Column for May 17, 2012

The primary election finally came and went here in North Carolina.  Many of the races turned out as expected and some as hoped.  I pretty much figured that Amendment One would pass.  Thankfully, North Carolina is now the thirtieth state to pass a “defense of marriage” style state constitutional amendment.  There were amazing media blitzes that only intensified days before the election.

I have stated numerous times that I am more libertarian than most conservatives or even Christians on dealing with civil affairs.  If someone wants to live a homosexual lifestyle, I am not going to stand in their way.  I disagree with endorsing that lifestyle by forcing a vast minority view and morality on the vast majority via law, however.

I was astounded by the outright lies and false accusations about the ramifications of Amendment One.  For those who don’t recall, Amendment One was the constitutional amendment ballot initiative that would reads in part, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”.  Most of them surrounded the loss of benefits to children of homosexual or single parents, the inability to obtain protective restraining orders for victims of domestic abuse, and discrimination claims.  Some of these were so outlandish, law enforcement and district attorneys even had to go on television to refute the falsehoods.  This did not stop the ads full of hate, lies, and deceit, though.  Nor did it stop allegedly tolerant people from vandalizing or stealing the political campaign signs opposed to their views.

People I know who I consider to be fairly intelligent and educated totally bought into some of the lies and even were trying to get others to oppose the initiative based upon these false claims.  I couldn’t believe what I was both reading and hearing from these people.  Every position I heard or read against the amendment was a blatantly specious argument coming from total emotion rather than truthfulness and reason.

How is it that people who label conservatives and religious folks as being intolerant are so tolerant of anyone with a form of deviant behavior but not of anyone who has an opinion that differs from theirs?  I was literally told that my parents did not raise me properly if I simply supported the idea that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.  That does not make me a homophobe or a bigot.  It makes me a traditionalist who believes that marriage has been defined as man and woman with differing views on the numbers involved for all six thousand years of recorded human history.

When people railed against the amendment using secular reasons, I discussed the issue using secular logic.  When people discussed the amendment using religious reasons, I did the same.  To be honest, I cannot fathom how anyone can come up with accurate theological reasons defending the redefinition of marriage.  I saw ministers of religion come out on both sides of the issue, each side claiming to have the mind of God on the subject.  I wonder what religious documents both sides have been reading sometimes.

One argument against Amendment One was that it was pushing one particular religious view on everyone in the state.  Well, the truth is that if a redefinition of what constitutes marriage were to pass in any state, it would be no different.  Whether the values are permissive and liberal or traditional, someone’s religious values would end up coming out on top.  Even if the views are atheistic, atheism is a religious belief.  One ridiculous assertion was that in passing Amendment One, North Carolina just instituted Sharia (Islamic) Law.  Such a harsh and ridiculous statement deserved a harsh reply, which I gave.

Another argument against Amendment One was that it took away civil rights.  Well, you can’t take away rights that don’t exist.  North Carolina law already stated what the constitutional amendment states.  Another assertion was that we should oppose the amendment on the basis of equality.  If we can equate the marriage of one man and one woman with that of two men or two women, we essentially have said that there is no difference between men and women and their natural roles in marriage and family.  If that is the case, we should immediately abolish Mothers’ Day and Fathers’ Day.

Our glorious leader, President Barack Obama, has formally come out in favor of homosexual marriage and now a major news magazine is featuring his picture on the cover, dubbing him as the “First Gay President”.  I guess he had to be a “first something” President since Bill Clinton was already dubbed the “First Black President” before Obama was ever on the scene.  The fact is that this is not a federal issue, it is a state issue.  Ergo, this endorsement following the North Carolina election is moot, in my opinion.  If someone in North Carolina thinks that that this state is too backwards and full of bigotry now that we have a marriage protection amendment in our constitution, there are 20 other states that don’t have one.  After all, if someone can make the choice to be a homosexual and have a monogamous, committed relationship, they can also choose to live in a state that will be friendlier to their own choices.