« Clay Aiken vs A1 |
| PTI plays catchup »
North Carolina is competing with the world for business, he said, and "we have to be inclusive and open."
Speaking this morning in Charlotte, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers compared Amendment 1 to Jim Crow laws.
Apr 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM in Amendment 1 | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Same-sex marriage is prohibited in NC now, so aren't we already sending the same "message to the world"? I assume we can blame the ongoing illegality of same-sex marriage and the lack of civil unions in this state for the lackluster economy, right? I also assume that we are already living under Jim Crow like laws as well.
On the other hand, his argument and all the other ones being trotted out like it could just be illogical and specious.
Apr 13, 2012 at 08:19 PM
"Same-sex marriage is prohibited in NC now..."
No shit, Spag. So, why did you and your ilk bring this to the fore? Why does Samuel Spagnola hate homosexuals?
Apr 13, 2012 at 08:44 PM
after the emancipation of slaves, southern states decided that since they couldn't own free labor -- people whom they felt zero connection with as human beings -- that the next best thing would be to make sure no white person would have to interact with black people unless it was in a menial fashion (i.e. raise my children, clean my house, sit in the back of the bus, etc.)
jim crow laws were a desperate level of discrimination, surfaced by the fear of equality being within arms reach.
spag, you have the audacity to point at the current inequality in nc's perspective on marriage, do nothing about it yourself while supporting this amendment, and through it all, blame the people opposing this amendment for not being able to rectify the original sin brought on by folks who resemble your worldview a hell of a lot more than the current opposition movement.
FEAR of EQUALITY.
rogers was spot on.
Apr 13, 2012 at 09:44 PM
First of all, I did not bring this issue to the fore.
Secondly, I don't hate homosexuals at all. I do however have a distaste for phony narratives and misinformation.
Finally, the majority of states - and not just in the South- prohibit same-sex marriage, so I suppose these "Jim Crow" type laws and their devastating affect on the economy and indeed the welfare of the nation since its founding is not limited to North Carolina.
Apr 14, 2012 at 09:06 AM
Regular readers know "Why does X hate Y" is a construct that does not mean that X truly hates Y, but I think it's worth some care when discussing this subject, because hate (or some type of visceral negative feeling) toward homosexuals is a factor in some opposition to gay rights.
I believe that Sam does not have these strong negative feelings toward individual homosexuals, and that his libertarian bent gives him pause about this amendment, and that in his heart he knows that many statements beginning with "I do not hate X, but..." tend to implode pretty quickly.
My hope is that in the privacy of the voting booth, Sam and many others will demonstrate the old adage about character being what we do when no one is watching, and vote against Amendment 1.
Ed Cone |
Apr 14, 2012 at 09:36 AM
I'm not that kind of hypocrite, Ed. I'm not going to say one thing publicly while doing something else privately.
You also seem to imply that only those with character will vote against this Amendment which isn't fair either as there are valid reasons for opposition that aren't based on hate or character flaws.
I also wouldn't be surprised if your theory also works in reverse, where some who claim to oppose the Amendment actually vote for it in the privacy of the voting booth.
Apr 14, 2012 at 09:53 AM
You have said you are conflicted on this issue. I hope you continue to think about it over the next three weeks, and decide to vote against an amendment that many professed conservatives oppose.
I don't mean to imply that anyone who votes against this amendment lacks character, just that it takes character to move beyond one's comfort zone and habitual alliances, and that I think this issue is forcing many people to do those things.
Ed Cone |
Apr 14, 2012 at 10:50 AM
i appreciate ed's middle ground approach to imploring people to pause, take a moment to think about what is right in their hearts, and shun their external connections to vote against this amendment.
where i sit, though, the lines seem pretty clear. to me, people who vote for amendment one are either blinded to the far reaching negative aspects of the amendment by follow the leader political/religious affiliations and/or sheer ignorance OR have truly nothing but hate in their hearts.
so while i don't agree with you on much, spag -- mostly because i can't seem to peel back the layers of your argumentative stuff to get to your core, moral position on issues -- i also don't find you to be an ignorant or hateful person. the same can't be said for the thousands of people who have left purely hateful comments on youtube videos, facebook threads and twitters accounts regarding not only this amendment, but "fags" in general. i'm sorry, but those people are the non-thinking, hateful, ignorant right (at least externally), and without leadership from somewhere -- their party, their church, their community -- won't ever shift their civility to a degree where they can simply allow the thought of people living their lives as they might, let alone take in and process the ills of this amendment.
this is why your position is so frustrating to me -- being that you're educated, informed, have a legal practice and are not of a religion with strict dogma (as far as i've gleaned from over the years) such as guarino. it makes it extremely hard for me to understand why you'd find this amendment to be a necessary, positive move for nc, rather than purely detrimental and one fashioned out of fear.
but you seem like you'd rather not get into the weeds of such a conversation in public, so like ed, i can only hope that you vet through those thoughts prior to getting in the voting booth.
Apr 14, 2012 at 03:50 PM
Maybe I agree with Barack Obama on the subject. Sure, he opposes Amendment One, but he also believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I can't figure out if he is blinded by follow the leader political/religious affiliations and/or sheer ignorance OR has truly nothing but hate in his heart.
I think you can express your thoughts to him by writing a letter to the White House.
But I do agree with you Sean when it comes to polygamy. Those who oppose it truly are hate-filled, ignorant, and operating out of fear. The ongoing prohibition of it is also having a devastating affect on our economy in North Carolina. Businesses really do care who people choose to sleep with when it comes to making financial decisions.
Apr 14, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Good try, Sean.
David Hoggard |
Apr 14, 2012 at 07:26 PM
Polygamy is one of the oldest conservative practices in existence anywhere in the world. At one point in time almost every conservative religious group has used polygamy as a means to grow their numbers. I find it funny that modern religious conservatives who claim to be under attack and at risk from liberals would rule out polygamy as a future means of manifesting their destiny.
Billy Jones |
Apr 14, 2012 at 07:48 PM
One day I will become enlightened like those Southerners in Ohio, Minnesota, and California.
Apr 14, 2012 at 07:50 PM
I have little enough use for the involvement of religion in laws that I'd like to see marriages available as legal unions with or without benefit of clergy. Oh, wait. And at that point, what business is it of anybody?
Bill B. |
Apr 14, 2012 at 09:02 PM
Bill wrote: "I have little enough use for the involvement of religion in laws that I'd like to see marriages available as legal unions with or without benefit of clergy. Oh, wait. And at that point, what business is it of anybody?"
'Tis typical of religious conservatives to believe that everything and everybody is their business.
Billy Jones |
Apr 15, 2012 at 09:14 AM
thanks, david. try to speak honestly and directly with spagnola and all you get back are 8th grade debate tactics which have somehow become skill enough to make a living "practicing" law.
Apr 15, 2012 at 02:45 PM
No Sean, it's just that you so easily launch into histrionics that I can't resist jabbing you.
I'm glad you graduated from the skillful deployment of F-bombs in your discussions. I'm not sure what grade level that makes you now.
Your problem with this discussion is that the very attacks you launch on your opponents presents some unpleasant facts that derail your argument.
Apr 15, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Apr 15, 2012 at 06:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.