Gov. Bev Perdue has a right to her socially conservative stance — and voting record — on marriage. Because constitutional amendments don’t require the governor’s signature, she had no formal reason to flex her executive muscle on the Defense of Marriage amendment.
But, as governor, it was her obligation to take a stance and take part in the debate. By waiting until Friday, weeks after its passage, to formally come out against the amendment banning gay marriage, Perdue failed to meet that duty to the state.
She must make up for lost time as the popular vote approaches and lead rather than remain on the sidelines.
Perdue, who voted in 1996 for a law defining marriage between a man and woman, remained mum throughout the debate. Asked where she stood on the amendment, she would only allude to her concerns that ingraining a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution would prove troublesome for the state’s job growth.
Finally, on Friday, Perdue turned that hint into a stand. She voiced concern that, if passed, the amendment would make it more difficult to recruit and retain workers and could threaten the rights of unmarried couples by recognizing the kind of marriage she voted for in 1996 as the only recognized “domestic legal union.”
Her dissent likely would not have changed the result. But her hesitance has not been of “no harm” or “no foul” to the state and spirit of political debate.
