Here we go again.
The North Carolina Legislature has passed a bill to allow its citizens to vote on a state constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
The majority of folks in North Carolina are against this amendment, but that is considered a minor detail by the organizations and people pushing it.
They are always quick to point out that other states that have polled against state constitutional amendments against gay marriage passed them when voters had the chance to register their opinions via the ballot box.
Of course the truth is not that simple. The untold narrative usually goes like this:
People in the targeted states are so generally worried about more pressing issues that they allow their legislatures to be the first salvo in what can be called an invasion (i.e., laying the groundwork by passing a bill, thereby forcing constituents to vote on the matter).
Then an organization -- usually the National Organization for Marriage -- is the second part of the invasion via its virtually unlimited funds supplied by secret donors (which the group has fought tooth and nail not to reveal), which pay for the inundation of robocalls, mailers and commercials spinning a multitude of lies about gays harming children or gays persecuting Christians, or gays causing all sorts of mayhem in general if the amendment is not passed.
At the same time, the organization strokes the egos of area pastors and public leaders. The organization, combined with these pastors and public leaders, gain votes by:
The organization -- again, usually NOM -- wins the vote, and while it brays about how "the community stood up to protect marriage," the community in actuality deals with strife, hard feelings, broken families and generally not understanding why their votes to "protect marriage" hasn't put food on their tables or more money in their paychecks, or made their lives better.
It's like some religious version of that Simpsons episode about the monorail. But instead of a faulty monorail, people are being sold a faulty premise that the biggest harm to their marriages are their gay and lesbian neighbors, and if they make it difficult for these folks to marry, then somehow the real things that harm marriages (e.g., the lack of communication or poverty, a subject none of these "we need to protect marriage" groups seem to ever address) will suddenly disappear.
It's time for this "we need to protect marriage" con to die. And it will. It could happen in North Carolina or Minnesota. Both states are facing anti-marriage-equality votes next year. Or it could happen before then. But rest assured, it will happen.
As our economic crisis looms and Republicans go tête-à-tête with the president, people are starting to get hip to these distracting amendment pushes that exploit their religious beliefs while doing nothing to solve the problems they have gaining employment, feeding their families or paying their mortgages.
It is said that a lie travels around the world before the truth has time to put on its shoes. What they always forget to mention is that when truth does put on its shoes, it usually makes up for lost time.
In the case of these phony "protect marriage" votes, I have a feeling that truth is just about to slap on its sneakers.
Christian Piatt: Christians Should Be More Than "Gay Okay"
Walt Hawkins: Keeping Up with the Hypocrites
Scott Rose: How Many Have to Die Before NOM Is Stopped?
All I ask is one little reason.
Anyone care to try?
(Religious arguments will be rejected since America 'promises' freedom of religion - to ALL iots citizens.)
Marriages are doing best, as evidenced by the lowest divorce rates, in the most liberal and least religious states.
Marriages are doing worst, as evidenced by the highest divorce rates, in the most conservative and religious states.
By this measure, if the GOP wants to truly protect marriage, they should outlaw conservativism and religion.
Oh, I'm sorry. I presented a religious argument! My bad!
And one more thing, the New York vote was fair and a majority of New Yorkers support it.
This isn't about children, but if you really want to take it there, let's take a look at all the children in protective services who have no parents, some of whom are prevented from being adopted by loving families simply because certain states think it's better for them to have no mother or father as opposed to two mothers or two fathers. Research studies have shown time and time again: One parent is better than no parents; two parents are better than one parent—regardless of gender. When an entire community participates in child-rearing, it's even better for the child.
I'm bisexual. In this case, your political is my personal. You would rather I be denied full personhood under our nation's legal system; don't try and spin this any other way. What I do in my bedroom with other consenting adults is my business. Why are you so concerned with the sex lives of non-heterosexuals?
Had voters been offered a three-way choice in such matters - no recognition at all, civil unions, or marriage, the combined vote for the latter two would almost always have beaten the first (with the exception of a handful of deep south theocracies like South Carolina and Louisiana). Counting the votes for marriage as also endorsing civil unions, civil unions would be the law of the land in far more states than we have marriage in now.
Unfortunately, with this situation locked into state constitutions across the country, and given that getting a repeal through state legislatures will be a high hurdle even if the people would vote to repeal such amendments, we are likely stuck with the status quo until such laws are ruled unconstitutional on federal grounds.
Sorry, but there is not one "civil" union that offers the same legal protections. Anywhere. In fact, in the vast majority of States that have changed their Constitutions to prevent same-gender marriages have specifically worder those changes so as to NEVER allow "the benefits that flow from marriage" to same-gender couples.Some even go so far as to word it "or any union RESEMBLING marriage".
(And, until the DoMA is repealed, it is likely to stay that way. Why any law that EXEMPTS ITSELF from Constitutional provisions could be considered 'Constitutional' in the first place escapes me.)
Check out Oregons's for some vivid proof.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your support, but mis-information will never get gay citizens to their Constitutionally promised right to equal treatment before the law.
You are completely right that no civil union yet has been the equal of marriage.
You are completely right that most states have passed a state amendment outlawing anything at all that even resembles marriage.
Every one of these amendments clearly discriminates on the basis of an immutable condition of certain human beings, which has been shown to be unconstitutional when applied to women and blacks. The day will come when it will be established as unconstitutional when applied to sexual orientation (and gender identity) as well.
People crave an easy answer, something they don't need math skills to solve, and the old marketing trick of creating a problem in order to sell the solution works in politics as well. It's such a relief to be able to apply a quick fix to any issue that they don't notice that (a) it's wrong, and (b) the problem was manufactured to distract them from the real issues.
We just have to keep explaining, patiently and in detail, why everyone must be treated fairly and accorded the same rights. But if they don't realize that voting for conservatives is voting against their own best interests, I don't know if they can grasp why second-class citizenship is undesirable.
The counter-offensive has been launched. No time for talk any more, only action. I'm reaching for my check book, writing to my state and federal delegates, getting into the fray.
Before they went through the New York legislature, they tried repeatedly to get the NY Supreme Court to declare gay marriage a right, and were soundly rebuffed.
If you want gay marriage or don't want gay marriage, it belongs in the legislative process of a self-governing people.