The Gay Thing: North Carolina Senate Passes Religious Exemption Law for Magistrates on Marriage

Crazy. Mean. Illogical. Desperate. Stupid. Unconstitutional.

All of those things--and more--apply to the law just passed by the North Carolina Senate, and those like it in various stages elsewhere across the country. It is a transparent attempt to discriminate legally, in legal matters that legislators simply don't like. It sets bad precedent, will--if fully enacted--create a plethora of unintended consequences for all citizens, and will stand as an embarrassment years down the line.

Let's start with the basics. More and more, high courts are finding that bans against same-sex couples civilly marrying are unconstitutional. A civil marriage need not and often does not have a religious component. Indeed, the "holy matrimony" part of a civil marriage is completely optional. Setting aside the fact that there are religions and religious denominations that do recognize same-sex marriage, religion--as it pertains to civil marriage--is irrelevant. Interfaith couples may legally marry, atheists and agnostics may legally marry. Beyond that, all manner of what many religious people consider "sinners" may legally marry, from 2nd and 3rd marriages, to open marriages, to convicted convicts marrying. I list these things not to compare them, merely to point out that magistrates (and other authorized state officials) have seldom expressed objection to granting these people marriage licenses.

Barronelle Stutzman, the florist who won't do
gay weddings. Because: Jesus. Image from Defund.com

Until now. For some reason that no religious fundamentalist has adequately explained to me, two things: a) homosexuality and b) abortion are the primary causes of concern for many conservative Christians. Jesus never mentioned either subject of course, and actual Biblical concern with them is quite scant compared to say, adultery, inhospitality and man's inhumanity to man. But for whatever reason, The Gay makes either #1 or #2 on these folks' list of religious concerns. Fine.

It's still irrelevant. Civil same-sex marriages are not being forced upon any church. They're not being performed in the name of these unaccepting churches' Gods. A minister, priest, rabbi, reverend or pastor is not required--unless he/she is working as an employee of a civil authority--to perform a same-sex marriage. Moreover, a civil marriage is a civil contract, and should be no more objectionable to a "magistrate" than should a building permit or business license. The religion of the magistrate, or that of the marriage participants is utterly beside the point. There is no religious test for civil office, and there is no religious test for civil marriage.

The case for "sincere religious belief" being an impediment to these people is rather thwarted by their silence lo these decades past, where surely each and every one has issued licenses to people who do not follow the magistrate's faith (and why on earth should they have to, anyway?). It is extremely telling, and plainly obvious what's going on here. It's bigotry wrapped in religion. Naked animus presented as "faith." The magistrate is not sanctifying, blessing or celebrating a "holy matrimony," they're registering a civil contract.

The couple who won't sell cake to gay people.
Again, Jesus. Image from Back to Stonewall.com

All of this "sincere belief exemption" stuff gets even more shaky when it comes down to wedding vendors. This group (traditionally stuffed with gay professionals, oddly enough) has seemingly and suddenly become a very sanctimonious, religiously delicate bunch. Though they rarely if ever point to what part of their religion commands that "though shalt not sell thine product or service to the gays," it has become their chief concern of late. They're willing to make a public case of it, get hit with fines and citations, potentially lose their business, and then tour the conservative speechifying circuit over the issue. Over someone else's celebration. Never before have I heard that a customer must follow a vendor's religious beliefs in order to be allowed to purchase their product or service. Never before was selling a cake, or flowers, or renting out tuxedoes considered participation in, endorsement of and celebration of an event.

The reason we never heard this storm before is because it's disingenuous. As I stated at the top, it's a desperate attempt to fight a lost cause by other means. It stinks to high heaven (heh) of animus and rancor. And it's so short sighted, it almost can't be believed. Because for all of the previous faux panic over "Sharia Law," many of these legislators and their supporters are quite happy stirring some religion into state, so long as it's their brand of religion. What they're not considering is that religious exemptions here will open the floodgates for a) Non-Christian religions small and large demanding exemptions to b) all kinds of laws and regulations.

Before you accuse me of presenting a slippery slope fallacy with that last bit, please tell me: what would limit this precedent to Christians? And what would limit it to wedding industry vendors?

[Excerpt]

NC Senate passes a lawless law on same-sex marriage

Despite North Carolina's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, marriages are proceeding because federal courts have ruled such bans in other states are unconstitutional. In a few months, the U.S. Supreme court will resolve the matter. But some North Carolina Republicans refuse to apply common sense and want to keep fighting for the ban in court. And now, thanks to a push from Phil Berger, the Eden Republican and president pro tem of the state Senate, more anti-gay marriage foolishness is afoot. . .

Read more at: NewsObserver

The Gay Thing: 4th Circuit Court Rules Virginia Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Like dominos, these hateful same-sex marriage bans keep falling. And this one was a big domino, affecting Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Maryland, of course, is in the same Circuit, but already has marriage equality.

[Excerpt]

Image from source, Slate

Fourth Circuit Calls Virginia’s Gay Marriage Ban “Segregation,” Strikes It Down

On Monday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Virginia’s gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, the latest victory for marriage equality in a unbroken string of triumphs since the Supreme Court overturned DOMA in 2013. The opinion included no stay; until the Supreme Court steps in, then, gay couples in Virginia may get married starting now. The judges of the 2–1 majority labeled the state’s ban “segregation” and held that, because it targeted a disfavored minority and implicated a fundamental right, it should be subject to strict scrutiny. It’s clear that, to the majority, laws like Virginia’s represent little more than bald bigotry. . .

Read more at: Slate

Daily Show Unmasks GOP's Motives Behind Changing Voter Laws

Don't let the door hit ya, dude. Image from source, News Observer.

You wouldn't think it would be possible for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart's correspondents to take interview subjects off-guard. In the early days, a state politician could be forgiven for not knowing what the show is all about, or keying in on the interviewer's shtick. But they keep getting "gotcha-ed," and this time a guy ended up getting fired.

Aasif Mandvi interviewed both Congressman John Lewis (who seemed a little baffled, but held his own) and Don Yelton, a Republican Precinct Chair from North Carolina. Mandvi kept feeding Yelton rope, and he just kept stringing himself up with it. In the course of the interview, Yelton made very clear his own personal, overt racism. And he also laid out the real reason behind the state's tightened voting laws (and no doubt behind those spreading to states across the country). I wonder now, if we can finally drop the pretense that Voter ID laws (and their sibling voter restriction laws) have been enacted because of some rampant (phantom) voter fraud. Oh, and Yelton got fired the day after this aired. Poor guy.

Anyway, whatever your politics, this is worth a view, just so you know what's going on.

[Excerpt]

After 'The Daily Show' targets NC's voting law, precinct chair resigns

A five-minute segment of the Comedy Central show Wednesday night about the state’s new election law, focused a good bit on Yelton’s racial views. On Thursday, as the video went viral, Claude Pope, chairman of the N.C. Republican Party, called for Yelton’s resignation. . .

Read more at: News Observer

Attention Conservatives: THIS is Why Liberals are Howling About Voter Rights Changes

It's not just about "Voter ID," though that is part of it. While actual voter impersonation fraud is virtually unheard of, I'm aware that the argument for Voter ID sounds good. You need ID for everything else, right? Right. But when you put it into context with the whole list of things that they tend to pass along with Voter ID laws, you start to see that the actual reasoning behind the law has nothing to do with protecting the integrity of the vote. It has to do with stopping people from voting, or hindering them at least. Dissuading them. And it is a certain demographic.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

North Carolina Passes Laws Restricting Voting

Image from source, CBSNews

I'm getting to the point where I'm having trouble figuring out conservatives. Well, it's always been difficult, but I'm beginning to think that the elected officials and behind-the-scenes conservatives are working from a whole different playbook from the rabble. And their media lapdogs? I'd always assumed that they were in on the real story, while passing on talking points to the sheeple.

But how to parse this one? North Carolina has passed a whole bunch of restrictions on voting rights, from Voter ID to limiting early voting, to limiting what students can vote, and other measures. I watched All In With Chris Hayes, who had invited a Republican woman from North Carolina. Chris interviewed her, trying to pry out the reasoning behind the laws. All he got were the standard "protecting the sanctity of the vote" and anti-voter fraud answers. Was she feeding him what she wanted him to hear, or did she really have no other answers?

Steve Deace, an Iowa conservative (and how) talk show host posted on Facebook that he was truly baffled how anybody could be against Voter ID, since you need ID to rent a video at Blockbuster (how quaint). Is Deace really clueless as to the whole raft of other voting restrictions that came along with Voter ID? Has he really never heard why liberals are against these sorts of laws? Does he really believe that voter fraud is rampant in America?

Listen, folks, I know that the arguments for having ID to vote sound really, really good. You do need ID for all sorts of things less important than voting. But the fact remains--though it's hard to personally imagine--that tens and hundreds of thousands of voters don't have the ID. Some have been voting without it for their whole lives, going back to the fifties or earlier. In many cases, these people live in areas where the locations and times for acquiring legal ID is restrictive, sometimes purposefully so. You know how they pass tough restrictions on abortion clinics, like the width of hallways, or admitting rights at a hospital, and then they pass a law that hospitals can't grant admitting rights? It's often like that, a catch-22.

It is also true that voter fraud is vanishingly rare. The motives for passing Voter ID laws is not voter fraud. The proof is in the admissions of several conservatives saying things like "Voter ID is going to win for us in Pennsylvania," and in the fact that so many other restrictions are passed along with them.

If you honestly think that wiping out voter fraud is the primary reason for Republicans passing all of these laws, you have got to be hopelessly naïve.

[Excerpt]

N.C. sued soon after voter ID bill signed into law

North Carolina Gov. Patrick McCrory has signed a sweeping voting reform bill that imposes strict photo identification requirements on the state's 4.5 million voters, rolls back the early voting period and repeals one-stop registration during early voting.

Almost immediately following the signing, civil rights groups filed lawsuits in federal court challenging the law. . .

Read more at: CBS News

 

North Carolina Bill Aims to Make Voting Harder

I've said it before, Voter ID laws sound reasonable. I mean, you need ID to rent a car, or even a tuxedo. You need ID to cash a check, to get a library card, for all kinds of things, and we don't give it much thought. But here's the problem with Voter ID laws: they weren't created to stop voter fraud, they were created to prevent "undesirables" from voting. The fact is, the people most likely to not have ID (which includes an amazingly high number of voters) are disproportionally likely Democratic voters. In unguarded moments, several prominent conservatives and Republicans have even admitted as much.



Voter fraud is vanishingly rare in the United States, and North Carolina is no exception. But I hear you, you think it's a reasonable requirement. Though this ID had better be free, and had better not be difficult to obtain, or it is the equivalent of a poll tax. And if the passage of one of these laws is so urgently important, I'd say there ought to be a broad campaign to educate the public about exactly what they'll need in order to vote. That would only be fair, right? Except in places where these things tend to pass, that sort of assistance rarely seems to happen.

Add to that, that Voter ID itself isn't the only thing being passed here. There's a whole list of things on deck to complicate or restrict current voting rules. They want to cut early voting times. They want to stop pre-registering 17-year-olds who are soon turning 18. They want to complicate voting by college students. They want to repeal same-day registration. They want to ban straight-ticket voting.

Whatever you think about the individual parts of the bill, the fact is, this is an effort to make voting harder. What's amazing to me is that there doesn't seem to even be a cover story for why they're doing it. As with the huge list of restrictions and regulations (regulations from conservatives!) on abortion clinics that exist simply to make abortion harder, this voting bill is just trying to reduce the number of likely--mostly Democratic--voters. It's as plain as day.

And that--my dear Republican friends--should piss you off too. You've got an organized movement at the state level by the GOP to skew election results just by preventing voting by a group of people. It's not really "winning," it's cheating. And it's amazing to me that they don't even have to present even a bullshit reason for why they're doing most of it.

[Excerpt]

Voter ID bill raises controversy in North Carolina

Republican Leader Berger rejects the notion that his party is trying to suppress the Democratic-leaning black and youth vote. "Absolutely not," he said. "I am concerned the people are talking about substantial problem with this that I don't agree exists."

State-issued IDs, which now cost $10, will be free in the future, according to the bill. State Senator Floyd McKissick, Jr., the Democratic Deputy Minority Leader, tried to stop the reforms he called "draconian. . ."

Read more at: CBS News

North Carolina: Guns Everywhere!

Bartender, I'll have a shot! Image from source,
Think Progress.

It's become almost a cliché that the answer to gun violence is more guns. Basically, the argument is that life--in any area--is so dangerous because of gun violence, that we must be allowed to protect ourselves. With guns! There's a (circular) logic to it, but it's just so friggin' weird. I've been around guns all my life, have friends and family who have veritable arsenals, but I still don't understand this country's gun fetish, I really don't.

[Excerpt]

North Carolina Gun Owners Will Soon Be Able To Carry Firearms At Bars And Playgrounds

On Tuesday, North Carolina lawmakers approved a bill allowing gun owners with concealed-carry permits to bring their weapons to playgrounds, bars, and public recreation areas, although bar owners will still be permitted to deny entry to armed patrons. Gov. Pat McCrory (R) is expected to sign the expansive bill into law soon. The measure will also allow concealed-carry permit holders to keep their guns in cars parked on school campuses. The bill was stripped of an especially extreme provision that would have eliminated the requirement for background checks or handgun permits. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Democratic National Convention, Day #3

Now that we're on day 6 (or 10, counting the days between) of the conventions, I'm glad to say this stage is over. I anticipated President Obama's speech, but my brain is full, I want a couple of "no politics" days somewhere in here before the election! And, truth be told, days 1 and 2 of the DNC were hard acts to follow. Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton raised the bar so high, day 3 was bound to feel a little slow.

Of course, nobody better say one negative word about former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords saying the Pledge of Allegiance. If you do--and I say this as an atheist--you're going to hell. [Story continues below]



I missed a rather large chunk of the convention due to work and exercise on Thursday. So, I missed speeches by Caroline Kennedy, Scarlett Johanssen and Eva Longoria, though I plan to catch them in the next day or so (so much for politics-free days, I guess). I came in on Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who was very feisty, and on message. Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist--now apparently a converted Democrat, or close--gave a nice speech that endorsed Obama while jabbing a finger in the eye of the party that he says left him.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John Kerry's speech was great, showing much more fire and spirit than I remember from his run in 2004. It was like he was getting his revenge or something, really zinging Romney, Ryan and the Republicans. . .oooh, RRR? Does that work out to 666 in some numerology thing? Never mind, moving on. . . Dr. Jill Biden was lovely and eloquent, which is great because she opened for her husband.

Joe Biden. . .sigh. . .oh, Joe. So earnest, so eager, so long. Joe said "literally" too much when he meant "figuratively" Joe wandered off script a few times. The material of his speech was fine, there was nothing wrong with his message. But I've really never been a fan of his style, and I think it slowed down the whole proceedings. Or, maybe that was the idea? [Story continues below]

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The showcase for the night was of course President Barack Obama, his acceptance of the nomination, and his pitch to the country for reelection. By anybody else, this speech cooked. But from Obama, it was just very good. It wasn't lofty like Michelle's speech, and it wasn't a barn burner like Bill Clinton's. I think by design it was necessary to scale it back from the soaring rhetoric from 2008.

As Obama said--and I know it's going to infuriate conservatives--he's not a candidate anymore, he is the President of the United States. He's not a blank slate as he was (and as Romney is), and can't base the entire speech on hope and change. He had to ground this speech, and build it upon the notion of continuing hope and change begun, but not yet finished. So, necessarily, this couldn't be the spiritual high we all got from Invesco Field in Denver the last time. And though his speech didn't top his wife's, and didn't top President Clinton's. . .he still blew Mitt Romney's speech out of the water. No contest.

DNC, Day #2, Take Two

I wrote earlier that I felt disengaged from the speeches on day two of the Democratic National Convention. I blame that on a spectacular first night, and on a bit of a funk on my end. Despite that, things took a turn for the better, at least in my viewing. I was watching MSNBC, and was delighted to see Lawrence O'Donnell interviewing Senator Al Franken. I've been a Franken fan for as long as I've known who he is, but he's kept a low media profile as Senator. Turns out, he's still quick witted and sharp on policy. Too bad he didn't get a speech. [Story continues below]

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Shortly after that mini interview, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke appeared, giving the best speech I've heard to that point. It helps that there's an emotional response to her, since she was viciously attacked by Rush Limbaugh, an attack that continues in Right Wing World to this day. Fluke has parlayed the uncalled for abuse into something positive, and good for her. May she annoy Rush and his sycophants (almost typed psycho-phants!) for a long time to come. [Story continues below]

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As expected, Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts candidate for Senate, was great. This is a woman I'd be banging on doors for if I lived in her state. She's just amazing, and what have they got on her? Maybe she got a story about her ancestry wrong? Boo hoo, my Grandma always told me I was related to Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone and General Patton. I'm sure I've told others that, but who knows if Grandma was right.  So, if that's all they've got, they've got nothing. If there is any complaint from me, it is only that Warren may be a little too soft-spoken for an arena speech. [Story continues below]

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Of course, the really big part of the show--including the official nomination of Barack Obama for President--was the appearance of Bill Clinton on the stage. Still popular after all these years--and despite all of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome over the last 20 years--Clinton just knows how to give a speech, and to hold an audience. As with Fluke before, I'm delighted that he likely still irritates the shit out of them! Hey, I'm ornery that way.

Clinton put to rest any lingering doubts that he supports President Obama and his reelection. I still have to wonder if Hillary might run in four years, but there was certainly no sabotage going on here. This was not a tepid endorsement. And if my Twitter feed was any indication, Bill's speech was blowing the barn doors off, the screen doors off, the bomb shelter doors off. He was smokin', and not strictly off prompter either, there was a heap of ad-libbing going on there. Too long, by half, I'll admit. But stellar, just stellar.

No speaker at the RNC last week matched a quarter of the wattage Clinton displayed. No speaker offered a hundredth of the personal endorsement, nor positive arguments for their candidate. Whatever doldrums I was feeling in the early part of today's coverage has been eclipsed, dwarfed, obliterated by Clinton's speech.  It was the best single political speech I've ever heard in my life. I actually kind of feel sorry for the President that he has to try and top it!

Clinton's speech isn't yet ready for embedding, but it deserves its own post anyway. I'll post it as soon as I can get it!

Democratic National Convention, Day #2

Bill Clinton speaks on day 2 of the DNC.
Image from NBCNews.

Oh dear. Do I have political burnout? I suffered through last week's trip through the RNC Bizarro World--and with a persistent headache yet--to be rewarded with a positive, uplifting, very well-done DNC on Tuesday. But, today, I got home a little earlier than usual. The sky was bursting with grey clouds, and my 4-mile walk didn't seem wise. So, I started watching this day of convention coverage much earlier than I caught any in the last two weeks.

I think the mixture of gloom outside and too much politics has pervaded my brain. I've been finding it difficult to get engaged on the DNC Day 2. As I type this, it's still early though, only 6:15 pm PDT. For those of you on the East Coast though, I have to wonder if you're awake! Okay, maybe that's not entirely fair. The audience in North Carolina seems entertained. The commentators aren't yammering about it being boring or an "off night." I think it just might be me. I will stay tuned to catch Elizabeth Warren and President Clinton. Something tells me I'll perk up by then. Updates to come. . .

Democratic National Convention, Day #1

Yeah, as a graphic artist, I'm not digging the logo.

Wow, what a difference a party makes. Well, the party and the fact that I don't have a brain-splitting sinus headache as I did all through the RNC last week. And I know that I'm biased as a liberal. But, so far, the mood of the DNC is quite different, much more uplifting and positive. And the crowd seems to be connecting, rather than just hooting an hollering (and booing).

This being the first day, you wouldn't expect the speakers to be the top-shelf speakers. You'd be wrong, or rather, I was. There were a couple of clunkers in there, some only suffering for placement after a spectacular speaker. But from what I saw, the DNC's first night was a spectacular sucess, and there was at least one star born.

I'm in the Pacific time zone, so after work (and after my nightly exercise), I could only watch from about 5:30 pm (8:30 EDT). The first speaker I caught was Tammy Duckworth, who was quite good, very engaging and inspiring. I was watching MSNBC while also preparing dinner, so the next speaker I caught was Kathleen Sebelius, and she was fine. Boilerplate speech, nothing bad, a few good points. Rahm Emanuel spoke next, and I'll be honest: I'm not a fan. I had the mixer on, and didn't pay a lot of attention to him. He may have been great, I don't know. [Story continues below]

Following Rahm though was one of the best speeches of the night, by actor Kal Penn (of Harold & Kumar), who has worked with Obama on youth outreach. His tone was strong, his interaction with the audience intuitive, and he had a perfect balance between seriousness and humor (even getting a zinger off on Emanuel). The energy in the room for Penn's speech was warmer and more engaged than anything I saw at the RNC last week. And it was just getting warmed up.

I saw Lilly Ledbetter next, of the Ledbetter Act, the first legislation signed by President Obama. Her speech was great--though with her thick Southern accent, she reminded me of Flo from TV's Alice on occasion. She was emphatically for Obama, and got in some digs at Romney. Very good for a non-professional. But it was Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts (since Romney vacated) who had the first real barn-burner of a speech. Like a revival preacher--but without the annoying evangelical theatrical speech inflections--Patrick steered the audience everywhere he wanted them to go. If you could see a crescendo, it would have occurred a couple of times during his speech. [Story continues below]



The Governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley came out next and. . .well, he was okay. He had a hard act to follow. And he had a line he kept getting the crowd to repeat that quickly became tedious. It had a great payoff, but the buildup was far too prolonged. But he ended strong, and set the stage for quite possibly a future star. Or two.

I'll be honest, before Tuesday night I'd never heard of  Julian Castro, Mayor of San Antonio. He had the crowd in his hand, much like Patrick, but with a much different style. Castro is very youthful, energetic, personable, charming. And he also comes off quite intelligent and well spoken. It's quite the package, and surprise, surprise, he has a twin brother who is also active in politics. Keep your eyes on these guys. [Story continues below]



A gauzy (but well done) Michelle Obama video followed, and then the First Lady was introduced by military mom Elaine Brye. Mrs. Obama then came out, and proved every single right-wing hatemonger wrong about her. I'm sure they don't see it that way (but I don't know what inspires their hatred in the first place). Mrs. Obama was warm, well spoken, charming, and had the audience in the palm of her hand like some of the others, but much more so. The major difference between Mrs. Obama and, say, Ann Romney is easy: realness. She seems like a real, approachable woman. The appeal of Mrs. Obama's speech is difficult to encapsulate, because it's an emotional reaction. Which is likely proof to critics that it's style over substance. [Story continues below]


And you may have noticed that this writeup is about the style of the speakers. That has to do more with my writing ability and the late hour that I write this, rather than a lack of substance. Almost all of the speakers I heard spoke out about helping the poor, gay rights, the right to choose, the military, veterans, health care. And all of them were clearly there to support the re-election of Barack Obama. While Patrick and Castro may get some mileage out of their speeches, none of the speakers seemed to be auditioning for 2016 as they did at the RNC.  The speakers were clear on the President's accomplishments, and on the point that they think we need to let him continue to complete the job.

Oddly enough, the digs at Romney (and to George W. Bush, for that matter) were fairly mild. . .except for former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, who I caught in a replayed clip. He was clearly the attack dog of the night! But I'll give the night a solid A grade, particularly in comparison to the RNC.

President Obama "Evolves" to Suppport Gay Marriage

Thanks, guys. Image from CBS News.

What a difference a day makes. It was Tuesday night when gay rights supporters and activists were angry and saddened by yet another loss at the ballot box in North Carolina. Aside from the insanity of putting civil rights up for a vote, there was the belief that we were coming out of the woods on this one. Though we expected to lose, we were still upset about it.

Then on Wednesday, the President of the United States came out in support of same-sex marriage. It is a view most of us suspected he privately held. But we were frustrated with the muddy message he and the White House were putting out. I'm among those who tried not to make much of a fuss, believing that Obama would "evolve" after securing a second term. So, this is surprising, historic, welcome. . .and I don't see much of a down side.

People who are rabidly anti-gay marriage were for the most part not going to vote for Obama anyway. Those in minority communities who are both anti-gay marriage and pro-Obama are unlikely to vote against him over that one issue, particularly when there is no legislation or policy attached to his opinion. So, I'd like to say thank you to President Barack Obama. You already had my vote, but this ups my enthusiasm!

[Excerpt]


The audacity of evolution on same-sex marriage

Joe Biden has such power over evolution he might make an amoeba get up and walk. Three days ago the vice president announced on Meet the Press that he supported same-sex couples getting married. Wednesday, President Obama announced that after a many-year evolution on the issue, he believed the same thing. The first African-American president became the first ever to announce his support for same-sex marriage. . .
Read more at: CBS News

North Carolina, Then and Now

Image found at VoenixRising.com (NSFW)

There is a common argument against comparing the two images above:

"Being gay isn't the same as being black. Race can't be changed. Being gay is a choice."

I'm not sure why people think this is a convincing argument for anything. It is more a justification for bigotry. Here are just a few points I use to refute it:

- Ask a black lesbian if race and sexuality are comparable when it applies to discrimination.
- By saying "race can't be changed," the implication is that if it could be, it should be.
- Being gay isn't a choice for me, or for any gay person I know. Who would know better? A gay person, or a person who doesn't like gay people?
- Even if being gay were a choice, what difference would that make? Religion is almost always a choice. It is surely changeable (not to mention wholly without evidence). And yet it is Constitutionally protected.

Bottom line: bigotry is bigotry. You show me the difference in the above images. Justify it. Own it. Or reject it.

North Carolina Passes Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Image from Inland News Today

Though the result in the North Carolina anti-gay marriage amendment is not a surprise, it still pisses me off.  As much that it was put on the ballot in the first place as that it passed. In a state where it was already impossible for same-sex couples to get married, an unnecessary--and unnecessarily mean-spirited--amendment was put on the ballot. Will it create jobs? Will it have positive economic impact? Will it help the old, the sick, the infirm or anybody else?

The answer is an emphatic no to all of the above. It was put on the ballot by busybodies who are confused about the difference between holy matrimony and civil marriage. They are confused about the separation of church and state. And they've embarrassed themselves now and in the history books. They've written discrimination into their state constitution. Shameful. Disgusting. Mean. Predictable.

[Excerpt]


North Carolina OKs constitutional same-sex marriage ban

North Carolina voters Tuesday approved a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution which would limit marriage to traditional one man-one woman marriages. The amendment says: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” In effect, it would bar the state from giving legal recognition to civil unions between same-sex couples. . .

Read more at: MSNBC

Listen Up, North Carolina!

Image from TPM.

This is an open letter to the voters of North Carolina. I have a lot to say, but I want this to be easy to read, so I'm resorting to bullet points. So, let's get right to it.

North Carolina, as you vote on Amendment 1, I want you to consider a few things:

• It is unusual to vote on citizens' rights in America. In fact, it's downright un-American (so vote no).
• "Gay marriage" is already prohibited in North Carolina. Putting it in your constitution is redundant (so vote no).
• The amendment is mean-spirited, going much further than merely "protecting" "traditional marriage" (so vote no).
• When same-sex marriage is eventually legal across the country (it's just a matter of time), these types of amendments are going to be embarrassing (so vote no).
• The busy-bodies who put these things on ballots are uniformly odious people. Nasty, despicable people. Look them up, Maggie Gallagher? Brian Brown? Tony Perkins? Who would want to be on their side (so vote no)?
• For those with religious objections, this is the most important part: We're not talking about "holy matrimony," we're talking about civil marriage. If civil marriage had anything to do with religion, interfaith couples and atheists couldn't get married (so vote no).

All that said, I fully expect North Carolina to vote this ugly amendment in. I'm shocked and appalled that this sort of thing can still happen at this late date. I'm disgusted and insulted to have my life and my relationship--gay married in Palm Springs in 2008--used as a political pawn. Especially when most of the "pro" side has used lies, fear, distortions, slander and insults. This thing will likely pass, but I'm hopeful that this movement is on the wane, and this is one of its last gasps.

[Excerpt]


Moderate NC weighs constitutional gay marriage ban

North Carolina has long prided itself on its moderate politics dating to the civil rights era, as well as its place as a New South leader and a hub for high-tech, banking and higher education. . .

Read more at: News-Sentinel.com

Billy Graham Speaks Out on NC Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Billy! I don't go to your church, so I shouldn't
have to follow your religious beliefs!
Image from source, TowleRoad.

I know, the headline is hardly shocking. But this needs to be repeated over and over again:

It does not matter what "God" said or is alleged to have said about marriage. Because we are not talking about holy matrimony, but civil marriage. No serious people are trying to encroach upon holy matrimony. Billy Graham should have no say on my marriage. I do not follow his religion, and in America, I don't have to.

[Excerpt]


Evangelist Billy Graham Speaks Out in Support of NC 'Amendment 1', Takes Out Ad in 14 Papers

The 93-year-old Graham has a full-page advertisement scheduled to run in 14 state newspapers. From his home in Montreat, Graham said, "Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected. . ."

Read more: TowleRoad

Newt Gingrich: Ban Gay Marriage in North Carolina

The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man The late Geraldine Ferraro
Newt Gingrich. From source, Raw Story

I'm no dummy. I'm aware that the constitutional amendment on the ballot in North Carolina to (doubly) ban same-sex marriage will probably pass. It isn't just the fact that these things have passed each time they were tried, and it isn't just the lies and fear mongering used to get them passed. It's just a gut feeling about the politics of North Carolina. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

I'd be happier if we weren't--yet again--voting on a group of tax-paying citizens' civil rights. Something wholly un-American. I'd be happier if busy-bodies would quit proposing laws that only outlaw the rights of "others." When you have no stake in something, it is infinitely easier to vote against it. And I'd really like it, if that doughy pant-load, Newt Gingrich, would shut his blubbery pie-hole about any legislation to do with marriage. Not only is it brazenly hypocritical, he is an utterly irrelevant voice among a sea of them. His final political achievement is being a barnacle on Mitt Romney's ass. Who gives a flying crap what Gingrich thinks?

The bracketed comment is my own:

[Excerpt]


Gingrich calls on North Carolina to ban same sex marriage

[Gingrich dared to say, with no apparent recognition of the irony,] “Marriage between a man and a woman is at the heart of our civilization,” he said. “It’s a belief that is now under attack, yet it’s at the very core of defining who we are. That’s why I urge you to vote for the initiative right here in North Carolina. The chance to vote for a referendum to declare clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

North Carolina Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment is Mean

Image from source, TPM

In my ongoing theme, Republicans are just freaking mean, comes this story. I know the source is a week old, but it really does point out what I'm saying. North Carolina has a amendment to their state constitution up for a vote that doesn't just ban same-sex marriage (something already in NC law), it undoes and prevents every other type of domestic partnership.

Why? Please tell me, besides meanness, why? Come on, you "small government" conservatives! Admit it, you just like being mean.

[Excerpt]


Beyond Gay Marriage: North Carolina Amendment Carries Massive Implications


When North Carolina holds an election on May 8, voters won’t merely be deciding the fate of same-sex marriage in the state; they will be voting on an amendment with implications that could affect gay and straight couples alike. . . 

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Obituary: Senator Jesse Helms

Photo from source, Guardian UK

I wrote an announcement earlier of the death of Senator Jesse Helms. At the time, I was unable to think of anything good to say about him, and so declined to comment. It would seem that I was not the only one having a difficult time. This obituary, from the Guardian UK (by way of AmericaBlog) sums it up best (emphasis mine):

[Excerpt]

Obituary: Jesse Helms

Senator Jesse Helms, member of the US Senate's foreign relations committee for two decades and its chairman from 1995 to 2001, has died at the age of 86. To echo this newspaper's memorable comment on the death of William Randolph Hearst, it is hard even now to think of him with charity. . .

Read more at: Guardian UK

Jesse Helms is Dead

Photo from source, CNN

Oh, my goodness. What do you do when a person you totally revile passes away? As the saying goes, mother always said, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. So, I have this to say: " ."

That is all.

[Excerpt]

Ex-Sen. Jesse Helms dies at 86

Former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, a North Carolina Republican who became an icon to conservatives, died Friday at age 86, the Jesse Helms Center said.

Helms once said his job was to derail the freight train of liberalism. . .

Read more at: CNN