Looking Beyond Amendment One to Amendment Two

I have asked countless people to provide a secular legislative purpose for Amendment One. I have broadcast this question to thousands of people, via Facebook and Twitter. I have posed this question directly to people I know are planning to vote in favor of Amendment One.

Amendment 2?

Crickets.

I have yet to hear one legitimate secular legislative purpose for the amendment. I have also posed a similar question asking non-believers to come forward with reasons why they are voting for Amendment One.

Again, crickets.

I am aware that there may be some voters out there who claim to have a secular purpose for voting for the amendment. I am also sure there may be some non-believers who are doing the same. I do, however, believe that these instances represent a tiny sliver of the population voting in favor of the amendment.

What does this say?

I believe there are only a few conclusions that can be drawn: 1) Voters are ignorant to the effects the amendment will have on heterosexual couples, children, and seniors, 2) Voters are ignorant to the overwhelming scientific evidence that sexual orientation is no more a choice than right- and left-handedness or skin color, 3) Voters will go to great lengths to legitimize their own bigotry.

The common denominator here is religion-based bigotry.

One thing people need to understand is that we do not add constitutional amendments that a) deny rights to a group of citizens based on natural traits, or b) have no secular basis.

It does seem apparent, however, that a large swath of the NC religious population are determined to ensure that we do just this. As North Carolinians, this should be deeply disturbing.

What will Amendment Two bring?

Should the population become overwhelmingly Muslim (as it is in Dearborn, MI), can we expect an amendment to be based strictly on Sharia Law?

Should we add an amendment stating that anyone who does not worship God be killed? (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

If a city worships a different god (or no god), will an amendment require the destruction of the city and the execution of all of it's inhabitants... even the animals? (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

Will an amendment require that we kill our own family members who choose a different religion? (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

If a man has sex with an animal, should we kill both the man and the animal? (Leviticus 20:15-16)

If a man has sex with a woman while she is menstruating, should we cast him out from society? (Leviticus 20:18)

If the preacher's daughter sleeps around, should an amendment require that we burn her at the stake? (Leviticus 21:9)

Will an amendment require that psychics and horoscope writers be put to death? (Leviticus 20:27)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, will an amendment be in place to ensure that both the man and the woman are executed? (Leviticus 20:10)

Will an amendment outlaw Super-Cuts, and shaving? (Leviticus 19:27)

When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the man who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, will an amendment require that we cut off her hand? (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

You might tell me that none of these old laws are valid because they were for a different people at a different time. I will see your old crazy law argument and raise you a few equally as old, and much more vague Bible passages which you claim denounce homosexuality.

You might not want these laws to become amendments because you have broken some of them, and when you broke them nobody got hurt.  The same can be said for homosexuality. Gay marriage hurts no one. Amendment One does.

You are entirely free to cherry pick scripture to validate your own prejudices against taxpaying citizens who simply wish to live their lives in a loving relationship with a consenting adult. You are free to dislike someone based on their natural traits. You are free to be freaked out by homosexuality (That's your problem.) You are free to believe that it is a sin, or that your holy book requires you to believe that it is an abomination.

What is wrong, however, is forcing your personal beliefs into a constitution whose purpose is to protect its citizens, even those of us who do not share your particular religious beliefs.

Be careful what you wish for. It's a slippery slope.