regarding Amendment One in North Carolina

10:40 pm May 8th, 2012




			KRAD's Inaccurate Guide to Life - regarding Amendment One in North Carolina ramblings from a mad fedora'd writer

kradical


	regarding Amendment One in North Carolina
	I've said this many times before, but it bears repeating: If you're against gay marriage because it's in the Bible, you'd better also not mix wools and linens, be pro-slavery, and favor the death penalty for adulterers and selling your daughters for marriage. You don't get to cherry-pick the parts of the Book of Leviticus that suit your preexisting prejudices and call it being pious. That's just being a bigot. Also: If you're against gay marriage -- great! Be against gay marriage. But saying total strangers can't get married because of your religious beliefs is rather like saying you can't eat a donut because I'm on a diet. Also #2: The last time North Carolina modified their marriage laws was in the 19th century. It was to ban interracial marriage. Then again, there are some states where interracial marriage wasn't legal until the 1990s. Progress! Current Mood: disappointed Current Music: "Poor Old Dirt Farmer" by Levon Helm

8 comments or Please comment


	Comments

	From: dewline	Date: May 9th, 2012 03:18 am (UTC)		(Link)

And for the North Carolinians who truly fought the good fight? Hang in there. The next round is coming...

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: kradical	Date: May 9th, 2012 03:29 am (UTC)		(Link)

Yes.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: tiggerallyn	Date: May 9th, 2012 03:56 am (UTC)		(Link)

Oh, it is. One the Amendment's main backers, the Speaker of the House Thom Tillis, says it won't last twenty years. This was totally a cynical ploy to defeat Barack Obama in November by driving up the social conservative vote (shades of what Karl Rove did in Ohio in 2004 with that state's gay marriage amendment); it was only because of a deal some Democrats made to vote in favor of it that Amendment One went on the primary, not general, election ballot.

The anti- groups didn't expect to win. I don't think they expected the twenty point loss, though.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: xenaclone	Date: May 9th, 2012 06:17 am (UTC)		(Link)

THIS

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: steve_roby	Date: May 9th, 2012 10:11 am (UTC)		(Link)

I've had a gung ho born-again explain to me that there are two classes of prohibitions in Leviticus, some being moral instructions and some not, and the moral ones still apply. They don't see it as cherry-picking, they see it as applying the knowledge of God's new covenant. Everything in the Old Testament still applies for Jews but only some applies for Christians. They think their reasons for deciding which parts apply are perfectly sensible and self-evident. Can't say I agree, but it's not like this stuff hasn't occurred to them.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: benmech	Date: May 9th, 2012 12:47 pm (UTC)		(Link)

It barely surprises me that "traditional marriage" fanatics do nothing to shut down the divorce industry, much like how the anti-abortion turds of the world claiming they're pro-life do not, as Bill Hicks famously suggested, block cemeteries and morgues.

Then again, they're the same "religious" people.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: jeryk	Date: May 9th, 2012 04:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)

As a long time and "in the future" North Carolina resident (on a brief hiatus in Louisiana), your donut analogy is one of the best summaries I have seen regarding this sorry state of affairs.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: fishstickmarie	Date: May 9th, 2012 04:37 pm (UTC)		(Link)

And of course the main issue should be that the biblical argument is irrelevant because we're talking about civil marriage and we're supposed to have something called separation of church and state.

I am just really hoping that the Maryland Marriage Alliance doesn't get their way and have same- sex marriage be put to a popular vote here. Even if the popular vote rules in favor of gay marriage--- civil rights should not have to hang on the balance of the peoples' whims.

(Reply) (Thread)