Post #337 A Day That Will Live In Infamy, Pt. IV

To "NCCitizenX:"

If Amendment One to the North Carolina Constitution passes on May 8, 2012, will it:

1) Protect the children? NO.
2) Extend Domestic Violence protections? NO
3) Prevent two men from moving in next door and having homosex 30 feet away from my bedroom? NO.
4) Prevent the chief of staff for the Speaker Of The House of North Carolina from having sex with a lobbyist who is not his wife? NO.
5) Prevent the serial marriages of someone like Newt Gingrich who practices his own "special" brand of polygamy? NO.
6) Secure equal protection for all citizens before the law and equal access to government protections. NO.

Indeed, the only reason I see to support this Amendment is that its passage will make bigots feel good 'cause they'll know there are a lot of other bigots out there. I could have told 'em that! :p

But, dear, "NCCitizenX," you have an ally: The ignorant.

I saw a post the other day: "My core value is, marriage = one man + one woman. Period. Let homosexuals have 'civil unions,' but leave marriage alone. That is why I am voting FOR this Amendment."

Good Lord. * sigh * Amendment One outlaws "civil unions" -- that is what the fuss is about. Nobody wants to mess with core values -- this is about equal protection for all citizens before the law -- see the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment One reads: "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." The first part -- marriage between one man and one woman -- is pro-marriage, a core value of many; the second part -- the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State -- outlaws "civil unions" and is anti-gay. Do not be fooled by those who claim 'pro-marriage' only without telling the whole tale of this discriminatory policy.

But never let ignorance keep someone out of the voting both, right, "NCCitizenX?"

The cry is dogs, incest, polygamy. Even the most ignorant can see that dogs and children are ruled out by the definition of the marriage contract: Between 2 consenting adults, governing the transfer of wealth and rights. Of course, the State has a compelling interest in prohibiting other types of incest as the child of NCCitizanX and his mother would probably be more ignorant than NCCitizenX himself! :p

But why do people have are hard time understanding "2?" Look, if a husband is in a wreck and terribly injured -- in a coma and on life support, and wife #1 wants to 'pull the plug' immediately, and wife #2 wants to wait 6 months. Then, we'd have a court battle to figure out who really is wife #1 and who really is wife #2 -- which defeats the whole purpose of a marriage contract. So, "2" remains, and polygamy is a non-issue.

But, aaahhh, the bigoted and the ignorant -- that is quite a coalition!