« As others see us |
| Santorum »
Apr 10, 2012 at 02:14 PM in Amendment 1 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef0168e9e71137970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Protest video:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I have to ask where was this movement when the Democrats controlled the legislature for the past 100 years and the current statute banning same-sex marriage was/is on the books ?
If Amendment One fails, then nothing changes legally.
It's also interesting to see so much time spent on opposition to Amendment One with one of the common arguments being "we have more important issues to deal with". That theme even makes an appearance in the video.
That old "there are so many other important issues" argument is one of the most intellectually dishonest of them all but is reliably trotted out when conservatives are trying to influence social policy, but disappears when liberals are trying to influence social policy, such as attempts to legalize same-sex marriage. I mean why should we worry about defeating Amendment One or legalizing same-sex marriage when "there are so many other important issues" to deal with ?
Apr 10, 2012 at 03:35 PM
"Shouldn't have been a priority" is not the same thing as "oh, well, might as well just let it pass without a fight."
Opponents didn't choose this battle, but that doesn't mean they can or should just ignore it.
I'm impressed by the breadth of opposition to this bad amendment, which clearly transcends party lines and is not easily crammed into a simple liberal/conservative schematic.
Ed Cone |
Apr 10, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Even more deliberate dishonesty from Spag.
There was no need for this movement because previous legislatures didn't try to write this type of language into the constitution.
As everyone can see by looking in the NC General Statutes, Amendment One is considerably different than existing state statute.
That is precisely why some people -- who could be called conservatives in the traditional sense of the word -- oppose altering the constitution.
That doesn't even get to using undefined terms to alter the constitution, which true conservatives should abhor.
So, here we are. Radical alterations to the constitution somehow confusing Spag because he just doesn't understand that this radical language hasn't been placed on the ballot before.
Apr 10, 2012 at 05:32 PM
It's a bridge too far. I mean, c'mon man.
Firefox here, IE & Safari not working
Apr 10, 2012 at 05:34 PM
Let us never forget these words typed from Guarino's nimble, Gargamel-like willowy fingers at his blog... He's the unofficial spokesman for this amendment:
"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." - Joe Guarino, 2/10/2012 @ 6:12 am.
That's the mindset and thought process of the pro-amendment folks, the paranoid homophobes (aka, closet homosexuals). The great "family expert" Glenn Stanton would probably distance himself from such words. Shame.
Apr 10, 2012 at 07:15 PM
Well done Greensboro! Interesting choice of Characters... but well done!
Eric Robert |
Apr 10, 2012 at 08:23 PM
"So, here we are. Radical alterations to the constitution somehow confusing Spag because he just doesn't understand that this radical language hasn't been placed on the ballot before."
So what you're saying is that this is an important issue as opposed to being one of those things that is a waste of time because we have so many other important issues.
Ed writes: "Shouldn't have been a priority" is not the same thing as "oh, well, might as well just let it pass without a fight."
That explains the mindset of those who oppose same-sex marriage as well. They see a movement and aren't going to let it pass without a fight, either.
If there wasn't a movement to legalize same-sex marriage, we wouldn't be talking about this Amendment because it wouldn't exist. Evidently some people believe that legalizing same-sex marriage is an important issue worth spending time on.
My point as it often is relates to the narrative and how the debate is framed. The dishonesty isn't coming from Spag. In this instance, it's coming from those who trot out the "we have so many more issues we should be dealing with other than same-sex marriage" even as they devote a significant amount of time to that very issue themselves.
Also the catch phrase "More dishonesty from Spag" is actually quite dishonest itself. I spend a considerable amount of time explaining my arguments. Disagreeing with my analysis is one thing; accusing me of not telling the truth is quite another especially if you aren't going to cite an example.
We don't have same sex marriage now and we don't have civil unions. Thus if the Amendment passes, nothing changes but the opportunity to legalize either by statute. That is a true statement. If there are far more important issues to spend our time on, then I don't expect much of a movement to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions if the Amendment fails, right ? Or just maybe it is a very worthwhile issue to spend time on which is why the opposition is so mobilized- because they hope to do just that in the future.
Action/Reaction. That's politics.
Apr 10, 2012 at 09:21 PM
thanks for the monologue on life. very informative.
Apr 10, 2012 at 09:31 PM
"My point as it often is relates to the narrative and how the debate is framed."
Yawn. If this is such a pointless amendment, why are you expending so much effort to argue for it (or against opposing it)?
If there is dishonesty here, it's the conservative contention that Amendment 1 affects same-sex couples only.
But even if we focus on same-sex unions exclusively, there's great meaning in passing or rejecting Amendment 1. It's not the trivial matter Spag wants us to believe it is. Rejecting the amendment means it'll be easier to reverse the statute in a few years. Spag wants to frame this in terms of what amendment opponents will do in the short run (are you gonna turn around and try to undo our state DOMA?, are you?, huh?, huh?), but this is about the longer haul.
As even Thom Tillis acknowledges, demographics are working against the view that same-sex unions shouldn't be recognized under the law. Amendment supporters understand this and want to lock this in constitutionally to raise the hurdles for that eventual statutory reversal. Supporting Amendment 1 is, in that sense, anti-democratic. That fact by itself isn't damning, because constitutions provisions are often undemocratic. But it doesn't make it any less true of Amendment 1.
There are clear and substantive reasons for each side's position. Minimizing them misses the point. This is important.
Andrew Brod |
Apr 11, 2012 at 07:32 AM
I saw Ms. Dossett perform this live last night. First time I've seen her perform. A very talented and entertaining lady.
Apr 11, 2012 at 08:02 AM
Let's all agree that liberals suck, including the conservatives who are fighting this amendment.
Now, back to fighting the amendment.
Ed Cone |
Apr 11, 2012 at 08:37 AM
"If this is such a pointless amendment, why are you expending so much effort to argue for it (or against opposing it)?"
Did I ever make that argument or did I point out the dishonesty of others making that argument (against it) ?
"If there is dishonesty here, it's the conservative contention that Amendment 1 affects same-sex couples only."
Please cite an example.
"Supporting Amendment 1 is, in that sense, anti-democratic."
It can be repealed by the democratic process in the same way that it can be adopted. Legislating from the bench is even more anti-democratic and can only be stopped by amending the constitution. As I wrote before, every action has a reaction. Amendment One is a reaction.
"There are clear and substantive reasons for each side's position. Minimizing them misses the point. This is important."
Exactly what my argument is. Those who trot out the old "why are we doing this when there are so many other important issues" are being dishonest.
I agree with your last sentence, Ed. Let's fight or support the Amendment, but let's do it on the merits and not on scare tactics, misinformation, and phony narratives. My own position on this subject is conflicted to a degree as I have written before. For others on each side, it's more black and white.
Apr 11, 2012 at 09:58 AM
Everyone likes to portray his or her side as the reactive one. "We wouldn't have to do X if the other side hadn't done Y."
Conservatives see Amendment 1 as a reaction. Liberals see it as the action and the campaign against it as the reaction.
Andrew Brod |
Apr 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM
In the narrow context, Amendment 1 is the action, and it is indeed being taken at a time when there seem to be more pressing issues at hand.
In a broader context, Amendment 1 is a reaction to changes in culture and law.
I see those changes as positive, and a continuation of positive changes over the course of American history. Which is to say, not all actions are bad, and starting something good is, well, good.
But even some people who are less enthusiastic about those changes believe this amendment is not a good thing. I believe the term they might use for this amendment would be "overreaction."
Ed Cone |
Apr 11, 2012 at 11:33 AM
"In the narrow context, Amendment 1 is the action, and it is indeed being taken at a time when there seem to be more pressing issues at hand."
So you must also favor halting any movements to legalize same-sex marriage while we attempt to deal with those pressing issues, right ?
Apr 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Nah, that horse left the barn a long time ago. People follow their own hearts and schedules. I'm just acknowledging your argument that some people say this is not a timely matter, although that doesn't strike me as especially important at this point.
In the narrow context of NC politics, there seemed to be no hurry discuss this. For whatever reasons, the folks running the show decided to make it an issue now.
I'm interested in defeating this bad amendment. And I'm more interested in your own conflicted position on it than I am in purity tests and sidebar conversations.
Ed Cone |
Apr 11, 2012 at 12:01 PM
"In the narrow context of NC politics, there seemed to be no hurry discuss this."
I would actually disagree considering movements across the nation as well as some recent court cases here in North Carolina related to child custody and adoptions by same-sex parents. The issue is being pushed in ways that may not be obvious to those who aren't following the issue(s). To the people who make things happen, it was a growing issue before the Amendment.
Arguing that a wholesale redefinition of marriage is not really that important is at odds with the facts considering the mobilization of both sides.
Apr 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM
He didn't argue that.
Andrew Brod |
Apr 11, 2012 at 12:52 PM
The organized pushback against this amendment is what seems to be really riling those who are pushing for it. After all, could it put lie to the notion of the "majority" being citizens against same sex unions of any type? Or is it just a futile effort to beat back the sentiments of the true "majority" who sit in their homes and clutch their steel belted radials until they lean out the window and say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"
One world grows smaller while another world is making every attempt to become larger.
Apr 11, 2012 at 01:29 PM
Obviously it's of great importance now, with the vote on a far-reaching constitutional amendment less than a month away.
Good to see some prominent gay-marriage opponents coming out against the amendment today.
Ed Cone |
Apr 11, 2012 at 01:32 PM
And now we have the rock/punk version.
Apr 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.