Sorry, But Amendment 1 Is Very Much About Religion

Religion is the third rail of the Amendment 1 debate. Organizations from both sides of the debate have been reluctant to state explicitly that, to many North Carolinians, this really is about religion.

While it's true that it isn't (and doesn't have to be) about religion (at its core it is about codifying discrimination in the NC state constitution), both sides of the debate know the importance of religion in getting out the vote.

Those fighting against the amendment, such as The Coalition to Protect All American Families, are very vocal about pro-equality allies in the faith community, proving that it is possible to reconcile marriage equality with faith.

On the other hand, those in favor of the constitutional same-sex marriage ban (such as Vote For Marriage NC) have not been shy about religion's role in their anti-equality stance.

Take this email sent from Vote For Marriage last week, replete with (groundless) cries of religious persecution, and several flat-out lies intended to invoke fear in the religious:

Preserving marriage is vital for protecting religious liberty in North Carolina. If activists were to redefine marriage for society, citizens, small businesses and religious organizations whose own beliefs are at odds with the new definition of marriage will find themselves subjected to legal consequences if they do not comply with the new definition of marriage. That’s why we need your support to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment on May 8th.

Legal experts on both sides of the marriage debate agree that redefining marriage has profound impacts on society. Scholars from some of the nation’s most respected law schools have written that the issue implicates a host of issues ranging from religious liberty and individual expression of faith, to education and licensed professions. Here are a few recent examples:

• Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples
have lost their state tax exemption.

• Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington, D.C. have had to
choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or yielding to
this new definition of marriage.

• In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in
class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out
of such instruction.

• Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings.

• Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married.

One of the very reasons our country was founded was to protect religious liberty. Now, the freedom to practice our religious beliefs is under attack. We urge you to join us in protecting religious liberty by donating to this battle to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

As a reminder, you are also invited to join us as we rally for marriage across North Carolina with the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council on the Values Bus Tour.

For more information about how you can help defend marriage in North Carolina, visit VoteForMarriageNC.com. Campaigns cost money, and this campaign is in its most critical time for mobilizing our forces. Making a generous donation to protect marriage from radical re-definition is the best way you can help. I hope you will!

Sincerely,

Tami L. Fitzgerald
Chairwoman, Vote FOR Marriage NC

Another Vote For Marriage NC email from late February was written by the president of NC Baptists, and invited recipients to join National Pray For Marriage Day:

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The sanctity of marriage is being threatened not only here in North Carolina but throughout our nation. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in the federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, striking down the expressed will of over 7 million Californians who voted to define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

As many of you know, the Alliance Defense Fund has led the charge on defending marriage, not only in California but throughout the nation. We would like to invite you to join them this Sunday, February 26th for a day to pray for marriage – praying that marriages across our land will be strengthened, and that God’s design for marriage will be upheld and honored. We also ask that you take this time to pray for marriage in our own state, and that on May 8th voters throughout the state of North Carolina choose to protect the definition of marriage in the Constitution as the union of one man and one woman.

Please click here to find a prayer guide that you can use and pass along to others to inform them about this special day. Also, please consider sharing this with your pastor, Bible study, friends and family, so that as many believers as possible will know and participate in this day of unified, focused prayer.

The future of marriage, both in North Carolina and the nation, is far from decided, and what is happening in California is just another battle in the ongoing war over marriage. Nevertheless, the need for prayer has never been more urgent, for without Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5). We are thankful for the Alliance Defense Fund and its tireless effort to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

We are working diligently to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment on May 8th so that marriage will be preserved in our state Constitution. We cannot sit back while activists redefine marriage for all of us. We need your support to win this fight.

Please visit www.VoteFORMarriageNC.com to donate, volunteer and get involved.

With your support, we can protect marriage in North Carolina.

Sincerely,
Dr. Mark Harris
Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church, Charlotte
President, NC Baptists

The email containsa link to a PDF "prayer guide" featuring the following text:

The institution of Marriage is under severe attack in our culture today. Will you join in a nationwide day of unified, focused prayer for Marriage in America? 

There are many ways you can be in prayer for marriage on this special day. This is merely a guide to help you, and your church, as you go before the Lord in prayer for marriage.

Praise God for the impact of Marriage:  
• Thank Him for how marriage refines our character, creates stable community for the birth and nurture of children, and unites men & women in an enduring whole-life union.
• Thank Him for giving the distinct, irreplaceable gifts a mom and a dad each uniquely bring to children, through marriage.

 Pray for the marriages in your community:
• For healing, restoration, and divine protection over the relationships between husbands and wives in your church, neighborhood, and among your friends and family.
• That Christians will hold fast to the Biblical truth about marriage and boldly stand up for children, who are most protected and impacted by marriage.

Pray for the future of Marriage:
• For the nation to uphold the truth that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of society and the best environment for raising children.
• For Americans to remember the damage already done to marriage in our society, and how that has hurt children.

Pray for God’s design for sex and sexuality in Marriage:
• Pray for sexual purity; that sex will be reserved for marriage, and celebrated in marriage.
• Pray for those hurting and suffering from going outside of God’s plan for sexuality.
• Pray for sexual fidelity and faithfulness between husbands and wives.
• Pray for children’s innocence to be protected from false sexual indoctrination in schools.

Pray for victory in the lawsuits and legislation that threatens to undermine Marriage:
• Perry v. Brown – a lawsuit to redefine marriage by creating same-sex “marriage.”
• Bishop v. United States – a lawsuit to overturn our nation’s highest law about marriage.
• Brown v. Utah – a lawsuit to legally recognize polygamy.

Whether we like it or not, it's about religion, folks. And while people take their faith very seriously, it's not necessarily a bad thing that religion is playing such an important role here.

A few points:

The purpose of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is "to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another." It's quite clear from the language used by Amendment 1 supporters that their beliefs are deeply rooted in a specific brand of religion. I certainly don't share their views, nor do many other North Carolinians who either are not religious, or whose faith may not endorse discrimination. While the legislation itself steers clear of religious language, it's important that we are aware of the religious roots of anti-LGBT sentiment, and the fact that so many organizations and individuals are openly citing religious belief as the source of their beliefs on marriage.

The word 'sanctity' which is so often used by supporters of the amendment is at its core a signifier of religious belief: "the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas). In other contexts, objects are often considered 'holy' or 'sacred' if used for spiritual purposes, such as the worship or service of gods."

Our constitution should never be a place to a) enshrine discrimination against any group of citizens, or b) codify religious beliefs in the public sphere. Constitutions should protect us from these very things -- anything else is not quite a democracy, and a far cry from the wall of separation envisioned by America's founders.

While I understand the reluctance for the anti-Amendment 1 groups to turn this into a religious debate, ignoring it doesn't make it go away. We need to lift up the hood and really understand why we feel the way we do about Amendment 1. If we are honest with ourselves, and if our faith is keeping us from voting against the Amendment on May 8, we are very likely validating our own prejudices and feelings with scripture that is not being appreciated in the appropriate context, and we are most definitely proposing legislation that is not in keeping with the intent of our constitution.

We need to remember, and remind others, that the definition of marriage has changed over the course of human history. The institution itself is older than any of the three Abrahamic religions.  Enshrining the current snapshot of the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage in our state constitution is indeed a permanent endorsement of very specific religious ideology in our state's supreme legal document.

No matter what your faith, it should be easy to admit that this is a rotten idea.

Against Marriage Equality? Try This Thought Experiment

I have a thought experiment for those of you who oppose same-sex marriage. (For the sake of this experiment, and based on the data, I will assume you are heterosexual.)

Suppose for a moment that you wake up and the slate is clean. If you are married, you are now single. If you have children, you are now childless. Everything is different, and you are unaware of the life you lived before.

Like most people, you have a drive to be employed, to find love, to start a family, to raise children, but you are starting anew.

I mentioned above that everything is different. Including your sexuality. Remember the first time you felt attracted to a member of the opposite sex -- that first crush? Imagine that attraction to the opposite sex is completely foreign to you. You do not feel any attraction to the opposite sex, just as you felt no attraction to the same sex when you began to develop crushes on the opposite sex in your school days.

Now, before we move forward, it's important to dismiss the obvious objection to such a thought experiment: our sexuality is defined by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. (When did you make the decision to be straight?)

So, here you are: a clean slate, a desire to move forward in your new life, find love, and start a family. However, despite your completely natural (and almost always unchangeable) attraction to the same sex, you realize that you will never be able to marry, form a family, and enjoy all the benefits afforded to married couples and families.

You see that your legislators are hoping to pass legislation that specifically discriminates against you. Organizations are raising millions of dollars to ensure that you, a taxpaying citizen, do not have the same rights as other taxpaying citizens whose sexual orientations, while different from yours, are determined by the same genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

Imagine that you are religious, and you attend church on Sundays. Imagine that your pastor and your congregation do not accept you because of who you are. They denounce you as a sinner, a sexual deviant, and an abomination to God.

Imagine that millions of people honestly believe that your pursuit of the same thing that they have (a spouse and a family) is going to destroy a social institution.  They claim that you are harming children (many even claim you are likely to be a pedophile) and that you are a threat to society.

Imagine that you are hospitalized, and the most important person in your life is not able to visit you. Imagine that the person who knows you the best, your soul mate, is not legally allowed to make important medical or financial decisions for you if you are incapacitated.

How does this life feel to you? How is your outlook on life? How do you plan to navigate the rest of your life in a place that will not accept you, a place where you are a 2nd-class citizen, a place where any sort of family you attempt to build will not accepted, a place which has made it clear that you are not welcome?

If you don't feel the least bit of sadness, frustration, or injustice at this point, you're either not being honest with yourself, or you're incapable of empathy.

Vote No On One: Powerful Anti-Amendment One Video From NC State GSSWA

On Tuesday, NC State University's Graduate Student Social Work Association (GSSWA) held an event on campus to discuss the proposed NC constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, President of the NC NAACP, was also in attendance to speak to about codifying discrimination.

MSW student Lis Tyroler created a powerful video for the event, featuring a wide variety of North Carolinians who will be affected by the amendment, including gay and lesbian couples, and straight allies like yours truly.

The video deserves a much wider audience, and adds to the growing collection of powerful protests against this harmful amendment.

Watch:


Vote NO on ONE (NCSU GSSWA) from Lis Tyroler on Vimeo.

Redefining History: The Myth Of Marriage As Religious Union Between Man & Woman

Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum (Egypt)

One of the most common arguments against marriage equality is the claim, "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

We also hear time and again about the "sanctity of marriage," and that marriage was designed by God, and is therefore a religious institution.

These notions are simply not true. Anyone with a basic knowledge of human history would know these claims don't float.

Let's have a quick look at some examples from history which shed some light on how marriage has been defined, and re-defined, over time:

Pre-500 BCE

• Abraham (founding forefather of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) had his wife Sarah sleep with both the Egyptian Pharaoh and the Semitic King Abimelech for political positioning and increased riches. Unable to provide Abraham with an heir, Sarah encouraged Abraham to marry her Egyptian slave as his second wife (polygamy), which resulted in the son Ishmael.

• A wife was considered her husband’s property. Marriage was used to strengthen a family’s financial or political position.


5th Century BCE thru 1st Century BCE

• In Athens, “Marriage was respected as an institution that provided progeny and good housekeeping; it was not expected to fulfill one’s longing for a soul mate.” The ideal union was considered to be between an adult man and an adolescent boy.

• Marriage was a contract made between the bride’s father (or brother) and the groom.

• Toward the end of this period, “Roman marriage laws began to require the consent of the bride and groom.” The requirement for mutual consent between the bride and groom began spreading throughout the Western world and helped to change a wife’s position from a piece of property, like cattle, that could be given by the father to her husband.


1st Century CE thru 14th Century CE

• The early Christian church was hostile to marriage, believing that marriage and family were distractions from the path to salvation. To remain single and celibate was the ideal.

• Nero married two men, Sporus in 54 CE, and Doryphorus in 68 CE.

• Same sex weddings took place in increasing numbers over a period of time, but were outlawed in 342 CE.

• Basil I, founder of the Macedonian dynasty, entered into three same-sex unions, first with Nicholas, a monk of the church of St. Diomede; then to John, son of a wealthy widow in Achaia, Greece; and then later to the Emperor Michael. After Basil entered a formal union with Nicholas it was reported that “they rejoiced in each other.”

• “Canon law made two changes that were to have long-term effects. First, the church pressured individuals to marry in the presence not only of witnesses, but also of a priest, and to perform this ceremony ‘at church.’ Second, it downplayed the need for parental consent, and foregrounded the mutual will of the intended spouses as the major criterion in the making of a valid marriage. This revolutionary doctrine would endure and flourish over the centuries.”

• Love preceding marriage began to take hold in Europe, when previously affectionate feelings or familial devotion was expected to develop after marriage.


15th Century CE thru 18th Century CE

• Although mutual consent and love preceding marriage had taken hold, marriage retained elements of its former status as a property arrangement. Once a woman was married, her husband became her legal guardian. Her husband legally owned all the property she brought to the marriage.

• Governments and Churches in greater Europe successfully enforced a rule requiring church ceremony to validate a marriage beginning in the 16th century. This requirement came to England a bit later in, in 1735.


19th Century CE

• 1801 Murray Hall, a prominent Tammany Hall politician in New York, was posthumously discovered to have been a woman. Hall dressed in men’s clothing, lived as a man, and was married twice, both times to women. Hall also voted in elections, which was illegal for women at the time.

• The Oneida Colony in upstate New York, founded by John Noyes in 1848, cultivated a form of group marriage called "complex marriage" in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. The community also practiced "scientific breeding" in which potential parents were matched by committee for physical and mental health.

• If a woman worked outside the home, everything she made belonged to her husband. Her children also belonged to her husband. If she divorced him, he kept all of her earnings and their children, even if he was a drunkard who beat her.

• Biawacheeitchish, also known as Pine Leaf and Woman Chief, became a renowned war and camp leader among the Crow Indians. She dressed as a man when she went to war and had a number of wives.

• Henry James’ novel The Bostonians contained themes of feminism and led to the coining of the term “Boston Marriage” to describe romantic friendships between women, which often included holding hands, cuddling, sharing a bed, and making open expressions of love for each other.


20th Century CE

• Sephardic Jews in the Middle East maintained the right to polygamy until an all-inclusive ban was pronounced in the mid-twentieth century, after the formation of the State of Israel.

• 1967 In Loving v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. The court’s decision was based on the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• In 1969 in California, Troy Perry presides over the "holy union" of two women, Neva Heckman and Judith Belew — the first public same-sex marriage ceremony in American history.

• 1989, Denmark – The first government-recognized same-sex union in modern history takes place.


Dawn of the 21st Century CE (2000s CE thru the present)

• 2000, Vermont – Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to grant civil unions to same sex couples. Civil unions are intended to grant all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, although they are not recognized by the federal government. The legislation that created civil unions came about as a result of a state Supreme Court decision, in which the court ruled that denying marriage rights to same sex couples was unconstitutional discrimination.

• 2001, The Netherlands – Same-sex marriage becomes legal for the first time in modern history.

• 2003, Belgium – This country became the second to legalize same-sex marriage.

• 2003, Massachusetts – The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples should have equal rights to marry under the state constitution. Their decision is based on the grounds of due process and equal protection).

• 2005, Navajo Nation – Joe Shirley Jr., Navajo President, vetoed a bill by the tribal legislature that banned same-sex marriage on the reservation.

• 2005, Connecticut – The Connecticut state legislature became the first in the U.S. to pass civil unions legislation without pressure from the courts.

• 2005, Spain – Same-sex marriage became legal.

• 2005, Canada – Our neighbor to the north becomes the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage..

• 2006, Arizona – The state’s voters become the first to reject a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

• 2006, New Jersey – Under circumstances similar to those in Vermont in 2000, the New Jersey state legislature enacted civil unions in response to a state Supreme Court order that same-sex couples be granted the same rights as married couples.

• 2006, South Africa – Same sex marriage becomes legal.

• May 15, 2008 , Sacramento – California Supreme Court issued a decision striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Noting that the state’s domestic partnership law falls short of full equality, the ruling also holds that any discrimination based on sexual orientation must pass “strict scrutiny,” the same standard that applies to race and gender (In re Marriage Cases). Chief Justice Ronald M. George, an appointee of Gov. Pete Wilson (Dolan), writing for the majority stated that “An individual’s sexual orientation – like a person’s race or gender – does not constitute a legal basis on which to deny or withhold legal rights” (In re Marriage Cases).

• May, 2008, New York – Following an opinion by legal counsel, Gov. David Paterson directed all state agencies to begin recognizing same-sex marriages that are performed in other jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, California, and Canada.

The source of the above information, Labmda Archives San Diego, has not updated their timeline in a while, but you get the idea (I have also edited out numerous entries for the purpose of this post). It is important to note that marriage laws in the US, and elsewhere, continue to be challenged, and altered. Right now we are in the middle of several high profile same-sex marriage battles, including California, New Jersey, Washington State, North Carolina and elsewhere.

The point is this: Marriage has not always been a union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, marriage has not always been a union designed, or endorsed, by God or the church.

Here's the big one, folks: Marriage predates monotheism. Fact. In other words, marriage predates the God of Abraham -- the same God who supposedly designed marriage.

Marriage has been evolving over the course of human history, and it will continue to evolve until humans no longer walk the earth. Marriage has been re-defined over and over, and will continue to be re-defined.

To characterize marriage as "the union between a man and a woman as designed by God," is, quite simply, to freeze the definition of marriage at the point in human history that suits your idea of what marriage should be -- with total disregard for how marriage came about, how it evolved, and how it will inevitably continue to evolve.

12-Year Old Autistic North Carolinian Pens Pro-Equality Editorial For Kid-Run Paper

Max Gearhart

Max Gearhart doesn't understand how anyone would want to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. While Amendment 1 is being hotly debated across North Carolina, Max sees it as a no-brainer.

"How can we be so unfair to our own people?" asks Max.

Max Gearhart, a resident of Greensboro, is 12 years old.

He also happens to be autistic.

Max decided to write a short, succinct essay in support of same-sex marriage in his local paper. No, not the Greensboro News & Record. Max published his essay in the Lindley Park Gazette, a neighborhood paper, written by kids, published by kids, and distributed by kids. (The Greensboro News & Record ran a story about the the Gazette in November.)

Here's Max's editorial, as it appears in the February issue of the Lindley Park Gazette:

Disagreeing with Amendment OneBy Max Gearhart
I heard that there might be a new amendment to our state constitution called Amendment One. My parents will be asked to vote on it in May. It says that homosexuals cannot get married to their same gender and I say that we should say no to this because everyone is equal and we should not categorize people like that. I think nobody should be categorized because God created us all and no government law can ever deny that. If we pass this law, it will be really unfair. Gays are one of us! How can we be so unfair to our own people? Next thing you know they'll try to make a rule about autistic people not being able to marry.

Amendment One is a really unfair law that should never be passed. I think we should convince our parents to vote no on this law.

Here is exactly what Ballotopedia says about Amendment One

The North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment will appear on the May 8, 2012 ballot in the state of North Carolina as a “legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.” The measure would define marriage in the state as between “one man and one woman.” If approved, the proposed measure would amend Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by adding a new section.

The text of the measure 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.

From Ballotopedia.org

News & Record story on the Lindley Park Gazette

The fact that a young, autistic boy can speak so openly and clearly about the discriminatory and harmful nature of Amendment 1 speaks volumes.

Not only does Max's sentiment reflect survey statistics (support for same-sex marriage is much higher in younger age groups), it also underscores the fact that prejudice is learned through living in (and observing) a society where prejudices exist.

Most importantly, however, Max teaches us that, while a great many of us are born lesbian or gay, nobody is born a bigot. Even a kid knows that.

Max's mother, Jamy Gearhart, perhaps said it best when she wrote about the Lindley Park Gazette on her blog (months prior to her son's editorial appearing within its pages):

We should pay attention because these kids are the people who will be the custodians of this planet some day. Our future is in their hands and it's so heartening to think that they may grow up to make real and positive changes in our world. If what they are doing now is any indication of their future doings, I foresee great things for them.

NC's Clay Aiken Speaks Out Against Amendment One

North Carolina's own Clay Aiken speaks out against the harmful May 8 marriage Amendment.

Watch:

Visit ProtectNC.org to learn more about the harms of this amendment.

Remember to VOTE NO on May 8.

Faith-Based Support For Same-Sex Marriage

You will often hear, during arguments for or against same-sex marriage, that "it's not about religion."

I have personally been urged on occasion (by religious and non-religious folks) to not stress the religious aspects of the debate. It makes sense that people would want to avoid the faith discussion while fighting for something so important. Mostly, because people do not like to have their faith challenged.

While Americans are not reluctant to inject religion into politics, faith is, at its core, a very private matter. An assault on faith, or even aspects of one's faith, is often perceived as an assault on one's very being.

I don't think we need to shy from the discussion. It's the elephant in the room. It is in many ways the crux of the entire debate.

While many point to scripture to argue against LGBT equality and same-sex marriage, there are many devout religious folks who are pointing to scripture to advocate for acceptance, tolerance, and change.

Via the LA Times:

State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen is a committed Christian who was a swing vote on Washington's gay-marriage bill. When she finally decided to vote yes late last month, she wrote a blog post explaining her reasons, which beautifully lays out the case for why people of faith should set aside their personal prejudices in the name of equality.

"I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others," Haugen wrote. "I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs. It's not always easy to do that. For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day. But this issue isn't about just what I believe. It's about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It's about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed."

In addition to Haugen, Gov. Christine Gregoire, who introduced the legislation, reconciled her religious views with equality, changing her views that she had held for years.

“It’s time, it’s the right thing to do,” Gov. Christine Gregoire said Wednesday as she introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

It was clearly an emotional day for Gregoire, who is in her final year in office and who up to now has publicly opposed gay marriage. Indeed, she let it be known that since being elected she has struggled privately with this issue.

“I have not liked where I have been for seven years,” she said Wednesday at an event with several gay marriage supporters to announce her proposal. “I have sorted it out in my head and in my heart, and what’s more important to me is, I believe in equality and respect of all citizens.”

Her struggle, she said, was her religion. She’s a practicing Catholic, a church that doesn’t support gay marriage.

“Some say domestic partnerships are the same as marriage,” the governor said Wednesday. “That’s a version of the discriminatory separate but equal argument of the past.”

The governor announced what she called historic legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

“Our gay and lesbian families face the same hurdles as heterosexual families—making ends meet, choosing what school to send their kids to, finding someone to grow old with, standing in front of friends and family and making a lifetime commitment,” Gregoire said.

“For all couples, a state marriage license is very important. It gives them the right to enter into a marriage contract in which their legal interests, and those of their children, if any, are protected by well-established civil law.”

Here in North Carolina, opponents of the same-sex marriage ban have an uphill battle. This is, after all, the Bible Belt.

That being said, you will not find a shortage of religious leaders, pastors, and organizations, who have no problem reconciling their religious beliefs with support of same-sex marriage.

Take the following Statement of NC Clergy and Faith Leaders Against the Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment, with over 300 signatures, posted at Equality NC's Website, as well as the Website of the Coalition to Protect All NC Families:

As people of faith, clergy and leaders in our faith traditions, we are mandated by God to demonstrate and protect love in all its forms and to stand for justice for all of creation. In faithful response to this calling, we commit ourselves, along with thousands of other Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people of faith around North Carolina, to these basic principles:

While we respect the fact that debate and discussion continue in many of our religious communities as to the scriptural, theological and liturgical issues involved, we draw on our many faith traditions to arrive at a common conviction. We oppose the use of sacred texts and religious traditions to deny legal equity to gay and lesbian people.

We oppose any amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit gay and lesbian couples from receiving the protections like health benefits and hospital visitation afforded by recognition of their relationships.

We affirm freedom of conscience in this matter. We recognize that the state may not require religious clergy to officiate at, or bless, gay and lesbian marriages. Likewise, a denial of state civil recognition dishonors the religious convictions of those clergy, supported by their faith communities, who officiate at and bless gay and lesbian marriages.

As people of faith, we, the undersigned, urge the North Carolina State Legislature to protect families in North Carolina by opposing the anti-LGBT constitutional amendment.

Conservative Christians might believe that the 300-plus who signed the statement would belong solely to the liberal persuasion, i.e. those who subscribe to a lenient and unrecognizable Christianity. That would be untrue. The list features signatures of leaders from a broad spectrum of religious affiliations: Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Unitarian Universalist, Jewish synagogues, United Church of Christ, Episcopal, Quaker, Mennonite, Buddhist, etc. Truly an example of unity in faith.

The list of signatories is astounding, including the President of the NC Council of Churches (as well as former presidents and board members), the Chair of Religious Affairs for the NC-NAACP, several bishops of the Episcopal Diocese, deacons, elders, rectors, military chaplains and priests.

Pastor Richard Edens of United Church of Chapel Hill states, "I think there are a growing number of people who want the Constitution to reflect the inclusiveness represented in the Gospel."

Rev. Robin Tanner of Piedmont Unitarian Universalist Church states:

"When we vote on the rights of others, it becomes a moral and spiritual issue."

"We are called as religious leaders to speak with the depth of our faith and to speak truth to power in the face of injustice. If I were to be silent, in some ways it would be easier. But I have the opportunity to speak in behalf of my congregation, to speak up for those who don't have a voice."

Donna Miller, a wife and mother of two who attends Morning Star Lutheran Church in Mint Hill, states, "I believe I'm well inside my beliefs as a Christian to believe in same-sex marriage...Above all, you love everyone, and you don't judge."

The Rev. Dr. William J. Barber III, of the NAACP, wrote in an official statement on the ban initiative:

"A vote on the same sex marriage amendment has nothing to do with your personal opinion on same sex marriage but everything to do with whether or not you believe discrimination should be codified and legalized constitutionally...No matter our color. No matter our faith tradition...No one, especially those of us whose forebearers were denied constitutional protections and counted as 3/5ths of a vote for their slave-masters and mere chattel property for other purposes in the old Constitutions-none of us should ever want to deny any other person constitutional protections."

As should be clear, it is entirely possible, and in many cases, quite easy, to reconcile one's religious beliefs with a vote against the same-sex marriage amendment to the NC state constitution.

If, as a person of faith, you can't bring yourself to vote against the amendment, ask yourself why. How are these 300+ religious leaders and members of clergy able to reconcile their faith with a 'No' vote? Which approach is truly aligned with justice, love, and charity? Which approach is truly aligned with the freedoms and liberties afforded to all citizens of our great state? As Rev. Dr. Barber asked, do you believe discrimination should be codified and legalized constitutionally?

Whether or not your beliefs allow you to do so, you must remember that same-sex marriage is already illegal in North Carolina. What you are doing, by voting for the same-sex marriage ban amendment, is quite simply enshrining discrimination into our state constitution.

If there is a common denominator found in all humans, religious or not, it is the desire to go about our lives on earth with a basic set of rights, including the freedom to pursue happiness in a peaceful society. We are sophisticated enough to stop attacking each other for our differences, and to start focusing on our similarities. We are too good to spend time denying others the very things each of us desires in life.

What I Want For My Birthday

I will turn 43 years old on Sunday, January 29. I'm usually not one to make a big deal about birthdays. I'm not big on forced merriment, and I don't like to remind myself that this may be the first year that I will be older than 100% of the Red Sox 40-man roster.

I'm not big on presents. This year, however, I'm asking for something. I want all of my NC-based friends, relatives, acquaintances, followers, and readers, to pledge to get up off their asses on May 8 and vote against the anti-LGBT amendment. (Seriously, click the link, and pledge.)

If you feel inclined to do more than that (I know most of you are going to vote against it anyway), please consider donating, volunteering, or attending an event.

If you aren't based in NC, please consider donating. We need all the help we can get.

I've explained why I'm against this amendment. It's not rocket science.

I want to remind everyone that this amendment, if passed, will affect you and your neighbors. It will strip basic protections from hundreds of thousands of North Carolina families. It will threaten child custody and visitation laws and increases risk factors for teen suicide. It will threaten domestic violence protections for all unmarried couples. It will threaten North Carolinians' most basic personal freedoms. It will harm our great state's economy.

Perhaps the best reason for voting against this amendment is the fact that we should never put our citizens' civil rights up for a vote.

If your religious views make you hesitant to commit, consider the growing number in the faith community who have no problem reconciling their vote with their faith.

Talk to your family members. Reach out to the people who you feel might not have all the information they need to accurately assess the damage this amendment could cause. Engage people in your communities, your schools, and your churches. Inform your Facebook friends and Twitter followers. Blog, send emails, and share links to resources.

Pass this post along to friends who don't even know me.  If your birthday is coming up (or not), pass this along to your friends and ask the same.

I don't ask for much. The best birthday present I could receive would be to know that each of you consider doing something -- whatever you can -- to help defeat this initiative.

Thank you.

The NC Anti-LGBT Amendment: Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families Launches Campaign

The Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families held a news conference Wednesday in Raleigh to unveil its campaign aimed at defeating the amendment question forced onto the ballot by the state Legislature.

The ballot question, for those who have been living under a rock over the past year, would add to NC's Constitution a ban on legal recognition for all unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, and revoke many protections already in place for hundreds of thousands of tax-paying citizens.

The Coalition is comprised of dozens of 'organizations dedicated to defeating Amendment One in order to protect ALL North Carolina families,' including Democracy North Carolina, Institute for Southern Studies, National Association of Social Workers NC, North Carolina Council of Churches, North Carolina Justice Center, PFLAG, and many more.

The organizations serving as the Coalition's steering committee are: ACLU-NC, Equality NC, Faith in America, Human Rights Campaign, Replacements, Ltd., Self-Help, and Southerners On New Ground (SONG).

The Coalition's brand new Website serves as a powerful resource, as both an education tool, and as a call-to-action. Visitors can learn about the many ways in which the amendment would be harmful to NC. They can learn about the many clergy members throughout the state who are committed to defeating the amendment. Visitors can also read compelling stories from NC citizens affected by anti-LGBT legislation.

The site also makes it easy for anyone to get involved. Visitors can sign up to volunteer, attend an event, share their own story, or donate.

The Coalition has made a toolkit available, which features sharable videos and printable pamphlets. Their goal is to have 1,000,000 conversations with North Carolinians before May 8, and they need our help to meet that goal.

Whether or not you think you have a dog in this fight, it's important to familiarize yourself with this ballot question, the harms that would come from an amendment, and to be a part of the conversation.

It's important that NC citizens from all walks of raise their voices. Don't leave it up to the 'activists.' Straight, gay, religious, atheist, old, young, black, white...this affects all of us, and it sets the tone in our state for years to come.

Be on the right side of history and help defeat this harmful initiative on May 8.

We Are All Equal

A must-see for North Carolinians.

In September 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to place an amendment on the May 2012 ballot restricting the liberties of minority couples in the state. This video documents the outcry against this act as it would historically be the only portion of the state constitution that would restrict individual rights.



Visit Equality NC to see how you can help.

Art Pope Exposed

Sue Sturgis and Chris Kromm of the Institute for Southern Studies have created a video introducing their research into Art Pope's overarching influence on North Carolina politics.

It's important that North Carolinians educate themselves on the dishonest and underhanded tactics employed by Art Pope and his network of heavily-funded organizations set on fundamentally transforming the state, especially as we gear up for the May 8 vote on the anti-LGBT amdendment, and the pivotal 2012 general election.

Via Facing South:

ArtPopeExposed.Com comes after a widely-circulated profile of Pope in this week's New Yorker magazine, which drew on Facing South's and the Institute's research and reporting over the last 18 months.

Among the facts profiled at ArtPopeExposed:

Bankrolling the Right: The John William Pope Foundation, which Art Pope chairs, supplies 90% of the income of the leading conservative advocacy groups in North Carolina. Pope has claimed that most of his foundation's money goes to charity, but tax records show that at least two-thirds of their grants support conservative groups and causes.

Buying Political Influence: In 2010, three groups backed by Pope -- Americans for Prosperity, Civitas Action and Real Jobs NC -- supplied 75% of the outside money that flooded into North Carolina's state legislative elections, helping fuel historic Republican victories. Pope family members also bundled more than $300,000 in personal contributions to GOP candidates and committees.

Funding Climate Denial: Pope's foundation has given $24.1 million to a network of "climate denial" groups -- many tied to energy interests -- who ignore the scientific consensus about climate change and fight clean energy standards.

Sue Sturgis and Chris Kromm introduce ArtPopeExposed:

Art Pope: North Carolina's Little Koch

Jane Mayer has written a scathing profile of Art Pope in the latest New Yorker. If you're unfamiliar with Art Pope, and you care about democracy, you should spend some time with Mayer's piece, State For Sale.

Who exactly is Art Pope?

Remember when North Carolina, an Obama-voting blue state with a Democratic governor, turned back into a red state in 2010? Art Pope played a large role in that happening.

Mayer writes:

Pope’s triumph in 2010 was sweeping. According to an analysis by the Institute for Southern Studies, of the twenty-two legislative races targeted by him, his family, and their organizations, the Republicans won eighteen, placing both chambers of the General Assembly firmly under Republican majorities for the first time since 1870. North Carolina’s Democrats in Congress hung on to power, but those in the state legislature, where Pope had focussed his spending, were routed. 

The institute also found that three-quarters of the spending by independent groups in North Carolina’s 2010 state races came from accounts linked to Pope.

The Pope family foundation—of which Art Pope is the chairman and president, and one of four directors—reportedly has assets of nearly a hundred and fifty million dollars.
This wealth has enabled Pope to participate in the public arena on a scale that few individuals can match.

Art Pope is more or less North Carolina's equivalent of the Koch Brothers.

Graphic from indyweek.com

Pope has at times joined forces with [the Koch brothers], attending some of their semi-annual secret planning summits and, through the family foundation, contributing millions to many of the same causes. Pope, in addition to being on the board of Americans for Prosperity—which David Koch founded, in 2004—served on the board of its predecessor, Citizens for a Sound Economy, which Koch co-founded, in 1984. Charles Koch recently praised the Popes, along with other donors, for providing financial support for the 2012 election effort, and tax records show that Pope has given money to at least twenty-seven groups supported by the Kochs, including organizations opposing environmental regulations, tax increases, unions, and campaign-spending limits. Pope, in fact, helped fund the legal center run by James Bopp, the lawyer who made the initial filing in the Citizens United case.

Not only is he powerful and influential, Art Pope is sleazy. Mayer writes about the 2010 campaign against Chris Heagarty, a Democratic lawyer, ran for a legislative seat in Wake County:

One ad accused him of having voted “to raise taxes over a billion dollars,” even though he had not yet served in the legislature. Another ad depicted Heagarty, who has dark hair and a dark complexion, as Hispanic. (He is Caucasian.) The ad was sponsored by the North Carolina Republican Party, to which Pope had contributed in 2008. Heagarty said, “They slapped a sombrero on a photo of me, and wrote, ‘Mucho Taxo! Adios, Señor!’ ” He said, “If you put all of the Pope groups together, they and the North Carolina G.O.P. spent more to defeat me than the guy who actually won.” He fell silent, then added, “For an individual to have so much power is frightening. The government of North Carolina is for sale.”

Nina Szlosberg-Landis, a Democratic activist in Raleigh, says, “It’s part of a very deliberate national strategy of the ultra-conservative movement to change the face of democracy. And I have to hand it to them. They’re pretty successful.”

Marc Farinella, the Democratic campaign consultant, said. “Pope has used the federal tax code to create a massive campaign apparatus that is only thinly disguised as a collection of benign, civic-minded nonprofit groups.”

What does this mean for 2012?

Experts predict that, next fall, the Republicans will likely take over at least four seats currently held by Democrats in the House of Representatives, helping the Party expand its majority in Congress. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership in the North Carolina General Assembly is raising issues that are sure to galvanize the conservative vote in the 2012 Presidential race, such as a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Pope funds climate-change denial. He funds the Tea Party. He even funnels money into defeating moderate Republicans.

Mayer, appearing on Rachel Maddow's show, stated:

New Yorker portrait of Pope

"In many ways he is the one man who is single-handedly bankrolling a kind of a conservative takeover of the state. At least that's how the Democrats see it down there. It's a state that as you said is just completely key to Barack Obama's reelection, and it's a state that is traditionally neither completely red nor blue, it's kind of a purple state, but it went blue in 2008, and basically the Republican party took one look at it and thought they've got to make sure that it doesn't go that way again in 2012. So there's been a lot of very careful and smart thinking going into the state and a ton of money." 

She went on to explain that Pope "has a vision of America that requires kind of turning back the tide of history to before the New Deal basically. And he will say it has nothing to do with his business interests, but it does include things like opposition to the minimum wage law," as well as "opposition to most taxes, and to all kinds of government services." Mayer continued, "his political vision dovetails with his self-interest, but it goes beyond that I think really with him. He's something of a kind of an ideological purist and a zealot to some extent."

According to investigations by Facing South, Pope's family foundation supplies more than 90% of the income of right-wing groups in North Carolina; in 2010, groups connected to Pope accounted for 75% of the outside election spending that helped Republicans capture the state legislature.

If you care about democracy, and especially if you care about North Carolina, read Mayer's New Yorker piece, and watch the Maddow clip below.

This man is working to take NC back to its darker days. If you are glad to have the days of Jesse Helms behind you, it's worth noting that, as Mayer states, "Even some North Carolinians associated with Jesse Helms think that Pope has gone too far."

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

NC Family Policy Council Releases Hilarious/Sad Report On Anti-LGBT Amendment

The North Carolina Family Policy Council has released a new report called, 'Countering the Deception: Responding to Allegations About the Marriage Protection Amendment' (PDF).

It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Commenting on it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. So I'll let you take a look at it yourself.

It is summarized below, however (in their own words), if you're not a glutton for punishment.

1: “The MPA is anti-LGBT, and represents an attack on LGBT North Carolinians.”
Response: Nothing about the MPA is anti-homosexual—it is simply a defense against an attack on marriage that is being waged by the REAL AGGRESSORS, homosexual activists and their allies, who are seeking to redefine marriage in every state in this nation.

2: “The MPA will write discrimination into the State Constitution.”
Response: The MPA is about preservation, not discrimination. It would preserve the definition of marriage that has existed throughout history in the State Constitution, and at the same time make a positive statement about what constitutes a marriage in North Carolina.

3: “The MPA is a form of religious-based bigotry.”
Response: The MPA is really about protecting the rights to free speech and religious liberty, which, as this accusation shows, are seriously threatened by the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” It will help preserve the ability of the Church to continue to transmit traditional values about sex, gender, and marriage—including what the Bible says about homosexual activity.

4: “The MPA is harmful to the children of LGBT individuals and young people who identify as LGBT.”
Response: The MPA will help to protect all children by maintaining the marital norm for society of one man, one woman that has endured for centuries and is backed up by social science evidence because no other family form can provide children what they need to thrive, or duplicate its benefits for individuals and society.

I Love The Internet

Someone created this from some of the text in last week's LGBT equality post and put it on their Tumblr site, and it has since been making the rounds.

So great.

Self Evident Truths: Faces of the LGBT Community

A reader brought The Self Evident Project to my attention. It's pretty amazing, and exactly the kind of thing that people need to see here in North Carolina (or anywhere, for that matter).

It is no news that the United States discriminates against the LGBTQ community, from marriage equality, to workplace discrimination, and beyond.

In 2010 iO Tillett Wright began a project called Self Evident Truths, photographing anyone that felt like they qualified to fall on some part of the LGBTQ spectrum, from bisexual, to transgender.

This project aims to travel across the USA and capture 4,000 faces.

Read more about the project here.


Self Evident Truths from Self Evident Truths on Vimeo.

Rep. Folwell, Why Don't You Ban Divorce If You Want To Protect Marriage?

Via ThinkProgress:

North Carolina House Speaker Pro Tem Dale Folwell (R) was very involved in the effort to advance a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, arguing that the measure would “protect” marriage in the state. The measure passed through both chambers last week in a matter of 24 hours and will now be on the May ballot.
This morning, Folwell came under fire on the radio show “Charlotte Talks,” as host Mike Collins challenged him on why he supports banning same-sex marriage, but not divorce.

Folwell doesn't have much to say on the subject.

The Little Blog Post That Could: Things Learned, Additional Thoughts

When I started writing this blog, it was simply a place to collect my thoughts on the things which interest me (religion, science, politics, and culture), the way in which these things are entangled, and they way these things affect our daily lives. If people stumbled across these missives and found something interesting, or thought-provoking, then that was gravy.

When I sat down Wednesday night to type up my thoughts on the NC marriage ban amendment, I never would have imagined that (as of 9.18), the number of people who viewed the post would fill the Rose Bowl to capacity. The number of Facebook shares has surpassed 26,000. These numbers continue to grow, and that simultaneously blows my mind and fires me up.

I have learned a lot over the past few days. One thing I've learned is that I have a lot to learn -- about the diverse LGBT community and the variety of issues this community faces on a daily basis, about the intricate (and often sleazy) politics that happen behind closed doors, and about the application of the law in religiously entangled legislation.

I have learned that I need to do more, personally, to help. Until last week, I have been mostly a silent ally. Sure, I have been posting stories and links related to LGBT equality, and I do speak up when I see or hear others being discriminated against, but I have not done much of anything that couldn't be accomplished by sitting behind a computer keyboard. The people who have reached out to me over the past few days have inspired me to do more, and I'm ready to get my hands dirty.

I wish I could reach out and personally thank each and every individual who shared the link, who re-posted, who called, wrote, or messaged me to say 'thanks.' I never intended it to be about me (more than a few have characterized the post as a narcissistic exercise in broadcasting just how 'enlightened' and 'forward-thinking' I am -- anyone who knows me personally knows this is far from accurate.) This was not about me, it isn't now, and it won't be.

I haven't quite known how to react the overwhelming response to the post, other than to turn it into fuel to do more. Behind every note, tweet, share, comment, etc. is a human being, and that is not lost on me.

I wanted to touch briefly upon some additional thoughts, reactions, and arguments that I did not include in the original post. Several items are things that have come to light since then the original post was written. Many are things I have learned from those who have shared information with me, and they deserve attention.

My arguments for LGBT equality should not be remarkable. I am incredibly grateful for all of the people who reached out to express their appreciation for the arguments I made in favor of equality. It was incredibly touching to hear from everyone, and many of the anecdotes were heartbreaking, and incredibly moving. But I couldn't help but feel overwhelmed by the feeling that the arguments I made should not be notable in any way. This should be a no-brainer.

Not enough straight allies are speaking up. There are many, many straight allies, and straight ally organizations that are making a huge difference, and in no way should their tireless work be overlooked. But it became clear to me last week that there are legions of us who are simply not making our voices heard (I was one of those people at one time). If you are straight, and are against discrimination, please help to build the momentum. Be a part of this movement to oppose the amendment on the May 8 ballot. As straight allies we need to speak to our families, our neighbors, our faith leaders, and our congregations. We need to not be afraid or embarrassed to put pro-equality bumper stickers on our cars, or put signs in our yards. We need to not be afraid of asking our ministers, mayors, and various organizations what they think about the ban, and what they are doing to make a difference. If you don't know what you can do, reach out to someone who can provide you with direction.

This doesn't have to be about religion. We need to remind people that, whatever they may believe, this amendment debate is a legal matter -- a matter of rights. This is about honoring the First Amendment of our Constitution, and its Establishment Clause. We should no more base our laws on Judeo-Christian dogma than we should base them on Sharia Law. Any law which is rooted in religion requires those who do not subscribe to that particular religion to submit to someone else's belief system. This is wholly un-American. Unfortunately, this amendment will largely come down to religion. We must speak with churches and religious organizations to help them view this as a human rights issue, and a constitutional issue, and not as a matter for religious organizations to dictate (even though religious groups can be instrumental in changing the tide). See Equality NC's Statement of NC Clergy and Faith Leaders Against the Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment.

Everyone knows someone influential. Think hard. Surely you know someone who is influential in your community, in your city, in your state, or beyond. Every single person of influence can be instrumental in changing minds. Look at your Twitter followers. Does this list include anyone with tons of followers, or who is a regional or national celebrity? Send them a message. This isn't a time to be shy. Ask them to tweet a link that will inform their followers about the anti-LGBT amendment and urge them to pass the link along to others, to get involved, and to speak up. Have a relative or family friend at a newspaper, magazine, website, radio station, or TV station? Ask them to do a story, or to publish your letter or article. Talk to bands, athletes, artists, business owners. Ask them to organize benefits, to post information on their social media profiles, and to speak out at public events. Ask them to donate, volunteer, or to ask others to do so. These days everyone is so interconnected through social media that we'd be idiots to not use these connections to actually alter the course of history. Remember what social media did in for the Arab Spring?

This amendment is not just about 'marriage.' Even if people believe that this Amendment will not stop same-sex couples from entering into civil unions, it is naive to accept this line of thinking. As Equality NC points out:

The Amendment still has the potential to invalidate domestic violence protections for members of unmarried couples, as an Ohio court did with even narrower language in its state’s marriage amendment.

The Amendment could still interfere with existing child custody and visitation rights that seek to protect the best interests of children.

The revision does not preclude courts from reading that language to invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives – which are not “private contracts” – in favor of an unmarried partner.
Further, the revision would still invalidate domestic partner benefits now offered by several municipalities.

Voting against the amendment will not legalize marriage. Because of the divisive and emotional nature of the same-sex marriage debate, it's very easy to forget that no matter what the outcome of the May vote, same-sex couples will not be able to marry in North Carolina. We need to remind people about this. It's important in a few ways. First, those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds can still vote against the amendment in good conscience, on the grounds that we should not write the denial of anyone's rights into our state's constitution. Secondly, for those of us who are in favor of equality, this vote is not the end of the fight.

This ban is bad for business. Many readers have stressed the impact that this ban will have on NC's economy. Several out-of-state commenters have stated that if this ban were to pass they would vote with their pocketbooks by not vacationing in our state, a state in which they would apparently be unwelcome. In addition, as Equality NC has stated, the amendment "intrudes on businesses' right to provide competitive benefits to their employees and it signals to major employers that our state is not welcoming of the diverse, creative workforce that is needed to compete in the global economy." To underscore this, just last week, Facebook's co-founder, Chris Hughes spoke up to voice his disapproval of the amendment, stating, in part:

As the co-founder of Facebook, I have some experience with the challenges of attracting the kind of driven, dynamic and diverse employees it takes to build a fledgling start-up into a full- fledged economic success story.

Companies like Facebook, Google and Apple are the future of our global economy. But the proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment signals to these and other major employers, as well as their mobile, educated employees, that North Carolina does not welcome the diverse workforce that any state needs to compete in the international marketplace.

In short, this amendment is bad for business, bad for the perception of my home state on the national stage, and a far cry from job-creating legislation that North Carolina lawmakers should be focused on.

But the negative business impact is far from the only harm of this amendment. Growing up in a conservative atmosphere in Hickory, North Carolina, I felt first-hand the stigma of being different in a Southern state—a feeling that made it clear to me that I was not welcome in North Carolina.

The proposed discriminatory legislation will only perpetuate this stigma for a new generation of creative, talented youth, uninterested in second-class citizenship in a state they call home.

Politics in NC are sleazier than ever. I know that politics and politicians can be incredibly sleazy. That's no real surprise. But I have to admit I was really disappointed to hear some of the tactics used to pass the amendment. Over the past few days I have spoken to a lot of folks about what has transpired over the past week or so. According to a source who was close to many of these discussions, Sen. Richard Stevens (R-Wake), one of the fence-sitting Republicans, had indicated that he was considering voting against the amendment. Allegedly, Stevens was told that if he didn't vote along party lines, he would lose his joint chair position of the Committee on Appropriations, and, in so many words, would not have much of a future in politics. At least ten Republicans allegedly wanted to vote against the amendment, according to the source. I know i am naive, but I still can't quite get over the fact that human beings would sink quite so low to ensure other human beings are denied rights. If this is not enough to make you vote against the amendment, I question whether or not you have a beating heart.

It's very easy to get angry when we hear this stuff. And, honestly, anger can be a great motivator. But I have a hard time letting the anger drown out the messages of solidarity over the past few days, so many from other states and other nations, full of hope and encouragement for the people of North Carolina.

Although it's inspiring to think about all those people filling up the Rose Bowl and rooting for equality, I still realize that this is a relatively small number. There's still a lot of work to be done.

The NC Gay Marriage Amendment Post: Feedback

Wednesday night, when I typed out my thoughts on the NC anti-LGBT amendment, I only set out to collect some of my arguments against the amendment, and in favor of LGBT rights. Since I'm unfortunately one of those people who finds himself in arguments on the internet, I thought it would make sense to put it all down so that when I felt I needed to explain my views, maybe I could steer people there and avoid carpal tunnel syndrome. And sure, if friends and relatives read the post and wanted to share it, that would be great.

I didn't quite expect to see the piece go viral. If I had known that would happen, I would have spent more time on it, and it would have been a better piece of writing (much of it, as I re-read it, I'm sure would elicit red marks from my former English professors). I am sure I would have chosen to write it a bit differently, with the goal of speaking to a larger audience. I stand 100% behind the sentiment of it, so I am thankful that people are somewhat forgiving, and that so many felt that it was worth sharing.

Anyway, what I kept saying yesterday is this was not about me. If I had been alive during the civil rights movement, I would be speaking up just the same. I can't help how I am, and I have always been concerned when others are mistreated. This is about prejudice, discrimination, and ignorance. It's about reducing harm and increasing well-being. It's about religion at times clouding our innate sense of morality. It's about people with feelings, and hopes, and dreams, who are being denied and maligned.

The blog post received so many great comments from so many different walks of life that I felt that they shouldn't all be confined to the comments section.  I'd like to highlight some here. There are many other great comments (and some very negative and misguided ones) that I am not including below (some would be out of context if removed from the stream). All comments, of course, remain on the original post. And more continue to come in.  For the sake of privacy, I will address them anonymously (even though many posted anonymously, whether intentionally or because they didn't have an ID or didn't wish to create one).

Here are just a few:

Thank you for this post. I doubt it will change the minds of the bigots, but I hope it calls others into action. As far as the economic situation is concerned, yes - the research triangle should be very afraid that this will keep the best and the brightest from moving to NC. And I'm not just talking about LGBT folks - straight people who care about the kind of environment they will be living in will now stop to wonder whether they want to live in a bigoted, Southern, religiously oppressive region. All the negative stereotypes about the south will be reinforced with what I suspect will be a lopsided vote passing the amendment. And, if the amendment passes, I will not vacation in NC ever again.

* * *

I was raised in Durham and when I left I had to explain that we are not nearly as racist a state as many on the outside perceive us to be. These days unfortunately many GLBTs outside of NC dismiss our state as a homophobic black hole. I try to explain that it is not but when our legislature behave so horrifically I have no comeback. Well, you just made me understand why as a gay man I have never felt threatened in my home state. With no gay ghettos in NC, gay people have to live alongside their straight neighbors. But with straight neighbors like you who needs gay ghettos? While NC has a history of fundamentalists citizens who make a lot of noise, it also has a well organized progressive coalition of straights, gays, and minorities ready to fight back. Now more than ever the GLBTs in NC needs their help. Thank you ever so much for getting this ball rolling.

* * *

This could not have been stated better. It literally brought tears to my eyes that remain. LBGT rights ARE Civil Rights.
I lived through the desegregation Civil Rights era, hearing kids in my elementary school chant "2, 4, 6, 8, we don't want to integrate," something I knew at age 8 was them mouthing their parents' prejudices, spewing hatred. I heard the same Chapter and Verse quotations used by people who claim to be Christians, but who would make Jesus weep, people who parse the Bible to support their bigotries.
I worked with a woman in 1968 in my first full time job. She was Southern through and through, an intelligent woman but not well educated. I was working there when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed. She talked about her own prejudices and how she was raised to have them and believe them. She had a daughter. She said she was trying the best she could to not pass her bigotries on to her daughter because her daughter's world was a different one than the one mom had grown up in and she didn't want to handicap her daughter.
Elie Wiesel said, "I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
SPEAK UP!

* * *

My partner and I really appreciate your well-spoken and just allied support of our LGBTQ friends who simply would like the same basic, legal rights in marriage that our heterosexual friends enjoy here in NC.

Regardless of what anyone believes about nature, homosexuality, marriage or parenting, this issue is about offering the same legal rights and protections from our government no matter one's race, religion, gender, ability, age, sexual orientation, hair color, tax bracket, or shoe size.

* * *

This article brought tears to my eyes for so many reasons! I am so blessed to have an amazing partner, loving and supportive family and friends, a fantastic/ beautiful/smart/healthy daughter, a wonderful job, and so many more blessings! It saddens me to see this backward movement in NC; however, it is people like yourself, and the others that have posted here, that will help to make the equality we declare we offer as a nation a true reality. The more the opposition insists that "gay marriage" is wrong the more they highlight the inequity of their position. A part of the foundation of this country was born from the desire to escape persecution. I would like to continue to be a part of the movement to remove the obstacles to equality that we still have in place today. This is not an issue "just" about gay marriage.

I live in the neighboring state of TN and I know our fight for equality here will also be long and hard. I would implore the residents of any state not only to vote on the issue, but to become involved in local organizations that will help lobby for our rights (locally we have the TN Equality Project).

In addition, please see this video about the work of a NY artist iO Tillett Wright who is doing an amazing project "Self Evident Truths". This project is a "photographic record of LGBTQ America" and is being done as her fight for what she also acknowledges is the civil rights movement of her generation.

I hope that one day my daughter will look back and think how ridiculous it was that her parents could not get married, just as it was so ridiculous that we would force a person of color to the back of a bus, another school, a lesser paying job, or deny them the right to vote.

I will leave you with one of my favorite quotes: "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike"- Oscar Wilde

* * *

From the mother of a gay son in australia, I love your article. It is well written and thoughtful. I was in NC during the lead up to the vote on Prop 8. It was before my son was out and it was also the first time I experienced the level of hateful christian protesters. I am a Christian and was horrified that these people would picket school and harass people taking their kids to school. My niece that I walked to school every day and had a friend with two mothers was so upset for her friend. We are fighting for the right for marriage equality here in australia, and for what it is worth, we are cheering for you over there and I will be watching with interest.

* * *

I thank you for so well written outloud what I among other's feel. I am a straight ally and mother of a beautiful biracial lesbian daughter. I was at the vigil and the rally where Alex of Equality NC read a email I sent to him which he read at the rally. Thank you so much for giving a voice of love to those who need it and to those who hate, because they need to hear this.

* * *

Thank you so much. I would like to add something about the myth that being gay automatically makes someone more susceptible to disease. It may be true that gay people have higher rates of HIV and other STDs, but you have to understand how hard it is to maintain a lasting relationship with someone when society condemns it. It's hard even for straight people to make a relationship work. Think about how much harder it would be if you couldn't get legal recognition of your relationship and everyone around you condemned you for your relationship. It is to hard for most gay people to deal with, which is why it is easier to have short term or anonymous relationships. The more sexual partners a person has, the higher the risk for STDs. Legalizing same-gender marriage, will encourage more long-term lasting relationships. Which will decrease the rates of STDs. When I was younger, I didn't think it would ever be possible for me to get married. I didn't have any hope for a lasting relationship and settled for the fleet short-term one. I'm lucky that I never got any STDs, but I was at high risk. Now that some states and other countries have legalized marriage, I have hope for a better future. I have real dates now, instead of sexual "hook ups". The younger generation are not as promiscuous as mine was. I see young gay people dating in high school, just like straights now. I think that as marriage equality is realized, the discrepancy in STD rates among gay and straights will start to even out more. Think about it.

* * *

The truth: if we let gays marry, then we have to acknowledge that they are human, like "us." We have to validate there existence as legitimate, and that scares the hell out of people who just don't know any better. Look at history: we fear what we don't know. We'd rather allow straight, good Christian people to, perhaps, have serial marriages, withstand abusive relationships, give birth out of wedlock, transmit STDs through unfaithful relationships, and then go pray for the souls of the damned on Sunday. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

* * *

My son just got engaged... he is with a great guy and they are heading down a path we all know and appreciate. Friendship, courtship, engagement and marriage... yes, marriage for my wonderful gay son. Gay marriage protects the children of gay parents, it creates a pathway to stable longer lasting relationships and it provides gay couple with all the same challenges and joys heterosexual couples face in marriage. I am Christian, female and heterosexual and a whole hearted supporter of gay marriage. Thanks for this great article.

* * *

To all of the people out there upset by the "I reject your religious reasoning", you need to pay more attention. There is no judgement here, only a statement that religious reasoning has no place in the legislative process. And our government was specifically designed that way. If you want to use your God as the reason for your laws, you're going to have to change that part of the constitution first. (incidentally - though I do believe it to be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I know anyone who disagrees will automatically go there - I would just like to add that I am a Christian. Roman Catholic, in fact, and I believe in God, and that He loves His children, and that IF homosexuality IS wrong, then it is His place to judge. not yours)

If you are concerned about homosexual parents raising children, clearly you have not been paying attention to the people in our country who ARE raising children. You say that children benefit from a 2-parent household, and in general I would agree. However, there are a lot of great single parents and a lot of really miserable heterosexual married parents. Whether a person is or is not a good parent depends on that person. His or her sexual orientation is only a minor factor in that equation. Would you rather a child grow up in a "traditional" family where he is being emotionally or physically abused by one or both of his parents, or in a household with one or two healthy, happy parents who just happen to be homosexual?

* * *

The one concern I have with your article is that it automatically takes the "religion as the enemy" approach. Actually, it is my Christian faith that makes me such a strong advocate for LGBT rights, as a straight, mother of three, who is married to a pastor. Just because opponents of LGBT rights have used religion as a weapon, doesn't mean they have the only, or correct, interpretation of what the Bible teaches on this matter. Large numbers of pastors and theologians have signed petitions against Amendment One and DOMA, and both attend (and frequently organize) rallies to support gay rights. They write letters to the editor and produce articles that apparently only theological magazines are willing to publish because other sources don't believe it fits the current media narrative for Christian and Religious Leaders to be loving and inclusive. I encourage you to check out groups like Christians Tired of Being Misrepresented on Facebook. There are religious and Biblical sound arguments to support gay marriage, and people of faith out there making them. We just have been denied the megaphone and spotlight, but things are about to change.

* * *

I am a married, heterosexual Christian woman, I am expecting our first child in March, and I am embarrassed and heartbroken that my state is moving in this direction. I have a number of gay and lesbian family members and dear friends, and they are wonderful, talented people who are leaving NC at their earliest opportunity with no plans to EVER return. Their loss is a huge one for our state's economic potential.

Although I am generally politically conservative, the supporters of this legislation will not be getting my vote in May or ever again. I am disgusted by their actions and by the self-congratultory tone with ehich they explained that they were doing our state some great service by allowing the people to put to a majority vote the rights and a minority group.

* * *

Vote no on Amendment 1 in May.