« What Are The Democrats Hiding ? | Main | Pulling A Joe »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joe Guarino

Sam, thanks for such a substantial post on this topic. My concern had been that the anti-Amendment forces were using some very questionable tactics to persuade the public. I seem to recall that the UNC professor who has been widely quoted on these issues has been showing up at some of the various rallies and/or forums sponsored primarily by those against the amendment. I wonder about her objectivity.


Thank you for the thorough write-up. Question: isn't it possible to file cases of domestic abuse in relationships having nothing to do with marital status, such as children and elders, even siblings?


Yes it is. That is exactly the point. There is no requirement of a "legal union" to enforce domestic violence laws now. Therefore, a law that prohibits certain legal unions doesn't change anything.

Those who advance the phony domestic violence argument don't address this. Instead, they would have you believe that something has to be presently read into the law that is not there such that elimination of the non-existent provision would result in dire consequences.


Property, wills, health advance directives, adoption, etc., are also "rights" available to people of any sexual preference under current law.

The proportion of the public uproar compared to the actual magnitude of these personal legal issues is astounding.


"The proportion of the public uproar compared to the actual magnitude of these personal legal issues is astounding."

The demagoguery and prevarication we've seen from the proposed amendment's opposition is standard operating procedure, a product of the mindset that constantly searches for new "rights" to invent in advancing a worldview agenda.


Just saw a commercial on TV with a woman claiming Amendment One will take away her child's health care. Suspiciously, there is no explanation as to how or why her child would lose coverage.
Somebody ain't telling the whole story.


And another commercial just now with a woman describing how her unmarried male partner would beat her and kick her with his steel-toed work boots and Amendment One would take away her protection order because they're not married. Another lie; see Myth #1 above.
Why do TV media allow false statements to be aired about Amendment One?
Oh, I forgot...it's not a protection issue, it's a political issue.


If they pass Amendment One, then all children will be rounded up and imprisoned...

If they pass Amendment One, owning a dog will be illegal...

If they pass Amendment One, you will lose your retirement...

If they pass Amendment One, the terrorists win...


Spag, in your opinion, is there a slippery slope if the amendment fails to pass? An emboldened gay-marriage movement? What has happened to the rights of religious organizations in California, for example?

Maria Barton

Thanks so much Spag for this legal breakdown for laymen! I shall henceforth direct my peeps whose questions I can't answer to this here blogpost.


Tina, what will happen is this:

People who are right now complaining that Amendment One is a waste of valuable time because "we have so many more important issues to deal with now other than whether two people of the same sex can get married" will suddenly find that the issue of allowing two people of the same sex to get married is in fact worthy of our time despite the economy, etc.

That's how it works- liberal causes are always "important issues".

I assume that defeat of Amendment One would definitely motivate the same-sex marriage movement in the same way that legislation and court rulings in other states motivated those who advanced Amendment One to act.

I just want an honest debate. This is about how people feel about same-sex marriage, not domestic violence, etc. Those are lies and scare tactics that have been tried (and failed to occur) in every other state that has passed similar measures.


"If they pass Amendment One, then all children will be rounded up and imprisoned..."

That's the reason for voting against the amendment: "It's for the chillllllldren!!!"

It's the same phony refrain we hear every time the statists put up a new school bond issue.

Many of their bogus talking points are interchangable between their various agenda item advancement campaigns.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Well done, Sam.


You know, just the same way I don't think government should be able to TELL ME which religion I have to follow, they shouldn't TELL PEOPLE their family unit is null and void. Families come in various ways and to me, a family with two loving parents is much better than one - because of irresponsible sperm/egg donors. Even if none of these "scare tactics" (which I totally disagree with that assessment) aren't true, the fact of the matter is, our Nation is known for FREEDOM and this amendment (should it pass) is one step away from our rights being infringed on in other ways. So before people start hopping on that band wagon of superiority, they should consider how THEIR rights could be affected one day.


You raise valid some policy considerations that should be at the heart of the debate. My disagreement is with these false claims about the law that are designed to shift the focus away from that discussion because at the moment those who disagree with your opinion are favored in the polls.

Freedom includes the right to disagree, as you have demonstrated here. When disagreement reaches an impasse, people vote to resolve the issue. They should base their vote on valid information, not propaganda- and that goes for those on both sides of this debate.


Jenn, this really just comes down to a moral issue. As a Christian, I believe what the Bible says about marriage--that it is between one man and one woman. I know that God does not like homosexuality.So for those reasons and many more, I will be voting for Amendment One with a passion. If you don't have any such beliefs and want to advocate gay rights, then you should vote against it. That's how you decide what side of the fence you are on.


Spag, are you going to take your money and run when the heats on as did your fellow conservative blogmeister Joe Guarino?

Odd that the author, or some other NC Repub in authority, of this legislation made the comment that in twenty or so years gay marriage would probably be legalized anyway and an accepted norm in this country. Why delay the inevitable?

Might come sooner. If Obama gets back in and a couple more of the older conserv (Repub appointed) SC Justices retire/die in his next term and he appoints some more "Kagans," this issue will come up and it'll get passed.

Let us focus on the important stuff: It's the deficit and unsustainable spending and good paying jobs.


You only have to worry about the wrong focus for seven more days.


"So before people start hopping on that band wagon of superiority, they should consider how THEIR rights could be affected one day."

Help me out, Jenn.....which "rights" concern you in regard to the proposed amendment?


I would have thought when Joe G went into exile his choir director Bubba would have followed.

The comments to this entry are closed.