Skip

Straight guy for gay marriage
September 16, 2011 2:42 PM   Subscribe

Why A Heterosexual, Married, North Carolinian Father Of Three Cares About LGBT Equality. Married father of three boys writes eloquently about the reasons why he opposes the proposed constitutional amendment banning any legal relationship recognition for same-sex couples. The amendment goes before voters in May primary election, when heavy Republican turnout is expected. Meanwhile Senator Goolsby says that it is all about "empowering voters" "so no activist judge is able to decide on his or her own what marriage is." [original]
posted by Blazecock Pileon (38 comments total) 22 users marked this as a favorite

 
Oh God, they changed the Matrix. Run, MeFites, run!
posted by Slackermagee at 2:44 PM on September 16, 2011 [5 favorites]


Mob rule, the tyranny of the majority, and abdicating your responsibilities as an elected official are also, strictly speaking, about "empowering voters". Empowering voters isn't a laudable goal or even all that good an idea per se.
posted by mhoye at 2:47 PM on September 16, 2011 [3 favorites]


One interesting thing is, they're choosing to do this as part of the primary election, and not the actual November 2012 election. It could have much more influence over the results if it were part of the general election, but as part of the primary, it will only influence the primaries.

This is actually not a bad thing.

(That the bigoted fuckers are even voting on it is terrible.)
posted by hippybear at 2:52 PM on September 16, 2011


Actually hippybear, the primaries are going to be all about the Republicans, whereas there won't be one for Obama. So yeah, unless we moral NCians get our asses out to vote against this bill, we're screwed.
posted by Stewriffic at 3:02 PM on September 16, 2011 [5 favorites]


Whew.. I so don't like the direction the states are heading, no abortion rights, no gay marriage, increased religious right, etc.

I know the pendulum, once it has swung in one direction, inevitably will swing back in the other direction, (For example: the early 1800's was much more liberal than the late 1800's) but damn living through the victorian redux is gunna be unpleasant.
posted by Gwynarra at 3:02 PM on September 16, 2011 [4 favorites]


Sometimes (oftentimes?) American politics can be so depressing.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:02 PM on September 16, 2011 [2 favorites]


My previous comment...
posted by Thorzdad at 3:03 PM on September 16, 2011


Stewriffic: yes... but pulling a bunch of queer-haters out of their houses to vote will likely influence the primary results, which could have interesting national implications, and won't have nearly as much impact on the general election except for helping determine who is running against Obama.
posted by hippybear at 3:04 PM on September 16, 2011


Also, EqualityNC is leading the charge against this bigoted, hateful legislation. Throw a few bucks their way to help them! They have a great new organizer who is kicking butt, but they need all the help they can get. I did.
posted by Stewriffic at 3:05 PM on September 16, 2011 [3 favorites]


Except the only interesting primaries that day in NC are presidential and gubernatorial, and with Democrats up for re-election in both positions, it's really a Republican primary, so I would guess that more Republicans than Democrats will be coming out to vote that day. Democrats and liberals who are strongly opposed to the amendement will likely come out and vote, but I worry that those who are less passionate but would vote against it aren't going to get out to the polls.
posted by radiomayonnaise at 3:06 PM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


Right, but this amendment vote is as important to me (if not more than) the national implications, I guess.
posted by Stewriffic at 3:06 PM on September 16, 2011


Far too reasonable and logical.

It's interesting that most of the people who support the ban on same-sex marriage also seem to be interested in less government intrusion.

The issue has nothing to do with government intrustion.

The truth is that it's not socially acceptable to beat up LGBTs anymore, so the Christians need other ways to punish them. Restricting citizenship rights is one.

A better argument might be to label such efforts "Christian Sharia law," cuz that's what it is.

One interesting thing is, they're choosing to do this as part of the primary election, and not the actual November 2012 election. It could have much more influence over the results if it were part of the general election, but as part of the primary, it will only influence the primaries.

I don't think that is true, or I don't understand what you are saying. It seems that if the referendum passes in May, the amendment is added to the state constitution. Once again, lack of Democrat party unity dooms us all. If they had all voted against, the issue wouldn't even go to the polls. I don't even know what that fucking party is for except to provide a toothless foil for the GOP.

The GOP planned this vote for the primary election because there will be huge GOP turnout because of the presidential race. The Dems are trying to cut out that tactic in California but will probably be unsuccessful, as they usually are at everything.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:06 PM on September 16, 2011 [7 favorites]


Another interesting twist to this story in NC is that Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook, donated $10 per "like" of Equality NC's page up to $10K. They got that many likes in a few hours, and then gained tens of thousands more. They started at 6750 likes, and as of this minute have 40,061.
posted by Stewriffic at 3:10 PM on September 16, 2011


Additionally, the evidence is mixed on how much ballot initiatives affect voter turnout at presidential elections, especially during what I imagine will be a hotly contested race, at least in NC.
posted by radiomayonnaise at 3:16 PM on September 16, 2011


Good for Chris Hughes, although I'd be more impressed if he didn't put the cap on his donations. If he wants to dontate $10K, he should just do it.
posted by hippybear at 3:16 PM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


mrgrimm: "Far too reasonable and logical.



A better argument might be to label such efforts "Christian Sharia law," cuz that's what it is.

"


Calling this crap that probably works, except that Sharia can be, and often is abuse, and is as open to interpretation as most moral code (except Ayn Rand's maybe), and that there is absolutely nothing Christians about the people pushing this - this - whatever. I don't call my self a 'Christian' for theological reasons, but I've known people, including Benedictines and Franciscans and Primitive Baptist preachers (well, one PB preacher), who could walk the walk of what the religion should be, they weren't about hate.

posted by Webnym at 3:23 PM on September 16, 2011


A better argument might be to label such efforts "Christian Sharia law," cuz that's what it is.

Please don't. There's no good reason to "Islamify" the concept of Christian theocracy. History has had plenty of Christian theocracy long before sharia entered Western awareness...
posted by overeducated_alligator at 3:50 PM on September 16, 2011 [7 favorites]




Please don't. There's no good reason to "Islamify" the concept of Christian theocracy. History has had plenty of Christian theocracy long before sharia entered Western awareness...

Yeah, there are plenty of examples within Christian history which point out that there is no need to use a term in a way which shows that the user is confused about what exactly Sharia is to begin with.

Compare it to the restrictive community covenants of the Puritans. Compare it to the dark ages and the times of witchburning and such. But leave Islam out of it. They aren't pushing this foward in the US, and there's no sense in furthering a cultural bigotry which only betrays lack of true education on a topic.
posted by hippybear at 4:09 PM on September 16, 2011 [10 favorites]


Good for Chris Hughes, although I'd be more impressed if he didn't put the cap on his donations. If he wants to dontate $10K, he should just do it.

I would guess he pretty much knew he was going to be spending the money either way but by doing it this way he drew more attention to the issue.
posted by biffa at 4:26 PM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


(First off, I fucking love the name of his blog)

Second, sounds like he cares for the same reason a lot of people do, because it'll make a lot of people happy and won't hurt anyone.
posted by jonmc at 4:50 PM on September 16, 2011


The pie chart is awesome.
posted by OHenryPacey at 5:14 PM on September 16, 2011 [2 favorites]


A better argument might be to label such efforts "Christian Sharia law," cuz that's what it is.

Kind of insulting to Muslims, no? Sharia is a well thought-out, logical system of belief and a code of conduct that, applied properly, can deliver appropriate justice in most disputes. This "Christian"-inspired legislation is just punitive, vindictive and totalitarian, and has nothing to do with justice.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:18 PM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


A dude I went to high school with is an NC state senator or something, and he's trumpeting his vote for this shitty shit all over the facebooks and the twitters. Mind you, this is a dude who used to give people "Luv Hugs," which were essentially unwanted lap dances from a 300 pound teenager wearing nothing but tighty wighties.

I might have pictures somewhere, and it may very well be my moral duty to give them to the intarnets now.
posted by milquetoast at 5:19 PM on September 16, 2011 [22 favorites]


Patton Oswalt has on opinion about this too! (NSFW)
posted by OHenryPacey at 5:20 PM on September 16, 2011 [3 favorites]


milquetoast, I think you are right about that.
posted by emjaybee at 5:33 PM on September 16, 2011


God damn I like this guy. The "happiness is contagious" paragraph owns.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:06 PM on September 16, 2011


It is going to be awesome when Virginia finally gets its own version of this hateful amendment out of our Constitution. Other states should learn that this was a regrettable act. I put it just behind segregation, succession and slavery in terms of really shitting things we've done to our fellow citizens.
posted by humanfont at 7:17 PM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yes, we should use the word bigot whenever possible, Thorzdad. I suspect however that many news stations might censor such assertions.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:43 PM on September 16, 2011


Sharia is a well thought-out, logical system of belief and a code of conduct that, applied properly, can deliver appropriate justice in most disputes.

So is Canon Law, but it would be terrible to implement on a national scale. Additionally, even properly applied Sharia (and most Religious Law) is prohibitionary, against Free Speech, homophobic and compassionately pro-slavery. They're both punitive, vindictive and totalitarian in many areas. Comparing it to Sharia law doesn't denigrate Islam as much as it points out that this is just our* implementation of our* religious law, and we're pretty against those supposedly.

*our meaning the Christians who support this and would be effected by the brand 'Christian Sharia' law from a PR perspective.
posted by Chipmazing at 9:38 PM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


The GOP planned this vote for the primary election because there will be huge GOP turnout because of the presidential race.

Actually, the way the local papers reported it was that the GOP planned the vote for November, but the Democrats in the state House they needed for it to pass would only vote yes if it was moved to the May primary. Given the choice between not getting the referendum on the ballot at all and getting it on the ballot in May, the Republicans chose the latter:

Bill supporters decided to put the question on the May primary ballot next year rather than the November 2012 general election ballot, ensuring the proposal would win support from enough Democrats to clear the 72 House-vote hurdle for proposed constitutional changes.

The move alleviated concerns among Democrats who support the amendment that Republicans were pushing the question to boost turnout from social conservatives for next year's presidential election. At least one Democrat, Rep. Jim Crawford of Oxford, said moving the vote to May was crucial to winning his support. Ten Democrats and 65 Republicans voted for the amendment.


The Dems who voted for this are bigots, sure, but they're also very, very stupid. Giving the rabidly anti-gay Republican base an opportunity to fine-tune its get-out-the-vote hate 6 months before a national election is moronic.

Maybe it's my excessive cynicism talking, but at this point, I don't see any way this amendment doesn't get written into our state constitution, and NC becomes one of the last states to enshrine bigotry before gay marriage is legalized nationwide by the courts sometime in the next 6 or 7 years. It's very difficult to see a way that enough mainstream Democrats are going to get off their asses next May to counter a fired-up Republican base racing to the polls to choose a candidate to run against the hated Obama. As someone pointed out above, there will be nothing at the top of the May primary ballot - President or Governor - on the Democratic side to pull folks to vote. The best I find myself hoping is that groups like Equality NC will have come out ahead in the fundraising game after the May vote goes down.
posted by mediareport at 9:46 PM on September 16, 2011


How do you solve a problem like Sharia?
posted by kirkaracha at 10:00 PM on September 16, 2011 [4 favorites]


Hopefully with a reality show hosted by Graham Norton and Andrew Lloyd Webber.
posted by Talez at 8:17 AM on September 17, 2011


The jobless rate in NC (10.4) is higher than the national average (9.1.) The time wasting shenanigans in the State Capital is pissing a lot of people off-- not just Democrats. The message the voters gave to their representatives was, "Jobs. Jobs. Jobs." and what came back was, "I know! Even though we already have laws making Gay Marriage illegal, lets change the State Constitution because we got nothing better to do!"

If anything this could make the job situation more difficult. Progressive companies looking to relocate won't choose a state announcing it is stuck in the 20th century.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:29 AM on September 17, 2011 [1 favorite]


I stop reading articles whenever they tell me I live under a rock (this happens a lot).
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 9:40 AM on September 17, 2011 [1 favorite]


Clint Eastwood: "These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else!"
posted by kirkaracha at 11:39 AM on September 17, 2011 [1 favorite]


I was glad to see someone directly challenging the idea that we can't "redefine marriage." It seems a basic point, but one I don't hear often enough. We've redefined "voter" and "person" (from 0.00 to 3/5 or whatever it was and to the most accurate: 1.00).

And isn't there even an official "logical fallacy" named after the attempt to validate something simply by the fact that it has been done that way in the past? I can add 2 and 2 and get 5 a million times, but that doesn't mean that when I do it on time number 1,000,001 that it's correct because I always got 5 in the past.

But then, this isn't a logical issue for those who oppose same-sex marriage. So I doubt that type of argument will change their minds.

More accurately, perhaps, it's an emotional, cultural, familial issue. Asking someone to think differently about it is asking them to reject the parents, friends, and society members who've taught them a certain way of thinking since they were young enough to remember...the same people who have loved, nurtured, and created wonderful memories with them throughout their lives (sometimes). To change their beliefs is tantamount to disowning their loved ones.

So instead of making logical arguments, maybe we're better off trying to discredit and trash their friends and family.
posted by ottimo at 12:00 AM on September 18, 2011


Just as a side note (and because this is as good a place as any to post it) I give you: Four Terrible Old Books about Homosexuality, Including 1962's Faggots To Burn. Which includes not only cover art but also memorable quotes, unscientific assertions, and whether or not the author alleges a Homosexual Conspiracy.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:54 AM on September 18, 2011


« Older Do the feet touch the ground?   |   Fela Soul Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post