North Carolina goes to the polls in one week, and with their votes will make a declaration to the country as to whether they are over-reaching bigots or not.
“The language that voters will see on the ballot reads:
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.”
According to the Huffington Post,
“The wife of a North Carolina state senator reportedly told poll workers during early voting Monday that an amendment sponsored by her husband was intended partially to protect the Caucasian race.”
“…writer and campaigner Chad Nance spoke to a pollworker who told him that Jodie Brunstetter said, “The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.”
Of course the statement “was taken out of context”. The argument being used for the public is the tired old
“…it protects families and preserves traditional Christian values.”
First of all, Conservatives have yet to explain how gay marriage could possibly endanger anyone else’s marriage; and as for “traditional Christian values”, that’s hardly the state legislature’s responsibility.
North Carolina’s WRAL reported:
“Because the amendment would limit not only the definition of marriage, but also the definition of a legal domestic union, state Rep. Deborah Ross said it would deny rights to many people across the state, regardless of sexual orientation.”
“The language is going to lead to a whole bunch of legal lawsuits. Not about gays’ and lesbians’ rights to marry, but (about) a whole bunch of benefits we have in the state,” she said.
And in some of the most roundabout and ludicrous reasoning on the subject, “in a panel discussion…sponsored by Leadership Triangle, a nonprofit group that aims to bolster leadership initiatives in the area”, attorney Tony Biller stated,
“…gay and lesbians choose to opt out of marriage.”
“(If) a homosexual says, ‘I do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex,’ then they choose not to participate in the civil institution of marriage.”
He merely proves that just like other educational institutions, law schools have their bottom 50% of graduates as well.
The New York Times wrote:
“In their zeal, lawmakers got careless with the wording of the measure, known as Amendment One. It would constitutionally prohibit recognition not just of same-sex marriages, but of other legal arrangements like civil unions and domestic partnerships.
That could harm all unmarried couples, imperiling some children’s health insurance benefits, along with child custody arrangements and safeguards against domestic violence.”
I seriously doubt it was carelessness; I think these zealots know exactly what they’re doing.