NC Residents. Remember To Vote Against Amendment One

[stacyf]

omg. i might just make this my first ever political facebook post. and I am a North Carolinian!

Not sure if that was original to my friend or not, he is a passionate writer so it might be but I am sure he would not mind the sentiment being shared.

[contrary]

gomi has a great post up about it.

the whole post is terrific, but i actually snorted over "turning your vagina into a salad shooter"

getoffmyinternets.net/2012/project-babiss-surrenders-her-vote-to-christ/

[kpmom]

it appears that the LAW against gay marriage wasn't strong enough, because it was getting encroached upon.

So they amended the constitution to make it doubly-illegal.

i guess. or something.

it boggles. seriously BOGGLES.

But if a gay or lesbian couple legally marries in another state, N.C. still has to recognize it, correct?

ETA: Assuming that's correct, what's the purpose of the amendment?

[slickcat79]

But if a gay or lesbian couple legally marries in another state, N.C. still has to recognize it, correct?

ETA: Assuming that's correct, what's the purpose of the amendment?

IIRC...no. A marriage between gay/lesbian people in another state would not be recognized in NC. And the amendment really has no purpose except for asshole teapartiers to tell gay people that they are not welcome here stand up for marriage.

[Karsaroni]

The breakdown by county is interesting. A huge sea of green, with little pockets of non-idiocy. I'm kind of surprised, all the counties I've ever lived in voted against. Those are the counties where the state's major colleges are, but I guess education doesn't trump ignorance this time.

It may not be. It might still be struck down eventually. But it took this state over 100 years to take miscegenation laws off the books, so I'm not in my most positive frame of mind today :(

That map in interesting, even the 3 counties outside of the Triangle that voted NO, didn't do so in an overwhelming majority. Really, just Orange County was overwhelmingly NO.

[contrary]

And that's mostly chapel hill (my Alma mater)

[QAF_Rocks]

IIRC...no. A marriage between gay/lesbian people in another state would not be recognized in NC.

Yes, that's right. I believe it's because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Normally, a legal marriage performed in another state would be recognized under the "full faith and credit" clause, but because of DOMA, no state has to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state or country.

[Rosa]

...until one of these cases makes it to the Supreme Court. Because the Constitution trumps stupid laws, but only once the court rules on it.

[luckystone]

Easy. You don't count because you've made the wrong choice. Now if you'd just realize how inferior your choices are, then you'll see it makes perfect sense for the government to stigmatize and punish you for them. [sarcasm]

Seriously, though, this is how these people think. They must know that punishing LGBT couples doesn't stop them from existing. But I think their thought process is that the government shouldn't reward "sin," and therefore people who make the "wrong" choice need to be punished for their transgression. I wonder if they think that if they just make their lives difficult enough, people will stop being gay. Or at least will hide in the closet and never live openly with a same-sex partner.

What this campaign does is point out the lie that the "sanctity of marriage" is what matters to these people. They've already banned marriage, but they won't be happy until they can take away any kind of protection or benefit for people who dare to live outside their religious rules.

The homeschool forum linked to had an argument I'd never heard of before (or maybe I misunderstood it lol), basically saying being gay/sinning in relationships was like a victimless crime, and you would suffer if you went to hell forever, so the government should stop you suffering (like they do by preventing people using drugs, when it's them who suffer).

So much wrong with that.

Being not American, I hadn't heard about this until this thread, and just read the parts saying it passed. Am I allowed to say that's backwards or would it be offensive? It makes me very sad to hear.

[slickcat79]

That map in interesting, even the 3 counties outside of the Triangle that voted NO, didn't do so in an overwhelming majority. Really, just Orange County was overwhelmingly NO.

Durham voted 70/30, which is pretty significant too. I'm actually kind of surprised Wake County went against it at all. There are a lot of progressive people in Raleigh and Cary, but it's a really big county and there are a lot of conservatives too. One of my FB friends posted this map yesterday:

That's not how the final vote actually turned out, but it was pretty close. It highlights the counties voting against, along with the universities in those counties, which are basically all the major unis in NC. I got in a mini-argument with another friend of the person who posted it, because he was "offended" that the graphic suggested he was ignorant :roll: But I figure anyone who doesn't understand the separation of church and state (and can't use your/you're correctly) is ignorant and deserves to be called out on it.

[fundifugee]

[contrary]

yeah. I lived in Durham for many years (love love love!) and it's pretty freaking progressive.

In the time I was there, the community successfully managed to keep out both Wal Mart and Corporate Booksellers (both are in a strip mall JUUUUUUSSST over the chapel hill border, on 15-501).

ETA: I'm not surprised that Wake County was in the "for" column. There are definitely cosmopolitan, progressive pockets, but (a) wake county still has a lot of rural areas, and (b) Raleigh is a big financial/banking city, and that population is generally VERY politically conservative.

[tabitha2]

Why don't we like Corporate Booksellers now?

[contrary]

Why don't we like Corporate Booksellers now?

Durham in particular has a lot if independent booksellers and used bookstores that was preferred to support, over having a B&N-type megastore drive them out of business.

[slickcat79]

yeah. I lived in Durham for many years (love love love!) and it's pretty freaking progressive.

In the time I was there, the community successfully managed to keep out both Wal Mart and Corporate Booksellers (both are in a strip mall JUUUUUUSSST over the chapel hill border, on 15-501).

ETA: I'm not surprised that Wake County was in the "for" column. There are definitely cosmopolitan, progressive pockets, but (a) wake county still has a lot of rural areas, and (b) Raleigh is a big financial/banking city, and that population is generally VERY politically conservative.

Wake County wasn't in the for column, they voted against. It surprised me for the reasons that you listed.

Durham is an interesting place. I haven't lived there in a few years, and even when I did I lived in the SW corner that's basically the cheaper version of Chapel Hill. I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to get back to Ninth St. before I move out of state next month, but I do have a high school reunion coming up next year...maybe I'll make it back to "real" Durham for that.

[doggie]

if you look at some of the marriage laws you start to wonder. I mean just checking into a motel and saying your married means you are?

Last night, an amendment passed in North Carolina banning marriage for same-sex couples. Some people decry this as short-sighted at best, and completely bigoted, hateful, stupid, dumb, and unfair in general. I am one of those people, for all the reasons I outline here and here and here.

Now, heterosexual marriage laws are pretty straightforward in North Carolina. In fact, things are so lenient that, In North Carolina, it's completely legal for first cousins to get married ("Double Cousin" marriage, however, isn't okay... Whatever that is). And it's super easy to tie the knot, too. Current state law states that all a couple has to do to be married in North Carolina is check into a hotel and register as married.

Not if you're gay, of course. It doesn't matter how much you love one another, how loyal to one another you are, or how much you want the right to share benefits, property, responsibilities or just proclaim your bond publicly -- you cannot go to a hotel and declare yourself married and be married, gay folks. I'm sorry.

But that's where the ease of being a married man and a woman, no matter how closely blood-related, end in that state. When first cousins marry in North Carolina, they face a whole new set of challenges. There are a bevy of strange state laws in North Carolina that are on the books today which limit the freedoms and rights of married first cousins across the state. Of course, they apply to married non-relatives, non-married relatives and non-married non-relatives, too. But for the purposes of this article, which deals with restrictions vs. freedoms of a particular type of marriage, I'll be discussing in terms of the perfectly legal first cousin marriage.

First-cousin marriages can be dissolved if one of the two people is physically impotent. And, given the demographics of the turnout for yesterday's vote (which was a Republican Primary), this renders the vast majority of the marriages of people who voted for that stupid amendment illegal. Love each other? So what. Have kids? Doesn't matter. If you can't get it up, you can't keep the marriage up. You'd think that this law would be repealed by the true believers of the GOP, since, given the ratio of limp dicks in the Republican party, it is statically likely that every single male in Cialis and Viagra ads is Republican.

Old white people can buy pills to keep their marriage from dissolving when the male's penis cannot maintain erection. Unfortunately, there's no pill to allow same-sex couples to get married, period.

Married first cousins cannot sleep in the same bed in a hotel. State law in North Carolina dictate that couples staying overnight in hotel rooms must have a room with double beds at least two feet apart. Now, non-couples can sleep in the same bed. North Carolina has no motel-room-related laws about rampant out-of-wedlock sleeping, cuddling, dry-humping or out-and-out sex. But when they do have sex, there are rules governing what can go down (or, not go down, so to speak).

Married first cousins cannot have oral sex. The state prohibits the placing of mouths, tongues or, for the particularly talented, tonsils on or around the genitals of another person. Which is completely contradictory, given how much Amendment 1 sucks.

First cousins cannot have sex in any other position besides the missionary position. I suppose this would necessarily include oral sex, since it defies even my vast imagination to try to think of how one would accomplish that particular feat.

Married cousins cannot have sex in a churchyard. It disturbs the good God-fearing Christian Klan members lighting fires to crosses.

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan can light crosses in protest of non-white non-straight people in churchyards in North Carolina. Same sex couples who want to commit their lives to each other cannot get married. That's fair.

Married cousins cannot drive through a cemetery for "pleasure." And you especially can't have non-missionary oral sex in the car while driving through a cemetery, since cemeteries are often located in churchyards. It occurs to me that the single most illegal act in North Carolina would be receiving a blow job while behind the wheel of a car being driven through a churchyard cemetery.

Married cousins cannot allow their dogs and cats to fight. It is against state law for dogs and cats to fight. Against state law. For dogs and cats to fight. There is a law prohibiting ubiquitous domestic animals of particular species from fighting. THIS IS A FUCKING LAW. North Carolina apparently has nothing more important to regulate than who can marry who and whether or not one of the oldest cliches in history can be proven true (or even allowed to happen).

Dogs can fight dogs. Cats can fight cats. But dogs and cats cannot fight. This makes this speech by Coastal Carolina coach Bennett Presser, discussing how his players need to be more like dogs while making strange, screechy cat sounds (and for some reason discussion screen doors) utterly illegal:

Married first cousins have to pay a three dollar tax on all white goods. State law dictates that there is a particularly ridiculous tax on goods that are white in color. This means it's not easy being a bigot in North Carolina... Not if you want to be properly dressed, anyway. Members of the Klu Klux Clan have to pay an extra three dollar tax on their robes (and ostensibly, also their hoods, since they're not all one piece). An average family of a husband and a wife (cousins, of course) and their 10 children (also cousins) has to pay an extra $72 to attend meetings in proper Klan costume. Of course, they can't actually start the meeting while everyone's dressed, because state law mandates that organizations cannot hold their meetings while the members present are in costume -- another perfectly sensible state law.

In other news, Halloween parties in North Carolina really, really suck. Not genitals, though, that's illegal.

Married first cousins cannot sing off-key. It is a misdemeanor and can result in a fine and/or jail time. This isn't a problem for Ben Folds, Nina Simone, James Taylor, Southern Culture On The Skids, Superchunk, or the Squirrel Nut Zippers. But it's certainly an issue for one of my all-time favorite bands, Archers of Loaf, who -- while being fantastic -- have trouble staying on key:

Married first cousins cannot use elephants to plow cotton fields. I don't like that North Carolina limits marriage to one man and one woman. I don't like that they don't allow couples (even married blood relatives) to sleep in the same bed in a hotel room. I don't like that they don't allow joyrides through cemeteries or let people who may just love to sing do so off key.

[contrary]

Wake County wasn't in the for column, they voted against. It surprised me for the reasons that you listed.

Durham is an interesting place. I haven't lived there in a few years, and even when I did I lived in the SW corner that's basically the cheaper version of Chapel Hill. I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to get back to Ninth St. before I move out of state next month, but I do have a high school reunion coming up next year...maybe I'll make it back to "real" Durham for that.

oh! yes! you're absolutely right. I knew that but then proceeded with incorrect info anyway. Thanks for the correction, and i am also surprised.

i lived in the duke/ninth street/brightleaf square area for ages. I'd go back in a skinny minute and stay forever.

[QAF_Rocks]

The homeschool forum linked to had an argument I'd never heard of before (or maybe I misunderstood it lol), basically saying being gay/sinning in relationships was like a victimless crime, and you would suffer if you went to hell forever, so the government should stop you suffering (like they do by preventing people using drugs, when it's them who suffer).

So much wrong with that.

That's a new one on me, too! Pretty scary if you think about it. If they're really so concerned about "sinners" going to hell (and it isn't just rationalization after the fact), how long until they want the government to mandate that everyone follow Christianity? Compulsory church attendance, no legal rights for non-Christians, etc. After all, if the government should be in the business of stopping people from suffering, what better way than by preventing citizens who aren't Christian?

[luckystone]

That's a new one on me, too! Pretty scary if you think about it. If they're really so concerned about "sinners" going to hell (and it isn't just rationalization after the fact), how long until they want the government to mandate that everyone follow Christianity? Compulsory church attendance, no legal rights for non-Christians, etc. After all, if the government should be in the business of stopping people from suffering, what better way than by preventing citizens who aren't Christian?

Oh my gosh! That's acutally totally plausible. Saving people from themselves. Scary.

Being a non-believer, I find the concept of belief really hard to get my head around. I forget that people really, genuinely believe that everyone else is going to hell. I don't see how they can live like that...but then I think that's why some of them get so distressed and try to forcibly stop others "sinning". The odd thing is that it only seems to be in relation to things like homosexuality, and not figs/prawns/tattoos/certain length of beard etc.

[Deleted03]

I read on a french websites that the wording of the amendment also threatens partnreships in the state, as insurance companies agree to add partners on health plans, but now it would not be recognized anymore?

[Rosa]

Yep. Though, that was already covered with their DOMA law (I think? Maybe the law was less strict) and my partner's company is headquartered in NC, and I got my insurance through there as his domestic partner until December, when we married. We don't live in NC, though, so maybe it's just state citizens can't get benefits?

Aside from being total bigotry, that kind of provision makes it really hard for companies and universities to attract good talent. It's going to hit the state's tech corridor & medical research hard, especially when the economy heats up again.

[QAF_Rocks]

Oh my gosh! That's acutally totally plausible. Saving people from themselves. Scary.

Being a non-believer, I find the concept of belief really hard to get my head around. I forget that people really, genuinely believe that everyone else is going to hell. I don't see how they can live like that...but then I think that's why some of them get so distressed and try to forcibly stop others "sinning". The odd thing is that it only seems to be in relation to things like homosexuality, and not figs/prawns/tattoos/certain length of beard etc.

I bet it's a mix between conservatives who want to dictate other people's lives simply because they want they think it's what their god demands, and those who are concerned with the welfare of the "sinners" they're trying to save. I don't think many of the leaders of the anti-gay movement are actually personally concerned or distressed by the idea of people going to hell. For them, it's more about trying to control American society so that it matches what they think their god wants American society to look like. So they're going to try to stop the culture from evolving if at all possible. You see this not just with homosexuality, but also issues of contraception, abortion, abstinence-only education, creationism and prayer in public schools, etc.

I do think some of the conservatives in the general public may be concerned by the idea of people going to hell, thus they spend their lives inside an evangelical or fundamentalist bubble, never getting "unequally yoked" with nonbelievers, just interacting with us with the goal of saving us from ourselves. These people might be concerned for our welfare, so they want to use government laws to help us realize the error of our ways. When I was younger, I used to think these people were just malicious and hateful, but now I see it's more complicated than that. In some ways, they're the victims of their own belief system, worrying and stressing about imaginary threats because of what they were taught.

Perhaps many anti-gay conservatives experience a mix of both these motivations, the desire to dictate and control out of a fear of punishment or retribution, and a crusading spirit of moral self-righteousness that tells those outside their belief system that they know the correct path for society, and, because of that, they should be the ones to decide.