Marriage amendment vote puts national focus on North Carolina - Los Angeles Times

Backers of North Carolina's proposed marriage amendment pray during a rally at the state Capitol in Raleigh. It would strictly define marriage as between one man and one woman. (Allen Breed, Associated Press / April 20, 2012)

PITTSBORO, N.C. — With voting already underway for Tuesday's primary in this moderate Southern state, the discourse has been dominated not by candidates, but by a bitterly contested measure known as Amendment 1.

If approved, it would be among the most restrictive of the marriage amendments passed in 30 states. It would amend the state's constitution to specify: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."

The battle over the measure has turned North Carolina into a national political flash point. Opponents say the amendment is so broadly worded that it would discriminate not only against gays, but also unmarried heterosexual couples.

The outcome could offer an early hint of the state's leanings in November's presidential election: North Carolina, home to the 2012 Democratic National Convention, is an important swing state.

The debate has been fierce. Pro- and anti-amendment activists have held rallies to vie for voters. Ministers have strived to influence their congregants. Lawn signs have been stolen and defaced. And the state NAACP has accused proponents of trying to divide gays and blacks.

Opponents of the amendment have raised $2.2 million, and proponents $1.2 million, mostly for TV and radio ads; a third of the money has come from out of state.

The Rev. Billy Graham has weighed in, preparing a full-page ad expected to appear in newspapers over the weekend. In it, he urges fellow Tar Heels to vote for the amendment, saying: "At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage.''

President Obama has called the Republican-backed Defense of Marriage Amendment divisive, saying it would discriminate against gays.

"It's a hot issue — you hear people talking about it everywhere," said amendment supporter Ray McEntee. He was manning a booth outside a Pittsboro polling place next to a sign that read: "One Man. One Woman."

Early voting started April 19, with turnout running about 30% higher than in the primary four years ago and with especially large numbers of young people voting.

"It's almost entirely driven by interest in the amendment," said David McLennan, a political science professor at William Peace University in Raleigh. He predicts turnout will reach 40% to 45%, unusually high for a primary.

Like amendments in Michigan, Idaho and South Carolina, North Carolina's act would severely limit protections for same-sex and heterosexual unmarried couples, said Maxine Eichner, a family law professor at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

The measure would threaten domestic partnership health benefits for local government workers and strip unmarried couples of their rights to make decisions for an incapacitated partner, Eichner said.

Supporters of Amendment 1 say unmarried couples would be protected by language that permits private contracts and court actions "pursuant to such contracts.''

**

In North Carolina, the issue does not always break along party lines. The National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People opposes the amendment, but numerous black churches support it, as do many other churches and some conservative Democrats. The state's Libertarian Party opposes the amendment, along with the head of the conservative John Locke Foundation.

More than 75 chief executives have signed a letter against the amendment. Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, told a business forum last month: "If this passes, we're going to look back 20 years from now, or 10 years, and think of it like Jim Crow laws.... You're sending a message to the world that we're not inclusive.''

North Carolinians have long considered their state the most progressive in the South. Opposition to the amendment is centered in urban enclaves, such as the Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill area, where support for gay rights is strong.

But wide swaths in the state's east and west are dominated by small towns and rural communities, where conservative Christian values predominate. Those areas vote solidly Republican on social issues such as gun control, abortion and same-sex marriage.

Democrats pushed to have the vote in the May primary instead of the November general election because they feared that a November vote would attract more conservatives, boosting the Republican presidential candidate. The website for Protect All NC Families, which opposes the amendment, says: "A 'For' vote will eliminate healthcare, prescription drug coverage and other benefits for public employees and children receiving domestic partner benefits [and] threaten protections for all unmarried couples in North Carolina."

View the original article here

Los Angeles marks 20th anniversary of riots - AFP

Los Angeles marks 20th anniversary of riotsBy Michael Thurston (AFP) – 1 hour ago 

LOS ANGELES — America on Sunday marked the 20th anniversary of the devastating Los Angeles riots, one of the worst spasms of violence in modern times in this country, sparked by the on-camera police beating of a black motorist.

A series of events were scheduled in Los Angeles were scheduled including speeches by civil rights activist the Reverend Al Sharpton and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and a community "speakout" at the epicenter of the six-day riots in gritty South LA.

Local radio and other media have hosted wall-to-wall debates about the lessons learned from the unrest, triggered by the acquittal of four police officers over the beating of African American Rodney King.

Fifty-three people died and property damage exceeded $1 billion before the frenzy of burning, looting, assault and murder, much of it caught live on camera, was brought under control.

King -- who has released an autobiography timed with the anniversary -- was 26 years old when a group of white police officers brutally beat him while a bystander videotaped them from his apartment window on March 3, 1991.

A year later, on April 29, 1992, an all-white jury acquitted four police officers over his assault.

Hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets in anger, igniting a wave of deadly violence and arson that swept through large areas of Los Angeles.

The police seemed powerless to stop it. Order was restored on the fourth day of the rioting, when army troops arrived. By that time, thousands of people had been injured and many had died.

The run-up to the anniversary has seen a surge of reflection on what has changed in the decades since the riots, which were centered on South LA, primarily composed of African and American and Hispanic communities.

"After the riots, we learned it is not our city," Los Angeles Police Department Lieutenant Andrew Neiman told AFP. "We work for the people and it's their city."

The LAPD also became more representative, and is approved of by 70 percent of city residents. "Back in 1992, we had 1,800 Hispanic officers," Neiman said. "Today we have 4,223... we became more diverse to match our community."

Of the West Coast city's four million residents, 48 percent are now Latino, 28 percent white, 13 percent Asian and eight percent black, according to Los Angeles magazine.

But the social problems that fueled the pent-up frustration remain: unemployment in South LA is as high as almost 24 percent -- several points higher than in 1992, according to the report in the LA Times Saturday.

On Sunday, the anniversary is marked in day-long events, including sermons by activist and broadcaster Sharpton, while mayor Villaraigosa will attend a "South L.A. Rises: Community Fair and Rally."

The Korean Churches for Community Development will hold a commemorative event, while a public speakout meeting will be held at the epicenter of the riot -- the junction of Florence and Normandie avenues, at 3:00 pm.

In Long Beach, south of LA, where the riots also raged, an interfaith service will be held by the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition.

Rodney King, who has battled drugs and had a number of brushes with the law since 1992, said racism still has to be challenged.

"There's always going to be some type of racism. But it's up to us as individuals in this country to look back and see all the accomplishments that we have gotten to this far."

"I have much respect for (the police), much respect... some of them went out of their way over the years to try to make it up to me. Not all of them is bad," he added.

In his new memoir, "The Riot Within," King describes his life since the riots, during which he famously appealed for calm, asking "can't we all get along?"

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

View the original article here

China dissident escapes from house arrest - Los Angeles Times

Chen Guangcheng, shown in an undated photo, spent four years in prison after exposing forced sterilizations and other abuses by family-planning authorities. (Associated Press)

BEIJING — The blind human rights activist Chen Guangcheng escaped from house arrest last weekend during a rescue operation mounted by supporters, but his whereabouts and condition are now unknown, activists said Friday.

The rescue of Chen, whose plight has attracted worldwide attention, was apparently timed to coincide with U.S.-China discussions on human rights taking place this week in Beijing and the visit next week by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Some reports have suggested that Chen was seeking political asylum and might have tried to flee to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.

At least two people who were involved in the rescue from a village near Linyi in Shandong province have been arrested, and family members who were involved in a brawl with local authorities after Chen's escape have been arrested.

Hu Jia, a veteran activist, reported on Twitter that Chen was at the U.S. Embassy, but activists in the United States said that was not the case.

"The situation is very dangerous," Yang Jianli, a rights activist based in Washington, said in a telephone interview. "We don't know if Chen is in a safe place or has been perhaps arrested by authorities."

Details of the rescue operation have not been disclosed. He escaped Sunday from the house where he'd been held the last 18 months. The following day, according to activists who have spoken to family members, enraged local officials stormed into a family house in the village and a knife fight broke out.

"In the middle of the night, they climbed over the wall, kicked in the door and entered," Chen Kegui, the dissident's nephew, told activists in a recorded telephone call. Shuanghou Township leader Zhang Jian, who was in charge of enforcing the house arrest, was reportedly injured in the melee.

Chen Guangcheng, a 41-year-old lawyer blind since childhood, spent four years in prison after exposing forced sterilizations and other abuses by Chinese family-planning authorities. After his release in September 2010, he and his wife were placed under local house arrest and reportedly beaten.

Supporters worldwide have launched appeals on Chen's behalf, many using photographs of themselves wearing sunglasses in tribute to the sightless dissident. In December, actor Christian Bale tried to visit Chen's village but was roughly pushed away by plainclothes security.

"There are many dissidents in China who are facing the same scenario of house arrest, but Chen has received the most attention, and we hope if we resolve his case we can move forward on others," Yang said in the telephone interview.

Yang also said that He Peihong, a supporter who had led the campaign for Chen's release, had been taken into custody at her home in Nanjing on Friday morning.

barbara.demick@latimes.com

View the original article here

Demonstrators protest Arizona immigration law outside Supreme Court - Los Angeles Times

People pray during a protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Mark Wilson / Getty Images / April 25, 2012)

WASHINGTON -- Imitating the biblical battle of Jericho, a small group marched around the United States Supreme Court to protest Arizona’s restrictive immigration law, which was being debated inside.

With a clutch of white-robed clergy at their head, the 75 marchers moved in silence around the court building, their arrival at each corner announced by blasts from a trumpet. Organizers had hoped for a bigger crowd, but they said busloads of activists were held up in traffic.

Before the march the protesters gathered in silent prayer, their hands raised, while the lyrics of a country song played by supporters of the law, a group of 16 of who were also rallying at the front of the court, wafted over.

Arizona’s law requires police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop if there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally and makes it illegal for undocumented people to seek work. Enforcement of the law has been placed on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling. The Obama administration is challenging the law on the grounds that immigration policy cannot be handled by states.

The crowd protesting the law was a mix of white, black and Hispanic and chanted in English and Spanish. Early in the morning, as the sun was creeping out from behind the marble Supreme Court building, activists prayed and heard stories from people affected by the law.

Dulce Matuz, a 27-year-old illegal immigrant, described how she lost her real estate license when the law was passed. She said she had had a successful business and had sold about 50 houses.

“Some us went deeper into the shadows,” when the law passed, Matuz said, others stood up and said they were “undocumented and unafraid.

Time magazine recently named Matuz one of the 100 most influential people of 2012 for her work campaigning for the Dream Act, which would give legal residency to certain high school graduates who came to this country illegally.

Jim Shee, a retiree from Tucson, Arizona, who is one of the plaintiffs in the case, addressed opponents of the law, telling them he had been stopped twice by police since it was enacted on the grounds that he “looked suspicious.”

In an interview, Shee, who is 72, said he has been taken for Thai, Vietnamese, Native American and Hispanic. In fact, he said, he was born in the United States and has both Chinese and Spanish genes.

“The thing everyone has to realize is this is not just a Hispanic or Latino issue,” he said. “Anyone of color can be affected.”

Twisting that sentiment, Bob Shoemaker, a supporter of the law from northern Virginia, held a banner urging Senator Charles Schumer to drop a bill that would give amnesty to illegal Irish immigrants.

“We don’t care where you’re from, if you’re here illegally, go home,” he said. “We cannot afford to be the dumping ground of the third world.”

ian.duncan@latimes.com

Original source: Demonstrators protest Arizona immigration law outside Supreme Court

View the original article here

John Edwards trial begins Monday with opening statements - Los Angeles Times

Former presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. John Edwards arrives outside federal court in Greensboro, N.C., with his daughter Cate. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton / April 23, 2012)

GREENSBORO, N.C. -- Opening statements are set for today in the trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards, as federal prosecutors try to prove that more than $900,000 paid to Edwards by two wealthy benefactors during his run for the White House should have been reported as campaign contributions because the money flowed to his mistress to preserve Edwards' image as a "family first" candidate.

Edwards' defense team is expected to argue that the payments were gifts from wealthy friends and the money was used for expenses unrelated to the 2008 campaign. The fact that Edwards paid his mistress, campaign videographer Rielle Hunter, and helped her through the birth of a child fathered by the candidate, does not mean Edwards had to declare the gifts as campaign contributions, his lawyers say.

Edwards’ lawyers contend that the government's case requires the jury to accept a novel interpretation of a campaign finance law that “has never been the basis of criminal or even civil liability in the statute's history.’’ The defense also plans to call two former FEC commissioners to the stand, who are expected to testify that, under the law at the time the money was paid to Edwards, it was not clear that it had to be classified as a campaign contribution.

Campaign finance experts have said that the violations at issue have been previously handled as civil penalties, resulting in fines and payback requirements for the offending candidates.

“This case is significant both legally and politically,’’ said Kenneth Gross, a Washington ethics lawyer. “This is the first criminal case dealing with an excessive gift, particularly a gift not ever going to a campaign, and spent for purposes seemingly unrelated to a campaign.’’

Prosecutors contend that bills paid by two Edwards benefactors, Rachel “Bunny’’ Mellon, a banking heiress from Virginia, and the late Fred Baron, a Texas lawyer, actually were campaign donations because they were intended to protect Edwards' candidacy, which would have been derailed had the public learned of the affair.

“The charges against John Edwards in this case flow from his knowing and willful violation of the federal campaign finance laws during his campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president,’’ prosecutors said in court filings.

Justice Department prosecutors contend this is a straightforward case of broken campaign finance laws:

“A federal candidate may only accept and receive a limited amount of money from any one individual during an election cycle, and he must truthfully report the money he accepts and receives,’’ the department said in a trial brief.

The former senator from North Carolina has pleaded not guilty to six criminal counts related to campaign finance violations. If convicted of all charges, Edwards faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines. Opening arguments are scheduled to begin Monday morning and the much-anticipated trial is expected to last at least six weeks.

Critics of the prosecution, while noting that Edwards' conduct was reprehensible, argue that the government is going too far in trying to tie a candidate's personal life to complex campaign finance laws.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that generally supports the Justice Department against politicians charged with corruption, took the unusual step of criticizing prosecutors for pursuing the case. The group contends that the payments were gifts, not campaign contributions, noting that the payments continued after Edwards ended his campaign.

The group cited a 2002 Federal Election Commission decision in which six commissioners unanimously agreed that a loan made to a congressman to help defray the costs of his divorce was not a campaign contribution because the donor and the politician “had a preexisting personal relationship.” The same precedent should apply to Edwards, the group said, because the money came from friends.

“Sen. Edwards’ conduct was despicable and deserves society’s condemnation, but that alone does not provide solid grounds for a criminal case,” the group said in a statement last year.

The trial is starting about a year and a half after Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, died of cancer. Edwards carried on the affair with Hunter while his wife was terminally ill.

Edwards’ defense team has suggested that he did not know about the money from Mellon and Baron. “The government assumes that Mr. Edwards knew about the monies; the evidence will prove otherwise,’’ his attorneys said in a court filing.

It’s unclear whether Edwards, who built a lucrative career as a personal injury lawyer, will take the stand. His defense team includes prominent Washington lawyer Abbe D. Lowell.

Edwards in August 2008 admitted to the affair with Hunter after first denying it.  At the time, he denied fathering Hunter’s child. Then, in January 2010, he admitted he was the father of Frances Quinn Hunter.

A key witness is expected to be Andrew Young, a former Edwards campaign aide who falsely claimed he was the father of Hunter’s child to protect his boss. Young later wrote a tell-all book, “The Politician.’’

The defense is expected to attack Young, saying in a trial brief that the payments by Mellon and Baron covered Hunter's personal expenses “and, much more so, the Youngs' personal expenses, such as construction of their dream home, not Mr. Edwards' expenses.''

Hunter is expected to be called to the stand. Baron is dead. Mellon, who is 101, is not expected to testify, but her attorney may be called as a witness. The exhibits also include voice mails left by Baron and notes from Mellon to Edwards.

Edwards’ eldest daughter, Cate, is on the defense witness list. The case is before Judge Catherine C. Eagles, who was appointed to the bench by President Obama.

David Meeks contributed from Washington.

View the original article here