North Carolina Voters Are Decadent & Depraved

 

Amendment One succeeded, and the North Carolina voters failed.

 

Here is famed sportswriter Red Smith’s wonderfully overwrought description of Bobby Thomson’s pennant-winning home run:

Now it is done. Now the story ends.  And there is no way to tell it.  The art of fiction is dead.  Reality has strangled invention.  Only the utterly impossible, the inexpressibly fantastic, can ever be plausible again.

Such gorgeous writing was squandered in the service of a mere sports story.  It should have been saved for what just transpired during an otherwise-inconsequential primary election in North Carolina:

A proposed amendment to [the state's] constitution which would make marriage between a man and woman the only legal union recognized by the state has passed a statewide vote, the Associated Press reports. The referendum- North Carolina Amendment One- goes a step beyond outlawing same-sex marriage, which was already illegal in the state. The law decrees that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”- meaning that civil unions and potentially other types of domestic partnerships will no longer be legally recognized.

In this bellwether and ostensibly “progressive” southern state, it appears that the negrophobia of the early 20th century has given way to the homophobia of the 21st.  However, the notion of “race suicide” appears to be at the heart of both fears, at least according to an offhand remark made by the wife of North Carolina State Senator (and Amendment One sponsor) Peter Brunstetter :

The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to reproduce.

Impelled to clarify his wife’s statement, Senator Brunstetter said the following:

We are looking at the history of the United States and it is already law about what marriage is. Between a man and a woman. And we are looking at how America has been a great country. That’s why people are coming here. And people who founded the United States wrote a Constitution and it has been what has preserved this society.

Last night, 61% of North Carolina voters threw in with Brunstetter and his lot.  The Founders have been vindicated, even if the Founders wouldn’t have understood what the hell was going on here (they were too busy grinding out that Three-Fifths Compromise, after all).  It is finished.

♦◊♦

Mind you, I’m a big believer in direct democracy.  After working with political scientist Chris Bonneau at the University of Pittsburgh, I’ve concluded that we should be electing all of our state and federal judges in partisan elections.  None of that changes the fact that democracy, as manifested in the American South, can be a disturbing thing.

If the Bill of Rights were to have been put to a vote in North Carolina tonight, I’m of a mind that nine of ten would have been voted out of existence.  The Second Amendment, of course, would have hung around; standing alone, it’s sufficient to enforce the other nine as well as any cool new ones that we might devise (the right not to be cut off in traffic, the right not to be disrespected,  the right to chew bubblegum and kick ass…and I’m all out of bubblegum, &c.).  Yes, the majority rules, but the majority also seems to think that Dane Cook rules.

I grew up in North Carolina, attended public schools in North Carolina, and graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Today, some of my old classmates–and hopefully at least one moron whose slot I occupied at UNC-CH–strutted to the polls, yanked levers or applied their marks, and in so doing managed to save marriage for our time.   By taking away legal recognition from couples who genuinely want to be with one another, these forward-thinking do-righters have preserved it for my parents and their combined seven marriages, preserved it for the 30,000 or so opposite-sex couples who get divorced in the state every year, preserved it intact and inviolate in a state constitution that can be amended at the drop of a hat.

You stay classy, Tar Heels.

Photo–taberandrew/Flickr

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Super Villain or Not, Parenting Paranoia Ensues
The Garbage Man Explains Happiness
How To Not Suck At Dating

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Oliver Lee Bateman

Good Men Project contributing editor Oliver Lee Bateman is a columnist for Al-Jazeera America and Made Man Magazine. His writing has been featured in Salon, The Atlantic, Johnny America, Stymie: A Journal of Sport and Literature, the U.S. Intellectual History Blog, STIR Journal, Mic.com, and NAP Magazine. He is also one of the founders of the Moustache Club of America and Penny & Farthing, two blogzines specializing in flash fiction and creative nonfiction that he co-curates with web developer Erik Hinton, medical consultant Nathan Zimmerman, and freelance writers Christie Chapman and J. R. Powell. Oliver is a lawyer as well as an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Arlington. Follow him on Twitter @MoustacheClubUS or on Google+.

Comments

  1. Anthony Zarat says:

    A very sad day indeed.

  2. Yeah, and it wasn’t just a law. Like you pointed out…they put it in the flipping constitution. California went and did the same thing…and there’s a few other states who have it in their state constitutions. Because, I know that when the concept of constitutions came about the whole point was to limit people’s rights, yeah? The Bill of Rights was all about the rights that’d be taken by the government, correct? Or am I getting something wrong? (Sarcasm)

    What’s really sad is I’m not surprised. I’m disappointed, pissed off, and more than a little depressed. But I’m not surprised. Land of the free, home of the brave…..I now expect you to continue to take away my rights. wtf.

  3. What really pissed me off was the way it made it to the ballot in the first place.

    First off it didn’t start off as an effort to “protect” marriage. The original language of the state bill that would be come the amendment started off as something that had absolutely nothing to do with marriage (it was related to like water purification, preservation, etc…)

    Second the Republican controlled state senate tried to get it on the ballot by holding sessions with little to no notice in order to prevent opposition from mounting.

    Third in the early talk of it the supporters of the amendment used deceptive language in order to basically trick people into supporting it.

    They pulled a fast one. I’ll say here what I said in the other post about this.

    Its like this which do you think is easier?

    Do something about education funding that is so lacking that a school disctict here in NC was having fundraisers to pay teacher salaries, the unemployment rate that just recently fell below the national average (there are almost 1/2mil unemployed in NC right now), and the process of fracking (short for hydraulic fracturing)?

    OR

    Convince people that marriage is under attack and that it must be defended?

    • “Third in the early talk of it the supporters of the amendment used deceptive language in order to basically trick people into supporting it.”

      They always do. Think about how most of these ballot measures are worded. A “Yes” is actually against same-sex marriage and a “No” is actually for same-sex marriage. In the court case for California’s Prop 8, one of the defence witnesses kept talking about how Prop 8 didn’t pass, and then having to correct himself. Because when you think about it logically, it makes more sense to assume that saying no to same-sex marriage would mean ticking “no” in the voting booth.

    • wellokaythen says:

      Good point about the way this looks like misdirected energy. It’s those darn gay people trying to get married who laid you off and foreclosed on your house. This amendment will teach those evil-doers a thing or two….

      • Basically it this.

        NC Republicans needed a quick rallying cry in order to solidify their control.

        Wait and see how many supporters of the amendment will start patting themselves on the back as being “one of those who protected marriage”.

  4. NavyOne says:

    The voters did the right thing and the media made it crystal clear what they were voting for. Just like they say “If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything”. Love and compassion is NOT simply excepting any behavior. That’s what bad parents do. How can you tell your child to not do a certain thing when you approve of something that is clearly counter productive for society? BTW: It is a slap in the face to every minority to hear some folks compare a behavior to the Civil Rights movement of Blacks in this country. Under handed tactics like that just goes to show the mindset of some folks.

    • Rights shouldn’t be voted on. They’re *rights*. American society has already demonstrated that it considers marriage a right.

      • What Justin said.

      • Yes rights should not be voted on. But when you want to take away rights you know that one sure fire way to do so is to scare people into taking them away from themselves. And if you look at how this damn amendment got onto the ballots much less passed you’ll see that it was not by the straight and narrow.

        That 61% weren’t voting to take away marriage rights from gays in their minds. No in their minds they were “protecting” the marriages of straight people.

      • Ginkgo says:

        Yes, Justin. It’s interesting how the very same small government, states rights types who talk about “God-given rights” believe they can be taken away by a popular vote, in other words, by the government.

      • what about the right to due process and the right to not be discriminated against based on sex?

  5. Oh while I know you don’t mean that title in a blaket way I have to say that as someone who openly opposed that amendment it bugs me a bit. Sounds like you’re saying we just took that shit lying down or something.

  6. Ginkgo says:

    It’s an ill draft that blows no good though.

    This episode brought out some really good people making really good statements. Lawrence O’Donnell featured the minister of a church somewhere in NC, the Greenleaf somthing or other church, who got very blunt about how evil this kind of discrimination was and that he and his congregation especially should recognize it for what it was, because they had been on the receivng end of exactly the same thing. He phrased it in very solid Biblical and civil rights terms, and he pointed out that it had nothingwhatever to do with approving of homosexuality at all, that it was simply a case of respecting people’s rights however you felt about them.

    That one sermon alone can be repated and quoted fomr today until the day this right is setled in law. That minister handed the mariage equality people an overwhelmingly powerful weapon.

    • Stuff like what O’Donnell was doing was a glimmer of hope. One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that even though this is the South it would be unfair to just lay all the blame at the feet of “religion”. There were a good number of churches and religious people who were against this amendement. Also of note is that on the corporate side of things most high end business leaders in NC were against it as well on the grounds that this amendment would make it very hard to attract business to NC.

      • wellokaythen says:

        Good point about religion. I think the business side of things is also a good point to bring up. I know this is about rights and fairness and ideals, but the cynical side of me also sees a ban on same-sex marriage as a bad economic move. Legalize same-sex marriage, and you’re looking at a 5% boost to the wedding industry and 2.5% boost to the law firms specializing in divorce. (My estimates, out of thin air, but they gotta be in the ballpark.) Not to mention a little bump in county revenue from marriage license fees. Think of it as an economic stimulus package. We’re supposed to be able to spend ourselves out of recession, so why not open up new avenues of consumer spending?

        • …but the cynical side of me also sees a ban on same-sex marriage as a bad economic move.
          Nothing cynical about it I think. By existing gay people are a part of the economy. We are basically telling gays, “We’ll take your tax money and the income you put into the economy, but keep your gayness to yourself.” A distant relative of “no taxation without prepresentation”?

          Legalize same-sex marriage, and you’re looking at a 5% boost to the wedding industry and 2.5% boost to the law firms specializing in divorce. (My estimates, out of thin air, but they gotta be in the ballpark.) Not to mention a little bump in county revenue from marriage license fees. Think of it as an economic stimulus package.
          That plus gay couples or gay people looking at moving to NC to take a new job or moving because of their job. A gay couple worrying that their marriage won’t be recognized, or if they aren’t married yet they can’t get married, or if their are single even if they meet someone they can’t get married. That would be a big turn off in my book. And plus as businesses get more progressive there will eventually be some CEO looking to expand wondering, “Do I want to expand into NC, where gays can’t even get married or have benefits?”.

          • “That would be a big turn off in my book.”

            It’s interesting you bring this up. I know that for me, personally, if I do move back the U.S. I’ll be carefully considering LGBT rights before I move anywhere. I’m not going to end up in a state where being out at work could get me fired, or where I wouldn’t be able to get married. It’s not just a political statement, but a practical issue.

            • John Anderson says:

              That’s why some people believe that there will eventually need to be a national solution to the problem. What happens if you visit North Carolina and your partner gets gravely ill? You don’t have the right to make a medical decision. What happens with alimony payments? If someone is in a state that doesn’t recognize the marriage, do they need to pay?

            • There is no question in my mind; there will need to be a national solution. If for no other reason than state sanctioned marriages still don’t provide a whole bunch of federal rights that federally recognized marriages would provide.

          • sd5289 says:

            This is *exactly* why I’m so happy I live in the state of NY and we finally got around to passing same-sex marriage last year. If I ever moved (I have NO plans on doing so though), it wouldn’t be to a state like NC or FL or any other state that is just plain awful and seemingly hellbent on eradicating my very existence.

            It’s a shame for those states really. Same-sex couples tend to enjoy dual incomes, which often means more disposable income to pump into lagging state economies. But alas, some of us won’t be pumping it into *your* state’s economy if you keep this nonsense up.

  7. elissa says:

    I think you’re being too generous Danny – yes, not all the blame rests in one area, but there is little doubt in my mind that politicians follow rather than lead, and they are following customs and traditions which are espoused from the pulpit. I’m not in the mood to mince words on this front.

    And that ass Obama could have unequivocally supported gay marriage. Coward!

  8. A friend of mine used the comparison to the civil rights movement very well: “To be fair, when is the last time North Carolina was on the correct side of a civil rights issue?”

  9. AnonymousDog says:

    So how does it work Olliver? You’re in favor of direct democracy when the voters agree with you, and the rest of the time what you favor is protected as a ‘right’?

    Does anyone, ANYONE, have a ‘right’ to marry? How is that enforced? Is someone(the State/Society/The Majority) obligated to find me a spouse?

    Or do they have a right to equal access to the institution of civil marriage AS IT IS DEFINED BY STATUTE?

  10. Russell says:

    I’m from South Africa where, although the general population are vehemently in opposition to the law, we were the fifth country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage, back in 2006. No one here has died or stopped pro-creating because LGBTI citizens can get married. I was planning a holiday which took in North Carolina this summer – but now I’d rather fly over it. In fact, we’re travelling in a mixed group – gay, straight, women, men, white, black. We’re really worried about what prejudice might face us in America – and we’re from Johannesburg, the “scariest” city in the world. Gosh, North Carolina – what a sad, diminished and compromised place you’re creating for yourselves.

    • NavyOne says:

      Russell, than you might want to stay in South African. Whats really scary is that the vast majority of Blacks in your country are not much better off than slaves yet you wave around Same Sex marriage as if we are the losers, ha! “The three provinces with the highest poverty rates (KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape and Limpopo) are also relatively populous – at the time of IES2005, they housed 47.4% of the South African population. It should come as no surprise then that fully 60.1% of poor individuals lived in these three provinces.”

  11. Eric M. says:

    I understand the frustration, but the title of this article violates basic commenting rules here, and should either be reworded or removed.

    The other article on this subject managed to express similar concerns without a general attack on an entire state of people, based on a political/ideological disagreement.

    • I understand the frustration, but

      But we shouldn’t get upset that 61% of North Carolina voters voted away the basic civil rights of an entire group of people based on their sexual orientation? They voted. People are calling them out on it. Actions. Consequences.

      Or as my bubby likes to say, “it’s not unjust to call the unjust unjustly.”

      • Eric is talking about how the title is just how NC voters are decadent and depraved.

        I saw the same thing happen back when Prop8 was the hot topic. People were titling posts like “California Hates Gays” and stuff like that. I’m sure the writer here didn’t mean it but, probably in true attention grabbing fashion, kinda gives the image that we those of us that were against it just laid down and took it.

        • Ah, but apparently California (my home state) did hate gay people, in light of Prop 8. Hate doesn’t have to just be angry feelings but it also exists in denying people their civil rights. And I think that characterization is fair in light of what’s happened in North Carolina. North Carolinians may not actively go out seeking gay people to “hate on them”, but they sure do seem intent on denying them even the right to form civil unions.

          • Its not the feelings its the idea that by just saying “NC voters” we were all in on it.

            • Well, 61% of them ARE in on it. So if a majority are “in on” homophobic and oppressive legislation I’m confused how that’d be a misrepresentation… I mean, collective shame sucks, but it’s kinda unavoidable. I still cringe at Adam Sandler movies and Eric Cantor’s politics.

            • Actually its quite avoidable.

              “Most North Carolina Voters are Decadent and Depraved”

              There.

            • Okay, I think that’s a nit-picky argument and you know it.

              Do we constantly need to qualify that only “most Feminists” refuse to recognize and act on misandry. Do we need to constantly insert the refrain, “only MOST Feminists refuse to help male victims of rape and domestic violence”, or “only MOST Feminists view men as disposable.” ??

              If that’s your only objection, I’d say you may be missing the forest for the trees.

            • I’ve been given the “proper quantifier argument” more times than I can count. Now if you want to call BS on the whole thing then sure let’s do so.

              But no I see the forest and the trees. In fact I’m living among them on this one.

              Point of fact: it IS depraved and decadent to pass Amendment One — which actually hurts everyone, not just homosexual couples.
              Then by all means say that the ones that supporting its passing are decadent and depraved.

            • Well alright the, if you’re seeing the forest and the trees then let’s call BS on the obvious quantifiers. Unless anyone is confused on how it works… ?

              Then by all means say that the ones that supporting its passing are decadent and depraved.

              I think the OP did… Hence why he refers to North Carolinians, as opposed to Californians or whoever. Then everyone got mad, because people thought it was mean to call them decadent and depraved for doing something decadent and depraved. Go figure.

              That said, I do feel bad for the 39% of North Carolinians who DIDN’T support Amendment One, but I’ll bet most of them are already more ashamed at their state than the rest of the country.

            • I think the OP did… Hence why he refers to North Carolinians, as opposed to Californians or whoever. Then everyone got mad, because people thought it was mean to call them decadent and depraved for doing something decadent and depraved. Go figure.
              Some of them got mad probably because of the broad brush that was used for a title. People getting mad when a group they are a part of is generalized. A revolutionary concept.

              That said, I do feel bad for the 39% of North Carolinians who DIDN’T support Amendment One, but I’ll bet most of them are already more ashamed at their state than the rest of the country.
              Possibly but it certainly doesn’t help that we just being swept in with that 61% as if we did support it.

            • Oliver Lee Bateman says:

              Zek, I’m in agreement with you regarding this discussion of the article’s title. I’m writing only to point out that it’s also a reference to Hunter Thompson’s “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved” (which was recently posted in “director’s cut” form on Grantland: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7887639/looking-back-hunter-s-thompson-classic-story-kentucky-derby). It’s one of my favorite essays, and everybody ought to give it a once-over.

              Quite a few of the titles I’ve used on here are references to other, far better pieces of writing (“Fear and Trembling at the University of Pittsburgh” = Fear and Trembling, “The Short Happy Life of Meow the Cat” = “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” etc.).

            • Thanks Oliver!

              That’s a good point too, actually. I wouldn’t have read it that way until you mentioned it.

      • Eric M. says:

        Disagreement, no matter how vehement does not / should not give one license to slur and name-call. Unless we are saying here that, slurs and name-calling IS acceptable when we do disagree.

        Whatever the rules are, they should be consisten.

        • Well, iunno if there need be “rules” when it comes to talking about homophobic legislation, but…

          is it a slur or name-calling to point out the depravity and decadence of 61% of North Carolina voters who voted for Amendment One? I mean, are we really this concerned about the homophobic or ignorant feelings of 61% of North Carolinians that we’re going to focus on not offending them for taking away people’s civil rights because it’s… mean?

          • Eric M. says:

            You’ve missed the point. We have disagreements here all the time. So, let’s just start slurring and name-calling when we feel someone else is being unfair, discrminatory, etc. – which happens constantly.

            • Eric,

              You are absolutely correct. There are easy ways to express the same ideas without slandering an entire state.

              Furthermore, it is worth stepping back and considering what the real goal is here. Has anyone ever seen name-calling successfully change someone’s mind? Or does it primarily serve to make people become more entrenched in their own preconceptions?

              Changing someone’s mind begins with a dialogue, and a dialogue cannot happen unless both sides believe they will be heard out. Throwing insults undercuts this process before it can even begin.

              Calling names might feel better in the short term, but an eye towards long term change means exercising restraint in order to let the necessary dialogues take place.

            • It’s hard to have a dialogue when people are saying you’re going to hell just because you’re gay, and then pass legislation to deny you your civil rights. More importantly, calling them decadent and depraved for BEING decadent and depraved isn’t name-calling… it’s naming their actions.

              But I digress, it’s probably futile to point this out to you Mike =/

            • Zek,

              I never said the other side was acting appropriately. Please do not ascribe positions to me that I do not hold.

              But two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the religious zealots claim that someone is “going to hell” does not mean that slinging mud at them will change their minds or improve the current situation.

              As for “naming their actions” as Eric has already pointed out, if this is the goal then the headline should be “North Carolina voters act decadent and depraved,” rather than “North Carolina voters are decadent and depraved.”

            • I’ll weigh in and say that I agree the title of this particular article is problematic and went too far, particularly with the “depraved” bit. 61% is a majority, but it’s hardly enough to paint the entire state with such a broad brush. That’s what the logical part of my brain says. The angrier, reactionary part of my brain is satisfied at the anger in the title. It doesn’t get us anywhere, but it certainly feels good.

              I think a better title could have been: The North Carolina Vote is Decadent and Depraved. Then it’s not calling out individual people, but rather calling out the voting results themselves. Would have kept the sentiment but made it less of a generalization.

            • That’s what the logical part of my brain says. The angrier, reactionary part of my brain is satisfied at the anger in the title. It doesn’t get us anywhere, but it certainly feels good.
              Interesting. Both the logical and angrier parts of my brain are quite displeased with this title.

              But if it feeling good is worth turning off the 40% that did fight against it while smuggly saying its an accurate description of them…

              (No you aren’t doing that HeatherN but it seems some folks here like the idea of acting like everyone in NC united in one voice to support this amendment and then telling us we are missing the point when we get pissed.)

            • “Both the logical and angrier parts of my brain are quite displeased with this title.”

              I’m guessing (though not presuming) that the angrier bits of your brain are reacting as someone from NC. The angrier bits of my brain are reacting as a lesbian. So there’s that.

            • I’m guessing (though not presuming) that the angrier bits of your brain are reacting as someone from NC. The angrier bits of my brain are reacting as a lesbian. So there’s that.
              Someone of questionable sexuality from NC that was a part of the 39% to be exact.

            • wellokaythen says:

              And, 61% is just the percentage of people who voted on that particular issue. I don’t know the voter turnout figure, but it is entirely possible that a minority of the entire NC population actually voted for the amendment. A low turnout and a highly motivated political minority could have made all the difference.

              So, labeling the whole state is not only unfair to the 39% but also those who did not vote.

            • Mike,

              Well thanks for proving my point… le sigh.

              if this is the goal then the headline should be “North Carolina voters act decadent and depraved,” rather than “North Carolina voters are decadent and depraved.”

              1. Semantics? Minute qualifiers? As far as other people are concerned, you are your actions. Or more appropriately, your actions define you. Someone acting decadent and depraved is open to being called as such.

              Is it this really that difficult of a concept for you to understand? Please, carefully follow my conversation with Eric for further instruction.

              2. Mud-slinging? I’m sorry, but correctly identifying the actions of a group engaged in deny a minority their legal rights is not mud-slinging. I’m actually surprised you think calling people out for what they’re doing is somehow engaging in a second wrong… Yeesh, do yo think then that people protesting against other injustices are also “mud-slinging”? I wonder then, what you must make of the 1st amendment! Again, you REALLY need to carefully follow my conversation with Eric.

            • I think the point is that it is NEVER ok to generalize about a group if you are referring to the majority. We see this time and time again when we generalize about feminism based on the actions of the majority.

            • Thanks Jimmy!

            • No, I saw the point just fine. I just disagree with you.

              It’s not slurring or name-calling to fairly point out the actions of others which hurt an oppressed group of people. Point of fact: it IS depraved and decadent to pass Amendment One — which actually hurts everyone, not just homosexual couples.

              Now, if you disagree with that opinion, okay. But saying it’s unfair for someone who holds that opinion to be nicer about expressing what is arguably a violation of people’s civil rights is a tone argument that has no merit.

            • Eric M. says:

              Intelligent arguments don’t rely on slurs, such as calling someone or a group depraved, even if that’s one’s genuine opinion. I can call people on this site depraved every day of the week and, in my opinion, some are. However, for me to verbally call them would be slurring and name-calling.

              For example, those who are for SSM but against polygamy are equally opposed to civil rights, but were I to call them decadent and depraved would be slurring and name-calling.

            • Eric M,

              Intelligent arguments don’t rely on slurs, such as calling someone or a group depraved, even if that’s one’s genuine opinion. I can call people on this site depraved every day of the week and, in my opinion, some are. However, for me to verbally call them would be slurring and name-calling.

              Okay, so it seems like you’re not understanding the difference between saying something MEAN about an individual/group based on our opinion of them, and saying something TRUE (whether or not it’s a negative truth) about an individual/group based on their actions.

              The first is just name-calling, true. The second is observation. Do you see the difference? Because I’m getting the feeling like you’re not able to discern it.

              However, if you do, and still disagree then I can’t really help you. It’d be like trying to describe the color red to a blind man. If you can’t see, there’s no way to explain it in a way you’ll understand.

              Also, your argument about polygamy… WAAAAAAY off. This is about homophobia making it illegal or impossible for an entire group of people to get married to each other based on their sexual orientation. Polygamy is an entirely different thing, because nobody is oppressing Mormonism. Also, polygamy has been shown, by and large, to be not about religious freedom or about nontraditional types of marriage but about power, abuse, and other wrongs. Study up on the subject if you want to know more! =)

            • Eric M. says:

              Do you not see the difference between me saying that everyone in Zek’s family is decadent and depraved and saying that, in my opinion, 61% of the people in the Zek family made a depraved decision? I can’t imagine how you don’t see that unless you are choosing not to. If not, every day of every week, I could say that XXX GMP commenter (that individual) is decadent and depraved rather than disagreeing with their views.

              As if all the pedophiles that voted against the decision are upright people while the grandmothers who have been volunteering at hospitals for 40 years who voted for it are decadent and depraved people.

              The issue is narrowly defining marriage, as ONE women and ONE man only. The issue is the freedom to marry whomever one wishes. It’s the same issue; the definition of marriage.

              Maybe you need to read up on your history. Polygamy has nothing to do with Mormonism. Polygamy existed thousands of years before Mormonism. There are people (men AND women) who are poly just as there are people who are homosexual. It is precisely the same issue, just a different set of people.

              There are people on this site who are poly, not just who DO poly but who ARE poly. I acknowledge that some people who pposes polygamy do so because of ignorance; however, it is just as prejudiced and bigoted as opposing SSM. It’s the exact same issue.

            • I believe he is blinded by his political correctness. He is so sure that those 61% are wrong that he sees no problem with generalizing about the entire group and attacking them using slurs, because to him the. cause. is. that. important. that it makes it ok to break rules and hurt people.

              I have cousins who live in North Carolina and they support gay marriage. This author just called them decadent and depraved.

              This is so wrong.

            • No… I really think you’re still missing the point.

              The title refers to ALL voters of North Carolina, including the 39%

              THAT is why it is wrong.

              You seem to be of the camp that believes generalizing about people you don’t agree with is ok, as long as it is politically correct. That seems to be the general consensus in this place so you’re in good company.

  12. To begin with no I didn’t vote against the amendment yesterday. I voted against it almost two weeks ago on the second day of early voting.

    After I got the bad news this morning (the margin hadn’t drifted during the night) I started to research the whole banana. First all three of the Republicans that signed and supported the Amendment are up for reelection this fall. Since a whole lot more people will be voting in November than just Republicans at least two of these Republicans may have made a grave tactical error. You see their districts are adjoining large metropolitan areas. The Amendment was defeated in all metropolitan areas. So rather than having a small area to worry about; these three have national interests wanting to nail them to the wall during the elections. Even Mitch Gillespie whose district is somewhat rural is not in the clear. Because many people drive very long distances to get to jobs he may have people that are bitter opponents that are his constituents.

    For example, I was working in Weaverville at a CD plant. I discovered a co-worker was a lesbian that was driving an hour and a half to get to the job. It was her way of protecting her and her partner’s lifestyle, since people in tiny towns can be very noisy. Also getting $20 an hour didn’t hurt. In addition, Buncombe county is notoriously very Gay friendly. After all it’s not in the South, you’uns should remember that we’re Mountain not Southern! Also, we’re not liberate. I’m sort of average around here because I have a M.Ed. and two B.S.s. I have used my degrees to get work but that may not be the case. I know a plumber with a M.A. in Sociology that got it just because he likes to learn about other people. So come November these three monkeys may be out of jobs and in a bad place to find a civilian job!

    Really I think this is just the start of things. It could get real interesting soon because a quarter of the state could be underwater, hey IceFall is coming, and then the Fundamentalists can moan about how we’ve incurred Gods rath!!!! (sarcasm)

  13. Ah, the angry part of my mind was at about 50% yesterday, personally. But that’s mostly cuz if I don’t get angry at crap like this I’ll just get depressed by it.

    Anyway, after reading its a reference to a book I guess I’m more forgiving of the title. Though, it could have done with pointing that out to avoid confusion.

    • Eric M. says:

      I’m not sure what to make of this. Are insulting name-calling and broad-brush generalizations permitted or not? I got a warning for a comment that didn’t come anywhere near this aggregious.

  14. kmac7778 says:

    I love how not one person has commented on this horrifying tidbit Oliver quoted:
    “The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to reproduce.”
    What you’re ‘concerned’ about, instead, is the title of the piece, which, as Oliver pointed out, is a literary reference. Wow — is THAT a sorry excuse for a scapegoat if I’ve ever seen one.
    He didn’t say ‘North Carolinians’ — he said said ‘North Carolina Voters.’ If North Carolinian voters don’t want to be seen negatively, then they shouldn’t make horribly bigoted, backwards choices as a voting public. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck…

    • Wow kmac, that’s an excellent point! I sorry I didn’t make it myself. The OP DOES refer only to North Carolina VOTERS, not all North Carolinians. Albeit, it’s a small distinction, but one that should appease the more defensive commenters in this thread.

      And of course you’re right: the reasons behind the passing of Amendment One are incredibly bigoted and that should be the focus of our protest instead of a title that’s apparently confirmed to be a non-issue by the OP.

    • GirlGlad4TheGMP says:

      Thank you kmac. I have been reading all of the comments and thinking the same thing myself (well, not about the wife’s comment, specifically, but about the outcome of the vote)…how is the title of an article more important to diccuss than the issue itself?

      it really does speak to the first quote in Oliver’s piece…it IS done. the question being, instead of having trivial discussions of the meaning behind the title of an article, why aren’t we discussing what can be done to change repeal or amend the amendment (pardon me, I don’t know the constitutional system of the U.S. and if/how a contitutional amendment can be changed)? Why are we talking about how to move forward towards a world where such biases do not exist (or if they do, because we can’t change everyone’s mind, they are not reflected in law)?

  15. The Wet One says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

    No one believes in freedom. No one. Not even me.

    The Wet One

  16. Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it’s new
    to me. Nonetheless, I’m definitely delighted I found it and I’ll be bookmarking and checking back often!

Trackbacks

  1. [...] “It’s a goddamn sin,” Mr. Twiggs reiterated.  “Marriage is between a man and a woman.” [...]

  2. [...] Supreme Court of United States should take note of but probably won’t. Thus the question:  should people of the same sex have the right to marry one another? But here is a better question:  Should no one? Furthermore, should we drive intimate activity out [...]

Speak Your Mind

*