and is now against it—will have to tread carefully here.

But what makes it such a gamble is the issue of his base. As most people know, turnout among the young and among blacks are critical, and there is simply no appealing to both with this. Young people will respond positively, but the majority of black voters will not, and will be very conflicted, as a result. Neither demographic is likely to turn out for Romney, but they might stay home out of a dearth of 2008 enthusiasm. (This is an unscientific observation, I know, but a black friend—intelligent, passionate about politics and issues, an intriguing mix of liberal and conservative who nonetheless tends to the former, and a devout Christian—had already told me he couldn’t vote for Romney. He’s not thrilled with Obama anymore, but would have voted for him. Now he expects to stay home.)

Thinking of this young man’s support for Amendment One leads me back to the vote, itself. As polls predicted, it wasn’t close—about 60/40 was what I saw. One thing did surprise me, though, given that the polling numbers were readily available. On Facebook, where the majority of my friends are liberal (or perhaps the conservative ones stay quiet; I don’t know) there was an outpouring of surprise, even shock. “Who are these people who voted yes?” one of them asked. I don’t know any of them.” One of his friends assured him they were just uneducated rednecks, so of course he wouldn’t have known any. There were numerous posts decrying the ‘bigotry’ of this vote, and as I pointed out in my last post, this is dangerous ground when people often want to paint ‘bigots’ with as broad a brush as possible, given that black voters overwhelmingly agreed with the ‘rednecks.’

There is a kind of insulated thinking here that hampers the efforts of those who opposed this amendment—and they would do well to consider it as they marshal their efforts toward repeal. When you only talk to one another, when you reinforce each other about how your own feelings are the only valid ones, when you demonize those who disagree with you as either ignorant, bigoted, or both, you lower your preparedness and your effectiveness. (I believe this same phenomenon is at work in the Obama re-election campaign—they have seemed ignorant or dismissive of the genuine reservations of intelligent, concerned voters, and have relied, unwisely, on the supportive coverage of a largely biased press, to the point where they have up to now believed the seas ahead were largely smooth. I’m not surprised that James Carville is currently trying to sound the alarm that a defeat is entirely possible.)

I should make it clear that I’m not saying it’s just those who opposed the amendment who should do more listening to those who supported it. That goes both ways. Those whose religious convictions are firm, like my friend, are unlikely ever to change their mind, but those convictions do not make him ignorant, or a bigot, or a hater. And some sincere interchange might change the minds of those whose concerns are cultural and societal, or whose religious reservations are more open to amelioration.

I was kind of heartened to see a post on one of my Facebook friends’ pages, in which one of his friends (who was clearly opposed to the amendment) seemed to be making a genuine appeal to supporters to explain their thinking. Dialogue may not promote agreement but—engaged in with a determination to be civil—it can promote understanding and respect, and a renewed will to find solutions.