CAMPBELL CLARK

Saturday, May. 19, 2012

The new goals for Afghanistan are to make it good enough. The question NATO faces this weekend is whether even that costs too much.

In order to seal plans to pull most of their troops out in 2014, leaders of the allies meet in Chicago this weekend to set plans for paying Afghan bills in the decade that follows.

Canada has sent 900 troops to train what is supposed to be a bigger and better Afghan force that can take over in 2014, but it’s expected to be decided this weekend that the Afghan forces can shrink to a smaller size, more in line with what the world will pay for.

Already, responding to U.S. pressure, key allies like Britain, Australia, and Germany have pledged sums between $100-million and $200-million a year for the project. Canada is expected to follow suit with its own pledge in Chicago. But those sums are a small part of the $4-billion a year that even a shrunken Afghan force will cost.

NATO’s secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said earlier this week he’d like to see the Canadians stay – annoying Prime Minister Stephen Harper, according to sources. The Prime Minister wants to hear U.S. President Barack Obama make the case for an extension, one official said, and is unlikely to commit in Chicago.

After years of war, the leaders convening in Chicago on Sunday – including an electioneering Mr. Obama – face weary publics anxious to get their troops home, as well as tight budgets, debts, and nervous financial markets. Even Mr. Harper, who pulled combat troops from Kandahar last year, faces opposition to extending the Canadian training mission after 2014.

NATO leaders now face pressure to reassure Afghanistan’s current leaders that they won’t be left to the Taliban wolves when the Western combat troops depart, a fear that already undermines Western efforts. Another is to scale down ambitions to match the West’s political and financial means.

The goal of handing over the lead role in combat to Afghan forces in 2014 has been accelerated by Mr. Obama, and other countries, notably France, are signalling they’ll leave even sooner. The American commander in the country, Gen. John Allen, has made it the main priority to push Afghan forces into fighting faster.

Gone are the days when NATO leaders spoke of bringing good governance to Afghanistan, and set the goals in terms of sending girls to school, creating a democracy, and ensuring human rights. Now, the objectives are more modest, closer to what analysts have termed “Afghanistan good enough.”

Mr. Harper outlined his own limited objectives earlier this week, when he said the goal should be to prevent Afghanistan from being a source of international terrorism. Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, described similar objectives Friday, in very modest terms.

“The goal is to have an Afghanistan that has a degree of stability such that forces like al-Qaeda and associated groups cannot have safe haven unimpeded,” he said. “No. 2, an Afghanistan that has a set of security assets that allow it to provide for that modicum of stability and to be able to protect itself against groups like that.”

Even the modest goal of a “modicum of stability” after 2014 will be in doubt with a rush to cut funding, according to some experts.

The current Afghan National Security Force of about 345,000 – an army of 195,000 and a police force of almost 150,000 – is just shy of the goal of 352,000 that had been set for a buildup. But NATO is expected to endorse a smaller force, with some floating numbers as low as 228,500.

That’s because it’s the outside world that will have to pay. The bigger force would cost more than $6-billion a year; the smaller one, about $4.1-billion a year.

But moving quickly to the cheaper force is bad planning, and hardly worth saving a few billion dollars when the U.S. is spending $100-billion a year on the war now, said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at influential Washington think tank the Brookings Institution.

“It’s sort of crazy to go from spending $100-billion a year, from the American perspective, to worrying about whether $4-billion or $6-billion is the maximum affordable amount after 2015. And to not even worry about whether you lose the war as a result of that,” Mr. O’Hanlon said.

“It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, because the amount of money that’s at issue is not big enough to ultimately be a show-stopper.”

By Tom A. Peter

May 18, 2012

Speaking in Prague, Israel’s prime minister compared Iran’s nuclear drive to that of North Korea, and said he has seen no evidence of Iran taking upcoming talks seriously.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he has serious doubts that Iran will stop its nuclear program or take upcoming talks seriously. Mr. Netanyahu made the remarks on Friday after a meeting with Czech President Vaclav Klaus.

There has been much focus on Iran’s nuclear program as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany prepare to meet for talks with Iran on May 23 in Baghdad.

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Iran is serous about stopping its nuclear weapons program,” said Netanyahu during his remarks in Prague, recounted by The Jerusalem Post. “It looks as though they [Iran] see these talks as another opportunity to deceive and delay, just like North Korean [sic] did for years.”

RELATED: 3 reasons not to attack Iran

Israeli officials have said that time is running out to find a diplomatic solution and avoid a military strike. But despite Netanyahu’s strong words, Israel’s Haaretz reports that he stopped short of making any ultimatums.

Netanyahu’s remarks come at time of increasingly heightened rhetoric in the US and Israel about using potential military force against Iran if it continues developing its nuclear program.

“It would be preferable to resolve this diplomatically and through the use of pressure than to use military force,” said US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro according to The New York Times. “But that doesn’t mean that option is not fully available. And not just available, but it’s ready. The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it’s ready.”

The New York Times adds that while US officials have often made it clear that “all options are on the table regarding Iran,” it’s extremely unusual for an American official to explicitly mention crafting specific plans to strike Iran.

Israel would like Iran to stop all of its nuclear development and enrichment activities, which it says is part of a nuclear weapons program. Iran has always contended that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, namely the generation of electricity.

It is unlikely that Iran will entirely stop its nuclear program, reports Reuters, adding that a compromise will have to be reached. Iran insists that stopping it from developing a nuclear program is a violation of its sovereignty. The UN priority now is for Iran to allow its inspectors unfettered access to its facilities and for Iran to stop its higher-grade enrichment program.

There is concern that if Israel pursues a military option, the results could be disastrous for the region. Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s late Shah, told Al Arabiya that Israel would be much better off if it helped the Iranian people try to topple the current regime, rather than carry out a military strike.

“If Israel wages war against Iran now, this will cause a kind of tension with the Jewish people that had not existed since the time of Cyrus the Great,” said Mr. Pahlavi. “At the end of the day, the priority should be, and the whole world will agree, that the entire Iranian regime has to go.”

It’s going to be a bad season for fleas and ticks. The winter didn’t get cold enough to kill them off. This trick essentially suffocates the pests as they breathe through their abdomens.
TickRemoval

A nurse discovered a safe, easy way to remove ticks where they automatically withdraw themselves when you follow her simple instructions. Read this one as it could save you from some major problems.

Tick Removal: Spring is here and the ticks will soon be showing their heads. Here is a good way to get them off you, your children or your pets. Give it a try

A School Nurse has written the info below–good enough to share–and it really works

“I had a pediatrician tell me what she believes is the best way to remove a tick. This is great because it works in those places where it’s sometimes difficult to get to with tweezers: between toes, in the middle of a head full of dark hair, etc”.

“Apply a glob of liquid soap to a cotton ball. Cover the tick with the soap-soaked cotton ball and swab it for a few seconds (15-20); the tick will come out on its own and be stuck to the cotton ball when you lift it away. This technique has worked every time I’ve used it (and that was frequently), and it’s much less traumatic for the patient and easier for me”.

“Unless someone is allergic to soap, I can’t see that this would be damaging in any way. I even had my doctor’s wife call me for advice because she had one stuck to her back and she couldn’t reach it with tweezers. She used this method and immediately called me back to say, “It worked”

Please pass on. Everyone needs this helpful hint.

May 16, 2012
Facebook says 25 per cent more shares will be sold as investors clamour for a piece of the year’s hottest stock offering.
Facebook said in a regulatory filing on Wednesday that about 421 million shares will be sold, up from 337 million under its earlier plans. That total doesn’t include more than 63 million additional shares that the deal’s underwriters can sell to cover excess demand.
The news comes a day after Facebook raised the expected price range for the stock to a range of $34 to $38 per share, up from $28 to $35.
The offering is expected to set the final price on Thursday evening. Shares would start trading on the Nasdaq on Friday under the “FB” ticker symbol.
If all the shares, including those being offered to the underwriters, are sold at the high end of the expected price range, the social network’s offering could raise more than $18.4 billion. That would make Facebook one of the biggest IPOs ever.
The company’s IPO is the most hotly anticipated in years and would value Facebook overall at more than $100 billion.
In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Facebook says the extra shares being made available are coming from its current shareholders. The selling shareholders are now offering approximately 241 million shares, up from about 157 million shares.
Facebook will not receive any proceeds from the stock sold by the selling shareholders.
The regulatory filing also disclosed that CEO Mark Zuckerberg will control about 55.8 per cent of the voting power of the company’s outstanding capital stock following the offering. This is down slightly from the 57.3 per cent he was initially expected to have.
Facebook has more than 900 million users who log in at least once a month.
Morgan Stanley leads the team of 33 underwriters selected for the Facebook offering, followed by JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.

ELENA BECATOROS and DEMETRIS NELLAS

Sunday, May. 13, 2012

Critical last-ditch talks to form a coalition government in crisis-struck Greece floundered once more Sunday, leading the country one step closer to new elections, although the socialist party leader said he retained `existing but limited’ optimism for a deal.

The political uncertainty has alarmed the international creditors who have given Greece billions of euros in bailout loans over the past two years, and has thrown the country’s continued presence in the European Union’s joint currency into serious doubt.

President Karolos Papoulias convened the heads of the parties that came in the top three spots in last Sunday’s inconclusive elections, in an ultimate effort to broker an agreement after a week of talks led to deadlock. The meeting ended without a solution, but the process continues while the president holds individual meetings with the leaders of smaller parties that made it into parliament.

Voters furious at the handling of Greece’s financial crisis and two years of harsh austerity measures taken in return for billions of euros in international bailout loans punished the formerly dominant socialist PASOK and conservative New Democracy parties in the elections. The two saw their support crumble to the lowest point in decades, while Radical Left Coalition, or Syriza, made big gains to come in second place after campaigning on an anti-bailout platform.

The PASOK and New Democracy leaders could form a coalition with the smaller Democratic Left party of Fotis Kouvelis — combined they would have 168 seats in the 300-member parliament. New Democracy won 18.9 per cent last Sunday while PASOK garnered just 13.2 per cent, compared to nearly 44 per cent in the last elections in 2009. Kouvelis’ 6.1 per cent put him in a kingmaker position, with 19 seats.

But all three insist any power-sharing deal must include Syriza, led by the 38-year-old Alexis Tsipras, given its strong showing at the ballot box.

Mr. Tsipras, however, insists he cannot join or even lend his support to a government that will continue implementing the terms of Greece’s international bailout. In return for €240 billion ($310-million U.S.) in rescue loans from the European Union and International Monetary Fund, Greece has imposed severe spending cuts, including slashing pensions and salaries in the public sector, and repeated rounds of tax hikes. The measures have left Greece mired in a fifth year of deep recession, with unemployment spiralling above 21 per cent.

“The three parties that have agreed on a two-year government in order to apply (the bailout) have 168 seats in parliament,” Mr. Tsipras said after the meeting. “Let them go ahead. Their demand that Syriza participate come what may in their own agreement is senseless and unprecedented.”

Mr. Tsipras insists the terms of the bailout must be cancelled. PASOK head Evangelos Venizelos, who spent nine months handling the crisis as finance minister, and conservative leader Antonis Samaras, say that position is irresponsible and will force Greece out of the euro. Although Sunday’s meeting convened by the president with the three top party leaders was inconclusive, Mr. Venizelos said that “I retain some limited but existing optimism that a government can be formed.”

Mr. Samaras appeared more pessimistic.

“I made every effort for the co-operation of all,” he said. “Syriza didn’t listen to the mandate of the Greek people and does not accept not only the formation of a viable government, but not even the tolerance of a government which would in fact undertake to renegotiate the terms of the (bailout) and the loan agreement.”

Mr. Tsipras, however, stuck to his position, insisting that supporting a pro-bailout government would be a betrayal of his pre-election platform.

“After today’s meeting it is obvious they are demanding that Syriza become an accessory to a crime,” he said after the discussions with the president. “In the name of democracy, of our patriotic duty, we cannot accept this shared guilt. We call on all Greeks to condemn once and for all the forces of the past and to realize that only one hope remains: unity against blackmail in order to prevent the continuing barbarity.

“Fellow Greeks, we can assure you of one thing: we will not betray you.”

Mr. Tsipras will also have his eye on recent opinion polls which show his party would gain strength if Greeks go to the ballot box again next month.

A poll published by To Vima newspaper Sunday indicated Syriza would come first in new elections with 20.5 per cent of the vote — less than the 28 per cent an earlier opinion poll published Thursday gave him, but still well ahead of New Democracy. Although it would not be enough to form a government, it would put him in the dominant position to form a coalition with smaller anti-bailout parties.

To Vima’s poll, carried out by Kappa Research, showed New Democracy in second place with 18.1 per cent and PASOK losing yet more votes to reach 12.2 per cent. The poll was carried out on May 9 and 10, and had a margin of error of 3.09 percentage points.

Mr. Papoulias’s mediation to broker a deal could in theory continue until May 17, the scheduled opening date for the new parliament, although they are expected to end sooner. If no agreement is reached, Greece will have to hold new elections next month, most likely on June 10th or 17th.

Damien Pearse

Saturday 12 May 2012

Leaders of three largest parties to meet with Karolos Papoulias on Sunday after each failed to form coalition.

The Greek president has called the country’s leaders to a meeting on Sunday in a final attempt to forge a unity government and avoid another election.

Karolos Papoulias, a ceremonial figure, will meet with leaders of the three largest parties – the socialist Pasok, the centre-right New Democracy, and far-left bloc Syriza at 9am (GMT).

He will then hold talks with fringe parties including Golden Dawn, an extreme rightwing anti-immigration group.

The meeting comes after Pasok became the third party to fail to form a coalition.

Pasok leader Evangelos Venizelos abandoned efforts on Friday and met the president on Saturday morning to confirm his decision.

Venizelos held talks with New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras, whose party came first in the election, but could not find a third partner to give them a majority.

“I hope that during the negotiations chaired by Mr Papoulias everyone will be more mature and responsible in their thinking,” Venizelos said.

New Democracy also failed to form a coalition earlier in the week, as did Syriza, which came second in the election.

“It is as if the message of last Sunday’s election has not been heard,” said Alexis Tsipras, leader of Syriza, which secured an unprecedented 16.8% of the vote.

“We will not participate in a government that will enforce the policies of the memorandum,” he said, referring to the terms Athens agreed to with the foreign creditors keeping the country’s debt-stricken economy afloat.

Politicians have stepped up pressure on Greece to honour its commitment to a controversial austerity and reform programme – or leave the eurozone.

Analysts believe the president’s bid to form a unified government is unlikely to succeed because the parties are so divided over the terms of the bailout and the chances of the political deadlock being broken are slim.

Resistance to Pasok and New Democracy is at an all-time high following their pummelling in last week’s election for endorsing the successive waves of austerity in the form of higher taxes, plus pay and pension cuts, in return for aid.

Across the political spectrum, insiders said a fresh poll, to be held by 17 June at the latest, looked inevitable. “The only other way out is if our creditors withhold aid,” said one. “If funds dry up and Greek civil servants don’t get their pay and pensions, maybe then people will come to their senses.”

With public opinion behind him, amid virulent opposition to fulfilling the gruelling conditions demanded by creditors in return for rescue funds, Tsipras has stepped up his fiery anti-austerity rhetoric.

A poll released on Friday by Alpha TV indicated that the increasingly assertive leader would see his popularity surge if new elections were held. Syriza, a coalition of leftists and greens, would probably emerge as the biggest party with 27%, it said.

For the EU and IMF, which has committed a total of €240bn (£190bn) in rescue funds to keep the country’s economy afloat, it is a nightmare scenario that policymakers did not foresee when Europe‘s debt crisis erupted in Athens in December 2009.

Professor Dimitris Keridis, who teaches political science at Panteion University in Athens, said: “There is no easy way out. From the moment Greece’s mainstream party political system dissolved [in Sunday's poll] governing the country with such a fractious parliament has become near impossible.

“Even the best-case scenario that would see a government being formed isn’t good enough. How long would it last?” he asked. “Creditors are demanding a further €11.5bn in cuts in June. Only an efficient, stable, long-term government will be able to pass such harsh measures and stop a euro exit.”

Thursday 10 May 2012

Russian president, facing protests at home, postpones much-anticipated G8 meeting in Washington with Barack Obama.

Vladimir Putin will miss a planned visit to the US this month for a key global summit and a much-anticipated meeting with President Barack Obama, the Kremlin has confirmed, as the Russian president faced pressure from protests and opposition criticism at home.

The White House announced on Wednesday that Putin was unable to join the other leaders of the Group of Eight industrial nations meeting outside Washington on 18-19 May. The Kremlin said Putin needed to finish work setting up his government.

Instead, Russia will send Dmitry Medvedev, the former president and new prime minister, to the G8 summit.

The Kremlin said Obama expressed “understanding” at Putin’s cancellation. The two presidents are due to meet at another global summit in Mexico in mid-June.

Putin returned to power this week after four years to a post he had previously held for two terms. Criticism of the US was a central theme in his election campaign, but it is not clear whether he will pull back from Medvedev’s efforts at co-operation with the US in some areas.

Putin’s inauguration on Monday was preceded by violent protests at an opposition rally in Moscow the day before. Police dispersed the rally and detained hundreds of people.

Hundreds of protesters have been staging ‘flash mobs’ across the city this week, with police breaking up the meetings and detaining demonstrators. Two key leaders of this “people’s stroll”, Alexei Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov, were sentenced to 15 days in jail on Wednesday for disobeying police orders.

Separately, many opposition groups have decried Putin’s decision to provide a logistics facility in central Russia to Nato as a betrayal of national interests. The facility in Ulyanovsk is to support the US-led mission in Afghanistan.

Russia does not border on Afghanistan, but the two countries are separated only by former Soviet Central Asian republics that have porous borders with Russia and Afghanistan.

Putin is also facing criticism for Russia’s impending membership of the World Trade Organisation. Hailed by some as a long-awaited achievement, Russia’s membership of the WTO has caused concerns within the country that its new trade status will hurt heavily subsidised industries, including agriculture

Karen McVeigh

Wednesday 9 May 2012

60% of people endorse constitutional amendment that prevents same-sex couples having any kind of legal union.

Voters in North Carolina have approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage solely as a union between one man and one woman, in a defeat for gay rights advocates.

It will become the 30th state in the union to enshrine a ban on same-sex marriage in its state constitution. Same-sex marriage has been illegal in NC for 16 years but can now only be legalised by another vote by the people.

With more than 97% of precincts reporting late on Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with 61% in favour and 39% against. The amendment declares that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognised in this state”.

North Carolina was one of several state elections to be closely monitored by a wider audience on Tuesday. In Indiana, Senator Richard Lugar lost his re-election bid in the state primary, his 36-year career ended by a victory for the Republican state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, who is backed by the Tea Party and the National Rifle Association.

In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee mayor, Tom Barrett, won the Democratic primary in the state’s gubernatorial recall election, confirming him to go up against the Republican governor, Scott Walker, in June.

Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Votes for Marriage NC, the main group behind the amendment, said: “We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage. The whole point is you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults.”

Supporters celebrated the win with a tiered wedding cake at a party in the North Raleigh Hilton Hotel. They said the amendment was needed to stave off those trying to redefine marriage and prevent any future action by judges.

Gay and lesbian rights groups expressed their disappointment in the result but said the fight had brought them together.

President Barack Obama’s campaign said in a statement on Tuesday he was “disappointed” with the state’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, describing it as “divisive and discriminatory”. Obama has not supported legalising gay marriage but has said that his views on it were “evolving”.

Jeremy Kennedy, of the Coalition to Protect all NC Families, which has been fighting the amendment, said: “It is just a skirmish in a battle, a war that we will win.”

In an emotional speech, he told supporters they had “left no stone unturned” in bringing people together to fight the amendment.

“Tonight we walk away proud with our heads held high and we will continue to fight this.”

Kennedy and other opponents of the measure warned it could result in a host of problems for unmarried couples, including erosion of their health benefits and those of their children. They said it could affect domestic violence laws to protect women.

Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, said the vote provided a sharp contrast with the momentum for the freedom to marry elsewhere in the US and described it as “a painful reminder of what happens when a pre-emptive ballot measure is stampeded through before people have had enough time to take in real conversations about who gay families are and why marriage matters to them.”

In February, Wolfson and other gay rights campaigners celebrated a victory in California after a federal appeals court struck down the state’s ban on same sex marriage, ruling it unconstitutional.

The Reverend Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, said: “We are severely disappointed that Amendment 1

has passed. But we also now know that a growing number of North Carolinians support equality for LGBT people.”

Twenty-eight states have already passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. The amendment in North Carolina goes beyond state law by preventing other forms of domestic unions from carrying legal status.

Legal experts have warned that the broad wording of the amendment could cause a host of problems for unmarried couples. Several North Carolina municipalities provide benefits to unmarried couples in domestic partnerships and lawyers have told the Guardian those rights could be lost if the amendment is passed.

They say it could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples and impact victims of domestic violence. The term “domestic legal union” is not defined by North Carolina law.

Holning Lau, an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina, who has written extensively on the implications of Amendment 1, said: “The language is very broad compared to other states. It is a common misconception that it would only affect same-sex marriage.”

A report by Lau and others concluded it was “impossible to predict” how courts would resolve issues such as protection for victims of domestic violence, raised by the amendment’s vague language.

It concluded that it would take years of expensive litigation to settle its meaning and “when the dust clears [all] unmarried couples would have fewer rights over their most important life decisions than they would have had otherwise”.

Earlier on Tuesday, a senior official at the board of elections in the state capital said the election to decide on a state constitutional amendment was the “craziest in 13 years”.

Gary Sims, the deputy director of Wake County board of elections in Raleigh, told the Guardian there were “some really angry people” on both sides of the highly charged debate.

Observers from the Republican party had sought to “challenge and confront” precinct officials from the board and were “clogging up the phone lines” back at Wake County headquarters. “This is the craziest election I’ve seen in 13 years,” said Sims, at his office next to the courthouse.

“We’ve seen political party observers who are not precinct officials. They can ask to be observers. They want to challenge and confront and it’s a problem for our precinct officials.”

He said the reason for the confrontations varied, from calling up the board of elections to complain that there wasn’t a chair for them to sit on to pushing officials to get people to show ID at the polls.

“They have been clogging up the phone lines and getting mad at us,” said Sims. “People have to state their names and addresses and we check them. But they are challenging officials to make them show ID. They have an agenda, the ones that we’ve been getting trouble from.”

When asked whether the trouble was coming from the groups for or against Amendment 1, Sims said: “Put it this way: we had zero Democratic party observers.” He added: “I’ve probably said more than I should.”

High-profile figures, including Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, who recorded telephone calls to voters, had weighed in on the amendment debate, urging voters to reject it. Opponents also held marches, put out television ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.

Billy Graham, the evangelical preacher who at age 93 remains influential in the state where he has a stretch of road named after him, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York and the District of Columbia allow gay and lesbian nuptials. Maryland, New Jersey and Washington state passed laws this year approving same-sex marriage, but Governor Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey’s law and opponents in Maryland and Washington are threatening ballot initiatives to overturn those state’s laws.

Why North Carolina banned gay marriage .

By Wade Rawlins

May 9, 2012

Republicans and African Americans in North Carolina were united in supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The North Carolina is a key swing state in the 2012 presidential election.

Why North Carolina banned gay marriage

Republicans and African Americans in North Carolina were united in supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The North Carolina is a key swing state in the 2012 presidential election.

By Wade Rawlins, Reuters

May 9, 2012

The amendment, which says marriage between a man and a woman is the only legally recognized domestic union in the state, passed by a wide margin. With 95 of 100 counties’ results reported, about 61 percent of votes backed the amendment.

North Carolina law already blocks gay and lesbian couples from marrying, but the state now joins the rest of the Southeast states in adding the prohibition to its constitution.

RECOMMENDED: Six ways states handled gay marriage

Many voters simply viewed the amendment as a vote on same-sex marriage despite efforts by the measure’s opponents to broaden the discussion, said Tom Jensen of the Raleigh-based Public Policy Polling firm.

“Anytime in North Carolina you have a majority of Republicans and African Americans on the same side of an issue, that’s a very potent combination,” Jensen said.

Twenty-eight other state have voter-approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York and the District of Columbia allow gay and lesbian nuptials.
Maryland, New Jersey and Washington state have passed laws this year approving same-sex marriage, but Governor Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey’s law and opponents in Maryland and Washington are threatening ballot initiatives to overturn those laws.

The vote in North Carolina followed statements by senior officials of President Barack Obama‘s administration this week which were interpreted as supporting gay marriage.

Vice President Joe Biden said on Sunday he was “absolutely comfortable” with allowing same-sex couples to wed, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan s a id gay marriage should be legal.

Obama has said he favors civil unions but has stopped short of supporting gay marriage.

Supporters of the amendment in North Carolina, a swing state in the Nov. 6 presidential election, said it would preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and make laws forbidding gay marriage harder to repeal.