The American Independent searched for newspaper editorials supporting the proposed amendment, but identified none as of Wednesday afternoon.

The Lexington Dispatch argued that amending the constitution was a hasty idea:

Legislators need to use restraint when amending the state constitution. Only the most serious issues should be sent to the voters for their say-so. If passing a law will accomplish the same goal, then that’s the better path to take. Even on the no felons as sheriff’s amendment, some opponents argued that didn’t merit a change in the constitution. Similar concerns can be voiced over the gay marriage amendment. The state constitution already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A law passed in 1996 doesn’t acknowledge same-sex marriages in North Carolina that occur in other states that allow it.

No one wants to see power-hungry legislators ruling by fiat and ignoring the wishes of the people. But they are also bestowed with authority to make decisions by winning elections. Voters choose candidates who they believe will best represent their interests. If they don’t like those decisions, they can vote them out of office in the next election. That’s a preferable way for democracy to operate than by too quickly rushing to change the constitution.

The Wilmington Star News said job creation should be a top priority of legislators, not banning same-sex marriage:

North Carolina’s jobless rate is 10.1 percent, but Republican lawmakers seem more interested in shoring up conservative votes for next year’s election than in putting people back to work. Among their top priorities when they reconvene Sept. 12 will be to ram through a resolution to put a gay-marriage amendment on the November 2012 ballot.

Forget that North Carolina already has a law barring gay couples from legally tying the knot, or that the law is silent on institutional discrimination based on sexual orientation. No, these so-called small-government legislators have their sights set on changing the state constitution to further a political agenda that depends on stoking the prejudices of certain blocs of conservative voters.

The Raleigh News Observer warned Democrats not to side with Republicans in voting for the amendment:

Just as clearly, hostility to gay marriage – and to gays – would be cemented in the constitution, a document better suited to expanding rights than to constricting them. It’s likely that in coming years such an amendment will seem as illogical, discriminatory and downright unfair as states’ former laws that outlawed interracial marriages.

Because a three-fifths margin is needed in both the House and Senate, a handful of Democratic votes will be needed in the House, although not in the Senate, to advance the Republican-sponsored amendment. The week of Sept. 12 would be a fine time for House Democrats to show some of that same solidarity their GOP colleagues are known for. They should vote no, and they should be joined by some of the more libertarian-minded Republicans, who surely must have doubts about imposing the state constitution between two consenting unrelated adults who wish to commit to that most conservative of social institutions, marriage.

The Greenville Daily Reflector said that with clean up from Hurricane Irene still underway, now is not the time for an amendment vote:

Neighbors helping one another, which such events represent, are the first order of assistance. However, Irene promises to exact a heavy toll on municipal and county budgets. The storm damaged 2,000 homes in Pitt County and cut power to tens of thousands, forcing Greenville Utilities to press workers into extra service. Debris removal is costly to government as well as individuals.

It is reasonable to expect state and federal assistance in this case. Sadly, Republican lawmakers in Raleigh seem more worried about a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage than helping those in need along the coast. And some in Washington believe the federal government should not help storm victims unless the spending can be offset with cuts.

The Charlotte Observer called the amendment a roadblock that would harm business in the state:

We think such an amendment is wrong for North Carolina. It would contribute to a climate of hostility toward homosexuals, and it also could be bad for business. Recent research by UNC School of Law professor Victor B. Flatt concluded that a gay marriage amendment could cause businesses to see our state as inhospitable to their gay employees while undermining efforts to attract new talent to their companies.

Those business leaders should speak up, along with faith leaders and others who can remind legislators that North Carolina already has a law that bans gay marriage – and that change is coming. Laws can and should evolve as citizens reconsider their values and the rules that codify them. A constitutional amendment would be a wasteful, and ill-timed, roadblock.

The Winston-Salem Journal called the push for an amendment by Republicans and some Democrats “useless”:

Republicans took control of the legislature this year for the first time in more than 100 years after a strong campaign based on creating jobs.

But this legislature has disappointed on that promise. Instead, it has been focused on installing a conservative social agenda.

The latest evidence that jobs are a lower priority is the movement for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage here — a meaningless, needless and useless undertaking.

The Shelby Star wrote that government should get out of the marriage business:

The problem with a ban on same-sex marriage is that government is involved in marriage at all. Why should a commitment between two people require a government license? In effect, the license is the government giving persons permission to marry.

Eliminating any government definition of marriage would not require those with a moral objection to same-sex marriage to recognize or approve of it. Companies would not be forced to provide benefits to same-sex couples but could decide what is in the company’s best interest. Most importantly, marriage rights for all couples would be better protected if the rights of some individuals are not expressly forbidden.

Rather than infringing on the rights of some, government should remove itself from defining marriage and recognize personal commitments as a contract between two people. Leave “marriage” to be defined by individuals and their houses of worship based on moral beliefs.

Big deal, you may say. It’s no surprise that the liberal media would support its favorite son. However, as the Tribune notes in its editorial, this marks the first time in the newspaper’s history that it has endorsed a Democrat for the nation’s highest office. The Los Angeles Times has not endorsed a candidate in the presidential race since 1972, and it has never supported a Democrat before either.

The four newspapers all pointed to Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as a key reason for endorsing Obama. McCain has largely ignored or brushed aside questions about Palin’s lack of experience — and by extension, his judgment. The Los Angeles Times was the most scathing:

Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that’s the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain’s judgment.

Of course, it is highly debatable how much influence a newspaper’s presidential endorsement has on its readers, just as a local politician’s support may not hold much sway over constituents. But endorsement trends could be a good indicator of the national mood. According to Editor and Publisher, Obama has picked up 51 newspaper endorsements, to 16 for McCain — a margin of more than three to one.

In contrast, John Kerry barely edged George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004, by about 220 to 205.

Although the majority of newspapers didn’t pick the winning candidate in 2004, the McCain campaign is undoubtedly hoping that the size of this year’s majority isn’t a sign of things to come.

You can find a full list of current newspaper endorsements here.