A major Amendment One foe has raised more money than the big group supporting the terrible amendment, got more of its funds from individual donors, and has more money left for a final push against the attempt to write bad things into the constitution of this state.

Please vote against Amendment One.

Comments

[Spag]

What does Amendment One have to do with the separation of church and state or religious liberty?

[prell]

"What does Amendment One have to do with the separation of church and state or religious liberty?"

It was brought forth by evangelical religious zealots. Why do you embrace hate and bigotry? Why do you love Amendment One?

[bubba]

"What does Amendment One have to do with the separation of church and state or religious liberty?"

Oh, but everyone knows Amendment One is just an issue pushed by those eeeeeeeeeeevil Christian fundamentalists to force their beliefs on everyone!

Next, they'll introduce a bill to make Christianity the official religion of North Carolina, and no one will be able to vote, drive a car, get married, or use state funded programs without showing a Certificate of Christian confirmation or baptism!

[Spag]

I posted my last comment on the wrong thread here, but I have to ask how long same-sex marriage has been illegal in NC and other states and who made it that way? I also have to ask why same-sex marriages aren't recognized in China, India, Japan, and the parts of Africa that aren't Judeo-Christian? Did the non Judeo-Christian native Americans have same-sex marriage?

Is the vast majority of the world imposing their multitude of religions on everyone else?

[Spag]

I also have never said that I love Amendment One, but I definitely hate phony narratives.

It is becoming clear that those who oppose Amendment One do not want to have an honest debate about the complex issues involved and are acting in bad faith. That is definitely having an affect on how I will cast my as yet undecided vote.

[Ed Cone]

Here is the article linked in the relevant thread.

It's by Dr. H. Stephen Shoemaker, senior minister at Charlotte's Myers Park Baptist Church, who says, "I write as a Baptist minister to defend something dear: the separation of church and state and religious liberty."

[prell]

"Did the non Judeo-Christian native Americans have same-sex marriage?"

In fact, some tribes did as a matter of socioeconomic necessity. You should read some of Dr. Theda Perdue's scholarship on the subject. I believe her husband Dr. Michael Green has also written on this as it pertains to the Creeks. Perdue specializes in Cherokee history. Oftentimes a male would take on the role of a female and enter into marriage with a male member of the tribe. There was nothing sexual about it. It was done because there weren't enough single females.

You kinda hit the nail on the head here, Spag. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in NC. Why was this amendment necessary, esp. given the fact that the House Speaker has already stated that the amendment will be repealed? Interesting that the top aide to said speaker is also an adulterer. I feel sorry for his children.

[Ed Cone]

The amendment goes far beyond current law, as it would make gay marriage and civil unions unconstitutional.

That part about civil unions alone should give a lot of North Carolinians reason to vote against this amendment.

[Spag]

Now you're changing the subject Prell by going back to the necessity of the law in light of current statute. What does that have to do with religion? Also if we already have the law that does the same thing then what are you so upset about?

Ed, your comment about civil unions has nothing to do with religion and infringements on religious liberty either, does it?
It's nearly impossible to discuss this issue substantively with a lot of you because every time you don't have an answer for something that questions a prior assertion, you simply conflate or start talking about something else. It certainly highlights the weaknesses of the propaganda being advanced. Throw a lot of slop against the wall and hope something sticks. Yeah, those are the people I trust and want to side with.

The lack of answers illustrates just how much more there is to this discussion that is being avoided. I may just cast my vote and let the Supreme Court sort it out somewhere down the road.

[prell]

Spag, you asked about "gay marriage" and Native Americans, and I responded. You're the one who brought up religion and we now know that you did so because you got your bearings wrong. The thread you're looking for is below this one.

"Also if we already have the law that does the same thing then what are you so upset about?"

Right. There's already a law so why was this amendment necessary? The Republicans won back the legislature after being irrelevant and living in the shadows for over a century and THIS was one of their top priorities? ALL in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the 1930s? All the while, one of the primary proponents of this amendment admits that it's not going to be around for long? So, why are we even having this discussion?

You're not fooling anyone, Spag. You're for the amendment and there's nothing wrong with that. You're only fooling yourself.

[bubba]

"The Republicans won back the legislature after being irrelevant and living in the shadows for over a century and THIS was one of their top priorities?"

Wht are the chances of prell whining about the approval of Amendment One, and joining the loud, constant clamoring chorus of those who insist a court somewhere overturn it?

Pretty good, I'd say. And the absurd rhetoric used in the third graph of his previous post will suddenly be deemed not important by hysteric "progressives" throughout the state when confronted with the record.

[prell]

"Wht are the chances of prell whining about the approval of Amendment One, and joining the loud, constant clamoring chorus of those who insist a court somewhere overturn it?"

bubba: A lot less likely than all the bitching and whining you did after you were outed a few years back. Anyways, care to opine or provide something of relevance instead of dishing out your tired, usual old shtick?

[Bill Bush]

Let me be completely clear: Amendment One is a bigoted dogwhistle, nothing more. The implications of its existence and its level of admittedly pointless support say something both sad and disgusting about our society's self-righteous, condemnatory aspects. However, I do not think we are in danger of having Christianity declared our state religion. It looks to me as though the hypocrites could vote it down quite effortlessly.

The Dosset song was sung Sunday on the Plaza stage at Merlefest, to a tiny crowd but with great courage.

[Andrew Brod]

I'm glad Spag's going to vote for the amendment. That is definitely having an effect on how I will cast my vote.

What's that, you say? That's a stupid way to decide a vote?

You're right.

[Ed Cone]

A major pro-Amendment site says, among other things, "Same-sex “marriage” hurts everyone," which strikes me as both untrue and inflammatory.

Seems that a voter who was swayed by hype could plenty to dislike on that side.

Best to just vote on the merits as you see them.

Dr. Shoemaker's column raised some good points the long American struggle between particular religious views and broader liberties. The historic role of religious people, including Baptists, in supporting broader liberties is often overlooked by people who favor imposing particular religious views.

[Sean]

it's beyond humorous that spag feels that anyone gives a shit about his "swing" vote -- particularly that it might change if only we discussed the issue as he would want it discussed.

talk about ego.

[Ed Cone]

In fairness, I did ask Sam some time back how he would vote.

I was hoping for some insight into the libertarian vs social conservative subtext of this vote.

That topic is still of interest to me, even if the particular attempt at addressing it has failed.

[Spag]

My belief is that this issue cannot be properly debated until the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue of same-sex marriage as a right. After such time, there will likely be a DIFFERENT debate.

Hence, I can go either way on A1 at the moment because I don't think it really decides anything. That said, the way that some people are carrying on now doesn't bode well for the future prospects of that post SCOTUS debate. That's why the way they are behaving now is having an influence on the way I vote on A1.

The real questions aren't being answered honestly, and if there is no prospect that they will be in the future then there is no reason to change the status quo. "Just because" is not sufficient.

Note also that the "religious liberty" theme hasn't been answered. More slop thrown against the wall.

Ed, the libertarian vs. social conservative subtext from my perspective is very much tied into what I just wrote.

[Roch]

"Just because," is your straw man.

I cannot find words to express my repulsion at you approaching a decision on this matter based on your discomfort with people "carrying on." You would make a terrible judge.

[Bill Bush]

The day I hand my moral vision over to John Roberts will be the day .... there is no such day. I have to turn this machine off for a while, now.

[Ed Cone]

The amendment does decide some important things. It makes a powerful statement about the ways North Carolina treats and views its citizens. And whatever might happen at some indefinite point via SCOTUS action, the real-time impact on real people will be, well, real.

The religious liberty argument was raised and discussed by Dr. Shoemaker, and I tried to summarize a bit of it here, so I'm not sure what Sam means when he says it hasn't been addressed, much less why he calls a Baptist preacher's views on his faith and its history "slop."

If the alleged rhetorical excesses of one side matter more to a voter than those of the other side, then the voter probably was going to vote for the other side all along.

[Spag]

You miss the point again. If the only reason to oppose A1 is based on lies then why should I support it ?

The truth is that conservative opposition to A1 is actually more cogent. But we all know that A1 isn't the end of the debate. At some point we may have to have a discussion on the real core implications of the issue itself. If distortion is again all you have, then tough questions won't be answered. So yes, how people act now influences how I expect them to act in the future. That's just common sense.

[Ed Cone]

The points Sam calls "lies" are far from the only reasons to oppose the amendment -- they're not even the only reasons cited in my last comment. Personally, I can't think of an argument more cogent than human rights and civil rights.

And of course, not everyone agrees that the facts Sam disputes are lies, or even inaccurate.

Also, rhetorical excesses can be found on the pro-amendment side, so choosing that as the dealbreaker doesn't make much sense.

This thread is going in circles, so barring fresh input, my comments have been made.

[Andrew Brod]

Spag claims victory in 3, 2, 1...

[Spag]

"I can't think of an argument more cogent than human rights and civil rights."

Some people are making that argument. But as a matter of law, it hasn't been determined whether that right exists and to the EXTENT that it exists with regard to state recognition of marriage. These are the tough questions that aren't being answered now. Maybe it's because in the absence of a court decision on the issue, they really can't. The whole "rights" debate is a threshold question and ultimately the fate of this issue will lay in the aftermath of how that is resolved.

Ed, you linked to a quote about how this Amendment affects "religious liberty" or causes interference between church and state, but offered no analysis whatsoever as to how that it so. You thought the link was important, so perhaps you can explain the argument. Failing to have an answer is not "going in circles", it's dodging the question.

That said, my comments have been made as well.

[Ged]

I cannot abide that this state may infringe on the rights of its citizens just so a few aging religious conservatives can feel a bit more secure in their heterosexual beds at night. Barring same-sex couples from entering into a legal union is just plain wrong. Amendment One is bad for North Carolina and the nation as a whole. I seriously hope it is defeated.

[bubba]

"I cannot abide that this state may infringe on the rights of its citizens just so a few aging religious conservatives can feel a bit more secure in their heterosexual beds at night."

(Sigh)

"Barring same-sex couples from entering into a legal union is just plain wrong."

Wrong. Read what A1 says.

"I seriously hope it is defeated."

Have you gotten over your disappointment about the Easter Bunny?

[Sean]

bubba :: slinging hate on edcone.com since 2005.

[Fec]

The thing about Bubba which is so endearing is that in all that time, as I also date to 2005, he's never staked out a piece of ideological ground and defended effectively. He's a short man with a dull sword.

[Andrew Brod]

Dave Weigel thinks the numbers still point to the amendment passing.

Interesting about the surge in early voting, though.

[Spag]

Weigel seems to think that a lot of black people are bigoted, right wing conservative Christian fundamentalists imposing their religious views on others.

[bubba]

"....he's never staked out a piece of ideological ground and defended effectively."

Sorry.

I'm not responsible for your comprehension disabilities, which have nothing to do with your sobriety problems, and everything to do with your several personality disorders.

[bubba]

"bubba :: slinging hate on edcone.com since 2005."

The Drama Queen squeaks speaks.......

[Billy Jones]

"bubba :: slinging hate on edcone.com since 2005."

Actually, I think it's been longer...

[Sean]

actually, spag, unless i'm reading weigel wrong, his take sounds worse:

[...] "The liberal's best hope, as Sargent points out, is that voters learn the side effects of the ban and turn against it, like they did with Mississippi's personhood initiative. But is a state with a sizable black electorate really the place to expect this?"

what is he insinuating? that black people can't learn or be swayed by facts? if he qualified that statement with "a sizable conservative, religious black electorate" it'd be more understandable.

[Ged]

For the factually challenged, like Bubba, here is the text of Amendment 1 as it appears on the NC ballot:

"Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

Sounds pretty barring to me.

[bubba]

"Sounds pretty barring to me."

You left out a part, son. Go back and read for comprehension.

[Sean]

sorry, "pops," but unlike you, i've voted and that's *exactly* the language found on the ballot.

[Ged]

Yes, so did I sean. It is correct.

[Ged]

The text of Amendment 1 as it appears on the actual electronic ballot.

[bubba]

"....that's *exactly* the language found on the ballot."

I didn't say it wasn't, little buddy. Go back and read for comprehension.

When the amendment passes, what is the exact language that will appear under article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution? Here's a hint: It will appear as Section 6.

That's what you and your alternately clued little friend don't know, or don't understand, and conveniently leave out when discussing the amendment.

[Thomas]

Someone once told me it was possible to have a discussion without insulting the other party. What a concept.

[bubba]

"Someone once told me it was possible to have a discussion without insulting the other party. What a concept."

Not when you're dealing with simple minded people like Ged and Seanie.......

[Ed Cone]

It is possible to discuss without insulting people, or at least without only insulting people. You just have to try. I need commenters to try. Thanks.

[Sean]

people are going to vote on this amendment based on the language in the ballot booth, not what will appear in the constitution afterwards.

if the legislators were honest, the language would've read something like:

"Constitutional amendment to provide that gay marriage is explicitly outlawed, as well as civil unions for either same sex or heterosexual couples. local government employed folk who fall under any of these categories, or any domestic partnership other than marriage between a man and a woman, will lose their health benefits as soon as this amendment is passed. to be clear, this constitutional amendment is to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

there's no way the republican legislature wanted to provide that much context to the implicit affects of voting for the current amendment.

[identity thief]

"It is possible to discuss without insulting people, or at least without only insulting people. You just have to try. I need commenters to try. Thanks."

It never fails to amuse as to when and where the host inserts his pleas for civility and respectful disagreement free of "personal invective". Here is a very incomplete list of previous comments on this very same topic which apparently didn't quite hit the bar:

Why do you embrace hate and bigotry?
Posted by: prell | Apr 30, 2012 at 06:01 PM

I'm glad Spag's going to vote for the amendment. That is definitely having an effect on how I will cast my vote.
What's that, you say? That's a stupid way to decide a vote?
You're right.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | Apr 30, 2012 at 09:20 PM

it's beyond humorous that spag feels that anyone gives a shit about his "swing" vote --
Posted by: Sean | May 01, 2012 at 01:34 AM

I cannot find words to express my repulsion at you approaching a decision on this matter based on your discomfort with people "carrying on." You would make a terrible judge.
Posted by: Roch | May 01, 2012 at 09:10 AM

Wait, what? YOU accusing someone else of stereotyping? Your blog is a treasure trove of YOU stereotyping others. It's only convenient if it fits your small, ignorant, and pathetic worldview.
Posted by: prell | Apr 30, 2012 at 09:11 PM

Joe has stated on his blog that he is no fan of the "Church of England." They are the worst church. This was sometime before the New Year. Remember, he is in the minority. He is a member of "The Remnants" (Whatever the fuck that insane shit means.).
Posted by: prell | Apr 30, 2012 at 10:19 PM

The Evil Dr. Guarino is merely applying the litmus test of fascism.
Posted by: Fec | Apr 30, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Bullshit.
Posted by: Fec | Apr 30, 2012 at 10:38 PM

He's a monster.
Posted by: Fec | Apr 30, 2012 at 11:12 PM

"He's a monster."
That's an understatement.
Posted by: prell | Apr 30, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Everything you espouse is a contradiction. Get a therapist.
Posted by: Billy Jones | May 01, 2012 at 08:21 AM

holy shit you are annoying.
Posted by: Sean | Apr 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I can conclude that you're a fascist pig.
Posted by: Fec | Apr 23, 2012 at 09:51 PM

dr. g., please come down from your cross. seriously. you sound ridiculous.
Posted by: Sean | Apr 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM

he handled his business like a sociopath -- cold, emotionless, guilt free while gutting anything humane outside of his purview.
Posted by: Sean | Apr 18, 2012 at 10:58 PM

I always liked the way Guarino handles his business.
Spoken like a closet bigot, racist, misogynist, hypocrite and coward.
Posted by: Fec | Apr 18, 2012 at 11:23 PM

[Sean]

what are you, a nanny of all things proper? fuck off and add this comment to that list.

[prell]

Dear Wayne,

Why are you for/against Amendment One?

Most sincere regards,
Fletcher

[Ed Cone]

I mostly let people say what they will.

I do try to discourage people from showing up just to say something nasty, with nothing else to contribute to the thread, and no apparent dog in the fight except for some long-nursed grudges. I would prefer that the people who do add substance stick to substance, but I'm not a nanny.

In some cases, we're talking years of the same behavior. The sense of entitlement people feel is pretty remarkable.

[Bill Bush]

“In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said: "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter-bitter," he answered;
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart.”

by Stephen Crane

Sometimes it rocks to be an English major!