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.

Pat Robertson: Scientists "Can't Speculate About The Origins Of Life Because They Weren't There"

Pat Robertson doesn't think scientists can speculate about the origins of life 'because they weren't there.' In the same breath, he also says it's okay to believe a 'geologist who tells you something existed 300 million years ago.'

Come again, Pat?

And, of course, it's also okay to believe the Genesis origin story that was written by guys who weren't there.

Watch:

Amendment One Supporters: I Have Nothing Against Homosexuals, Except That I Do

Christian Conservatives have a most disingenuous mantra when it comes to the topic of marriage equality.

Take the following passage from a News & Observer article about NC's Amendment One:

Gaffney said she was not against homosexuals and has gay and lesbian friends. But she does not want them to have the right to marry.

“If America doesn’t get back to God, we are going to definitely be lost,” she said.

While those who use the 'I'm not against homosexuals -- I have lots of gay friends" line tend to believe they are doing the Christian thing by fighting marriage equality, what everyone else hears is this:

"I am not against homosexuals, it's just that they're wicked, sinful, and hell-bound, and I believe their rights should be restricted."

Sorry, folks, but you're either with homosexuals or you're against them. You either accept the overwhelming scientific evidence which shows us that sexual orientation is determined by genetic factors, brain structure, and early uterine environment, or you simply ignore it and continue to cling to the Bronze Age view of homosexuality as abomination. (Those same folks believed epilepsy was caused by demons.)

And no matter how much you try to convince yourself and others that you have gay and lesbian friends despite your discriminatory views, you might want to reconsider just how they view your friendship. People usually don't think too highly of 'friends' who consider them to be abominations unworthy of equal rights under the law.

"I really like you, but you are part of why America is lost. You are leading us away from God, and I am working to ensure that your rights are limited."

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Stop trying to candy-coat your bigotry, folks. Free yourself. Admit it. You really, really don't like gay people and you want to see them suffer.

Tell us the truth. It's the Christian thing to do, right?

The Facts About Amendment One

May 8 is upon us, folks, and unfortunately too many North Carolinians are either unaware that there is an amendment vote or confused as to what the amendment would actually do.

The amendment question will appear on the May 8 ballot, and will read as follows:

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.

Voters will either vote FOR the amendment or AGAINST the amendment. Seems pretty straightforward, right? That's all part of its design.

Like most referendums and ballot questions, most voters read the wording for the first time while they are in the voting booth. People who have no additional information will very likely be voting for something with which they very strongly disagree.

From a PPP poll in late March (emphasis mine):

The marriage amendment which will be on the ballot during the May 8th North Carolina primary continues to lead for passage by 20 points, but if voters are informed of its negative consequences for the potential future passage of civil unions for gay couples, it would narrowly fail.

58% of likely primary voters say right now that they would vote “yes,” while 38% plan to vote “no.” But at the same time, 51% of these voters support some form of legal recognition for gay couples’ relationships, either full marriage or civil unions. 34% of those folks are planning to vote for the amendment. Because of that, if informed that the amendment would ban both marriage and civil unions for gay couples, support goes down 17 points to 41%, and opposition rises 4% to 42%.

Part of the problem is that voters are not well informed about what the amendment does. A 34% plurality say they are not sure on that question. Almost as many (31%) do know that it would ban both gay marriage and civil unions, but then not many fewer (28%) think it would only ban marriage. 7% actually think it would legalize gay marriage. Those who think it bans solely marriage rights are voting 67-30 for it, so 8% of North Carolinians, while misinformed, are voting against the measure simply because they think it bans same-sex marriage alone. Of course, those who think a “yes” vote actually legalizes these unions are voting by the same margin for it.

This is troubling, and underscores the need for an agressive education drive these next few weeks. More importantly, we need to ensure that people actually go out and vote.

Please visit ProtectNCFamilies.org for downloadable tools, printable information sheets, videos, or to donate or volunteer. We need all the help we can get these last few weeks.

Most importantly, talk openly with your friends, neighbors, family, community & church leaders, and make sure that, no matter how they vote, that they have all the information. This isn't just about marriage. It's about all North Carolinians, gay or straight.

The Family Leader: Do You Want Gay Marriage In Your Coffee?

The folks at The Family Leader have released a little video warning fellow Christian conservatives about the harms of drinking Starbucks.

As you probably are aware, the National Organization for Marriage initiated a boycott of Starbucks due to the company's vocal support of same-sex marriage. The boycott has been a complete failure, and now NOM is moving their initiative to countries where homosexuality is criminalized or stigmatized.

Regardless, the backwards blowhards at The Family Leader are having another go at it.

For those of you unfamiliar with The Family Leader, they are an "umbrella group comprising the Iowa Family Policy Center, Marriage Matters, Iowa Family PAC, and Iowa for Freedom." Their mission statement states that the organization "provides a consistent, courageous voice in the churches, in the legislature, in the media, in the courtroom, in the public square…always standing for God’s truth."

If you recall, they were the folks behind "The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY," which was signed by Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry. Mitt Romney said the pledge was"undignified and inappropriate." Particularly, Romney took issue with language in the pledge which stated that children born into slavery in 1860 were better off than children born today in America.

The description accompanying the video reads as follows:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) http://www.nationformarriage.org/ are urging customers across the globe to "Dump Starbucks" because the company has taken a corporate-wide position that the definition of marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that so-called same-s*x marriage should become equally normal.

On January 24th, 2012, Starbucks issued a memorandum declaring that a bill in the state of Washington to legalize so called same-s*x marriage is "core to who we are and what we value as a company".

A portion of every cup of coffee purchased at a Starbucks goes to fund this corporate attack on marriage. If you would like more information about why NOM wants you to "dump Starbucks" or would like to sign the petition, click the www.DumpStarbucks.com link above. Take action today!

Watch:

On The Eve Of The Titanic Anniversary, Let's Remember That The Homosexual Agenda Is Like An Iceberg

As we observe the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, what could possibly be more apt than a homosexual agenda analogy?

Leave it to Truth in Action Ministries to use the opportunity to force a metaphor.

See, the Titanic is America. And the homosexual agenda is the iceberg. Or something.

Anyway, by adding ominous music and some cinematic flair, it's clear that if Americans don't stop people from being gay, then this naturally occurring formation will prevail over the poorly executed man-made construct. Or something?

Watch:

Rick Santorum's Greatest Hits

We've dedicated a lot of posts here to Rick Santorum. I had considered posting a look back at the insanity that was the Rick Santorum campaign, but I'd honestly rather pound roofing nails into my eye sockets.

Thankfully, the folks at Right Wing Watch pulled together a highlight reel for us.

Enjoy, and pour one out for Rick. Hopefully his improbable rise to possible GOP candidate for the nomination is the closest we will ever come to an American theocracy.