She claims it’s because the amendment will cost North Carolina jobs. But she doesn’t elaborate as to how.

Maybe because it will turn away gay couples? Except, gay marriage is already prohibited in the state. The amendment would simply reinforce current legal standing. It’s not a new proposal.

Then she says:

 But I’m going to vote against the amendment because I cannot in good conscience look an unemployed man or woman in the eye and tell them that this amendment is more important than finding them a job.

Huh? I must be missing something. How would a constitutional reinforcement of current legal standing interfere with finding someone a job? Texas has a constitutional ban on gay marriage, too. They’re creating jobs like Michael Moore creates demand for cheeseburgers.