I didn't go looking for Skip Stam to try to gay-marry him, but he came looking for me anyway.

Reader Patrick understands the political strategy behind my emphasis on civil unions and the messy consequences of North Carolina's proposed gay marriage amendment, but he doesn't like having to play that game.

Comments

[Account Deleted]

That comment was very moving on a true human level. I had thought about commenting on it yesterday but decided not to. I am glad you brought it out here.

[Bill Yaner]

Me too on both points. Personal opens up that door.

[Prell_Shampoo_Fan]

The same folks who have been pushing this amendment are the ones who are also crying out and screaming for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTY. Oh the ironing...

Also, we must never forget the mindset of the Uber-Orthodox Christian crowd who've brought this amendment to the forefront of their hate-driven agenda:

"Actually, I think the pro-gay marriage forces are the bigots, because they are the ones hardened in an unreasonable position. They are the ones seeking to impose an unacceptable vision on the rest of society. They are the forces of darkness. They are the ones trying to achieve the cultural normalization of homosexuality. They are the ones trying to destroy the traditional concept of marriage and the family. Those are some of the same parties who have supported using the courts and changes in the law and in popular culture to spur the dissolution of the family for a period of upwards of 60-70 years." - Dr. Joseph A. Guarino (Joe Guarino, Guarino, Dr. Guarino, etc.).

[HJ]

Given that Amendment One is bad on so many levels, in my overwhelmingly conservative GOP precinct would a yard sign saying Vote No be helpful or harmful?

[Prell_Shampoo_Fan]

HJ - It would probably be helpful. Be sure to invest in some video security equipment so you can catch vandals in the act. There's a guy by the name of Barrett Riddleberger who knows all about video/film. It's been one of his lifelong passions. He goes by "Bret" these days, but there's a story behind that too long to rehash in this thread. Best of luck!

[designation]

@HJ; Amendment One is NOT conservative in any sense of the word.

Any true conservative should be eager to vote against a radical, reckless constitutional amendment.

Putting an undefined term like "domestic legal union" into the constitution is anything but conservative.

Put that sign up, and gladly remind any self-identified conservative that the conservative position is to vote against Amendment One.

[Fec]

The authoritarians behind this referendum are neither Christian nor conservative. Please don't continue to let them control the conservative agenda.

[justcorbly]

When did *Christian* become a term applied *only* to born-again fundamentalists? The faith is done a disservice by that because people are now equating it with bigotry and repression.

When did religious conservatives decide that they will be awash in sin if they do not force other people to behave as they wish?

If someone's religious beliefs prevent them from living comfortably in a free and democratic society, perhaps they should separate themselves from that society, following the example of the Amish and Mennonite. That would be preferable to woking to eliminate the "free" and "democratic" part of that phrase.

Remember, people who are prepared to use the force of government to tell you who you can and cannot marry will also be prepared to tell you where you can and cannot live, where you can and cannot shop, where you can and cannot enjoy a dinner out, etc., etc., etc.

Me? I think most of the support for this amendment comes from people using religion as a convenient cover for their own inability to accept homosexuality. It's directly analagous to the same phenomenon 50 years ago re: civil rights.