Amendment One Is Discriminatory

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

By Ed Squire

Special to The Pilot

On May 8, voters will decide the fate of Amendment One - "a 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 the state."

In my opinion, we need to seriously consider how to cast our ballots. I've done that and have decided to vote against Amendment One for several reasons.

- First, don't we have a responsibility as a society to adhere to the basic ethical precept "first do no harm"? This amendment may harm children cared for by 150,000 same-gender parents. A report in the July 2006 issue of Pediatrics states the official views of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

The enactment of marriage amendments without consideration for same-gender parents and their children causes children to experience economic, legal and familial insecurities. Prohibiting same-sex marriages subverts the stability of these unions and may void state-based protections, rights and benefits.

To illustrate, the passage of similar laws has frightened children who've been bullied and called "faggots," and has jeopardized family medical leave and health insurance benefits.

- Second, being GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender) seems more likely to be determined biologically than volitionally and, at a minimum therefore, these behaviors should be viewed as normal, not sinful or aberrant.

Indeed, since 1974 the American Psychiatric Association has maintained that homosexuality is normal, not a sexual dysfunction, and it most certainly is not "adult incest," as amendment proponents have characterized it. To the contrary, numerous professional/scientific organizations, e.g., the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association and the National Education Association, have adopted the same stance.

Science has yet to fully reveal the cause(s) of being GLBT, but one well established pattern proves that one in seven gay males has had their gender orientation determined biologically. It's called the "older brother effect," because as the number of older brothers increases, so too does the probability of being gay. This occurrence holds true only for biological brothers, not step-brothers.

Thirty-eight studies have elucidated and supported the conclusion that these gay men were born gay. Should they then be denied the right to a publicly recognized relationship, one that may be just as long-term and just as loving as those of heterosexual couples?

For those who would deny science and continue to argue that homosexuality is a choice, consider this question: "Who would choose a gender orientation that brings with it insults and bullying, hate and murder, depression and suicide?"

- Third, Amendment One is discriminatory because of what it does do. That is to demean, cheapen, attack, assault, impugn, disparage, discredit, invalidate, subvert, vitiate, undermine, debase, belittle and deprecate the personhood of this minority group. Furthermore, it duplicates the 1996 statute which states, "Marriages, whether performed by common law, contract or performed outside of North Carolina between individuals of the same gender, are not valid in North Carolina."

Amendment One is also discriminatory because of what it does not do, namely to meet the state's responsibilities under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a clause that says, "No state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws." It's hard to claim that Amendment One in any way, shape or form gives equal protection to same-gender couples.

Readers may recall the February decision on Proposition 8 in California, a referendum but otherwise comparable to Amendment One. The California Supreme Court, in an 85-page opinion, rebutted each reason for denying equal protection to GLBT individuals and threw out the law. Why? Because it violated this same Equal Protection Clause.

Please keep in mind that federal courts may overrule provisions of any state's constitution. Since further Proposition 8 appeals are expected, there's the potential for a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

What Amendment One actually does is to contradict and renounce our own North Carolina Constitution, which says that " all persons are created equal." More broadly speaking, 29 states have failed to meet their obligations under this same clause by passing marriage amendments. Do we really want this particular amendment to be the very first in the 41-year history of our current constitution?

On May 8, North Carolinians may distinguish themselves. Why should we NOT be the first and only state, among 29 others, to have rejected such an amendment and remain the only Southern state without one? We do have a choice. Do we further usurp the rights of GLBT persons or use the power of the ballot box to prevent it?

In my opinion, its time to stop what this amendment embodies - the institutionalization of injustice and with it, the perpetration of prejudice.

Ed Squire is a retired physician who lives in Seven Lakes.

More like this story

GoldenDreams 1 year, 1 month ago

Here's something else to consider: how about all the domestic unions already in place, some of which are heterosexual? What happens to the children involved? Their parents may lose medical benefits or the right to make important legal decisions for each other. I am a Christian, but I don't see the need to legislate what constitutes domestic partnerships. It is a matter of conscience.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

There are some churches, such as the Metropolitan Community Church, that perform gay marriages and accept the LGBT community, and some that don't. Amendment One is blatant discrimination favoring he latter group''s religious belief over the former. Then of course there are those who don't practice religion but would be forced by theredundant Amendment One to act as if they do.

I brought this up in another thread, and the answer I got was basically, "but God says we're right and they're wrong." America doesn't work that way.

MooreNorth 1 year, 1 month ago

It's been NC law since, what, 95. Amendment One is about judicial activism. When it passes, your rights will be the same as they are today.

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

Sorry Dr. Squire homosexuality is neither healthy or normal, it is in fact a psychological disorder. Tha APA decision in 1974 was based on political activism not science and showed that the medical community has no problem abandoning their patients when they become an inconvenence . The homosexual members of our community are not bad or evil people but their lifestyle is not one we should be promoting as healthy and normal either, that is why I and I suspect a majority of North Carolina voters will support Amendment 1.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

So, Bentpan, long-discredited science you agree with is sound, but science you disagree with is "political activism"? I suppose you have some credentials in this discipline? Care to share them with us?

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

Amendment One is a joke. God gave people free will. He wants them to follow his teachings, but does not demand it and will reward those that do. The US Constitution was created by man (infallable man), so that each equally has a choice to worship or not worship whom they please. The Constitution is about Equality, not God's will. It was created to give all equal rights, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Vote NO!

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

Well said, Courseaire.

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

Mr Rhoades 1-3% of the population is homosexual so I guess that rules out normal, Homosexual suicide rates are over twice that of the general population, with an estimated 20% of gay youth attempting suicide. a higher occurance of recreational drug use. Add in the Elephant in the room -AIDS- A disease inflicted on the world by the gay lifestyle ( and do not tell me of monkeys in africa' that a diversion, all HIV strains can be traced back to Fire Island ) and I would say you've got a unhealthy choice.

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

1-2% of the population is red headed, I guess they aren't normal either. 50% of all smokers die from smoke related illnesses. 99% of all Stats are made up.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

So, Bentpan, you have no real credentials in this area. And Courseaire has already ably refuted your feeble attempt at "scientific analysis."

Don't try to look smart, Bentpan, it only makes you only look silly.

Guy_Forks 1 year, 1 month ago

Bentpan, you are reprehensible to insinuate that homosexuals are responsible for HIV. Luckily it is very rare for a young person to hold your view; I've never met one in fact. So know this you old hateful person, you are soon to die, and your ideas will die with you. Your children and grandchildren will never forget that you believed this, forever staining the small shred of your legacy with bigotry.

visigrad 1 year, 1 month ago

Open your eyes to reality...go to massresistance.org This should help everyone decide for the children !!

JunoNC 1 year, 1 month ago

@visigrad - massresistance.org has more B.S. propaganda than North Korea. Homosexual acceptance is NOT about teaching your male children to have sex with adult men! That is pedophilia, and has NOTHING to do with LGBT rights.

Did you know that left-handed people die younger than right-handed people? Is it not a mental disability?? It should be illegal for them to marry and/or have children! (sarcasm)

JustThinking 1 year, 1 month ago

VOTE FOR TRUTH, VOTE YES! And don't start any of your meanness with me DR. Again, that population is different so they can make up their own titles. They should not even want to do things like heterosexuals do, like "marriage", that is. It's the price they pay?!? There has to be something's that remain sacred. Or this country becomes the "hell" we should all be fearing. The ANYTHING GOES mentality has to stop somewhere.

JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago

JustThinking, Thank you for taking a stand against liberty in America. We all know what happens in countries where people can do just anything they want. We need to accept that the only options are what the pastor approves of.

Down with freedom, right?

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

Poor, poor pitiful justnotthinking. Just can't come in here without whining about how MEAN I am, what a "big fat bully" I am. She'll even defend an admitted racist like cantstandya, just to complain about me.

That post of yours, of course, wasn't mean at all. As usual, the anonymous people crying most about name-calling are the worst offenders.

I'll cut through your drama queenery, justnotthinking , and straight to the braindead absurdity of your moronic post. Gays and lesbians wanting to marry ISN'T "anything goes." It's people in love wanting to have the same normal lives as you and I do.

Now go crying to "Mr. Pilot" about "making the big fat bully stop," little girl.

DoubleHeroides 1 year, 1 month ago

Thank you Mr. Squire for the logical and scientific approach you took to laying out your arguments for why you will not be voting for Amendment One. Were we all so eloquent and clearly spoken as you, this issue would take on the civility that it deserves in public discourse.

My own personal opinion is that with such dissention within the Christian religion itself regarding this issue even were the government prone to enacting laws that took the power of enforcing religious doctrine from the churches there would still not be a clear enough direction for government to follow on the issue.

Further, the real issue that should be the concern of individuals advocating the religious side of this debate (and bemoaning the implications of a failed society by voting against it and allowing gays to marry) should be really frightened of the implications of government run religion.

If Amendment One is adopted does this open the door to allow the government to dictate or set religious principles in the future and if so does that mean that the government will one day absorb organized religion and take it over? To me the Agenda 21 “conspiracy” would pale in comparison to the “government run religion” conspiracy as a topic of national "concern".

DoubleHeroides 1 year, 1 month ago

And I’ll clarify my parenthetical statement in the third paragraph above. If the amendment is not passed homosexuals will still not be allowed to marry one another in North Carolina per the general statutes, my point was that those citing religious reasons (as far as I have seen) consider it only a matter of time, unless something like Amendment One is adopted, that the current “permissive” lifestyle will lead to homosexuals being able to marry and thus one more step taken in the fall of the West.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

Eloquently put, DH.

theoden13 1 year, 1 month ago

In a way I don't fully understand the whole argument. It is clear that amendment one doesn't really do anything helpful. I have not heard one person explain to me how it is going to defend traditional marriage. As a christian I am opposed to people living together and I actually believe that gay lifestyle is wrong. I also have close friends who are lesbian, are raising a child and doing and are excellent parents. So someone explain to me what really is the point of amendment one. And how are gay/lesbian couples a threat?? I really would like to understand but I don't.

Thatcher 1 year, 1 month ago

My major concern about Amendment One is that many who may support it may be doing so for Biblical reasons. I have said it here before, but it is relevant here. If you, as a Christian, believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so, you are correct. However, the sins of greed, lust, envy, sloth, etc., (in my opinion), are no more or less sinful than homosexuality. And if any of my Christian brothers/sisters are aware of a "tier-system" of sins in the Bible, from worst to acceptable, please let me know. I am guilty of many sins, and I suspect you may be too. If a Constitutional amendment banned relationships in which either of the parties had engaged in lust, I would not be married. My point: favoring Amendment One because it is Biblically based or pleasing to God is a misguided effort. If you have other reasons to support it, I'd like to hear about them.

jimt 1 year, 1 month ago

When I was in the Central Intelligence Agency, in the early 1980s, research was undertaken to find the source of the AID's virus and how it was transmitted from one person to anothyer. Agency Analysts and noted Epidemiologists (doctors who specialize in tracking the spread of diseases) found that the virus originated in central africa at least 100 years ago. The virus, initially very hard to transmit, mutated and became easier to transmit by the mid-20th century. In Africa, and in much of the rest of the world, AIDs is not associated with homosexuals at all, indeed, the vast majority of Africans who have AID are heterosexual.

So despite Bentpan's conspiritorial ranting, which can be found in any number or right-wing conspiracy blogs, the homosexual life-style had noting to do with the origin of AID. It is true that AIDs in the U.S. and Europe, got a foothold in the gay community before becoming more widespread. That was an historical accident, which proves nothing. One might as well argue that Syphillis was caused by heterosexual behavior once this disease entered Europe in the 15th-16th centuries, as a result of sailors from Europe having heterosexual relations with natives in the America's.

Bentpan is also incorrect when it argues that only 1 or 2 two percent of the population is homosexual. The estimate varies, but is generally put to be about 7-14% if bi-sexual individuals are counted as well.

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

Now according to BP if you raise the stat level to 7-14%, then you'll have to include left handed people as not being normal. However, according to 6 out of 5 PhDs, stats can be misleading.

jimt 1 year, 1 month ago

Thatcher: "And if any of my Christian brothers/sisters are aware of a "tier-system" of sins in the Bible, from worst to acceptable, please let me know."

Noted Vatican scholar and hip priest Father Guido Sarducci revealed during one of his homilies on Saturday Night Live, sometime in the late 1970s, that there is indeed a "tier-system" of sins, at least in the Catholic Church.

Each sin, the Father told us, has what we might think of as an inherent "cost." You are born with a kind of bank account against which each sin is priced, so to speak. For example, say you are born with a sin account of $10,000. Each time you commit a sin God makes a withdrawal from this account. When you die, you get into heaven if you still have "money" in your sin account.

Here's some illustrations: If you commit murder, it costs you $10,001; so you're never going to get into heaven. Rob a bank is like $1,000; jaywalk costs $1. And finally, each incident of masturbation costs 5 cents, but, as Sarducci warns us ,"it's a nickel, and a nickel, and a nickel...."

Conservatives who post regularly here range from generally good guys, like Coursaire and Thatcher, whom I'm certain still have lots of "sin money" in their accounts, to the likes of Bentpan and AFCHIEF, who, because of their numerous ignorant and hateful statements, untruthful assertions, and their general cussidness, are almost certainly down to their last few nickels. Spend them carefully boys.

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

Guy_Forks 6 hours, 50 minutes ago Bentpan, you are reprehensible to insinuate that homosexuals are responsible for HIV. Mr. Forks you misunderstand me I'm not insinuating anything, It is a cold hard fact, The HIV plague was caused by homosexual males engaged in rampant drug use (depressing their immune system), a unfetered promiscuous sex life in which the turkish bathhouses of New York were the primary meeting places. Basicly they made themselves walking petri dishes, patient O was a flight attendent who shared a house and the desease with his four roommates at Fire Island NY, Today millions have died and of course millions more are infected. You chosing to ignore verifiable history makes it no less true...................As for you Mr Rhoades you simply have absolutely no interest in any fact that does not conform to your own narrow thoughts, I guess your credentials as a traffic court lawyer who occasionaly takes on a nuisance suit makes you to end all expert on all things.................Courseaire We are not talking haircolour we are talking about self destructive behavior as an example studies indicate up to 4 % of the population have an attraction to children shall we consider Pedophilia as normal?

JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago

jimt, one more of those posts and you'll owe me a new keyboard!

JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago

Bentpan, there is no evidence to support the idea that gays are attracted to children. Please try to do better.

Thatcher 1 year, 1 month ago

jimt (13 min. ago)-- While I appreciate your comments that Courseaire and I are "good guys" on the right (and I would certainly agree as to Courseaire, right or left), I would caution you and anyone else here from trying to determine the "goodness" of anyone here. My faith teaches me that I am not the judge of such things. I recognize my own sinfulness and try not to judge the sinfulness of others. And your citation to Father Guido Sarducci for the sin "tier-system" was hilarious! Thanks for the levity! But this business of trying to say homosexuals are 1% or 14% of the population, or that pedophiles (according to Bentpan) are 4%, misses the point entirely, and is wholly irrelevant. In my opinion, 100% of the population is guilty of sin. Including me, big time. I would hope that my Christian brothers/sisters would reflect upon this, and upon their own sinfulness...before condemning others. Be well!

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

JimHeim 44 minutes ago Bentpan, there is no evidence to support the idea that gays are attracted to children. Please try to do better.

Mr. Heim you need to bone up on your reading skills, no where did I connect Pedophilia to homosexuality, reread my post.

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

jimt Read your post, congratulations a bigger load of horse manure has never been posted. You have not one iota of evidence to back up a word of it, You should join Mr Rhoades in writing Fiction because apparently on this subject as in so many others when you have no real argument, you resort to total fabrication.

JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago

Bentpan, sorry, the ignorance shown in your whole post blinded me tho the fact that you were only bringing up pedophilia to cover the stupidity you were spewing. My bad.

Bigguy 1 year, 1 month ago

Bent pan, I am a father of a gay 17 year old. Should I not love my kid, should I not want my kid to have every opportunity that me and my wife enjoy? When I was in highschool I probably was not the most open minded person, I may have even been a rude jerk, but I have evolved. I prey that you might evolve as a human being as well.
Watch PBS Nova, there was a brilliant documentary on how our blood supply was contaminated in the 1960's thru the 1980's and how that helped with the spread of HIV. It's not just Gays that have been affected, there was the sad story of a Southern Babtist preacher stricken with the Aids virus thru a blood transfusion. That's all I got to say.

jimt 1 year, 1 month ago

Bentpan, it is true that patient "O" was a flight attendant and that he is presumed to be the individual who introduced AIDs into the homosexual community. But you've ignored the fact that AIDs was infesting heterosexual men and women in central africa for decades before patient "O" was even born. This fact has been known for decades, but you choose to ignore it. You are the posterchild for "willful ignorance."

So, believe what you want. You shall be ignored totally from this point on by this contributor and I hope by all others. You write nothing worth reading.

JustThinking 1 year, 1 month ago

Not "a little girl" DR. So in your opinion you would like to see me keep anything I have to say out of the thread because you feel that the only thought that counts is yours and those that share your thoughts? Oh yeah, that's right, I, uhh, mean left, so far to the left you've fallen off to the "other side"! Boowho Mr. Pilot, DR keeps picking on meeeeee! : ). I still say.....Freedom does not mean that anything goes. And if homosexuals want what "we" have then they should have made a different choice. Humans are created of two genders, male and female, there is not a third! The human anatomy should be enough evidence of that. DR just try to not attack me personally but I do indeed welcome your comments on what I am trying to say here. Be a big boy, okay.

Thatcher 1 year, 1 month ago

bigguy (55 min. ago)-- The answer is you should love your child with every fiber of your being from now until you pass on. You already knew this answer. I just wanted to say it for reassurance. Be well!

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

Justnotthinking, you're the one that's constantly appealing to "Mr. Pilot" to silence me, because you can't win an argument on its merits.

I actually like having you here as yet another example of how dimwitted the opponents of Amendment One are. Your clinging to the long discredited idea that being gay is a "choice" is a perfect example. Your whiny childishness is another.

BTW, your former insinuation that you're African American ("What if I'm black!" , "being black is just not "special" anymore......we are just plain ol people!!! Ha ha! So there!") followed by your support for the avowed racist canstandya should prove beyond anyone's doubt that you're another serial liar.

So please, keep posting, little girl. Your every utterance discredits your cause.

Dory2012 1 year, 1 month ago

Have any of you actually read the Amendment? Do you realize that it reaches far beyond the same-sex marriage issue? Are you aware how negatively this Amendment will affect single mothers with children, the unmarried or widowed, and senior citizens? As a person who is quickly approaching senior citizen- hood and is single with only a few family members (no children), it is frightening. If you actually read the body of the proposal, you would most probably be concerned to note the rights that will be taken away. It is hard for me to fathom that, in this day and time, we will most likely pass a constitutional amendment that effectively removes the right to certain personal decision making.

JustThinking 1 year, 1 month ago

I hope marriage will remain traditionally between man and woman. It just seems right to me. I don't like having to vote on it. It is "Freedom" that gives me the right say that.

This is not about winning an argument with you DR. I'm not on trial. I am not a liar. I said "what if I am black". That is what I said, I did not say that I am black. And the "we" part of that is referring to all of us, people. You have poor reading comprehension, and you write books?! I didn't realize how much I ruffled your feathers. I also didn't realize how much in control you need to be here. Wooooweee!

You shouldn't be allowed to be so dominating on here. You are not by any means a scholar on these matters. Everyone here was invited by the Pilot, not just you. Stop being so mean and always spinning these discussions into opportunities for you to jab, stab and spit in the faces of others. do you really need to be that way?

JER 1 year, 1 month ago

On the subject of "degrees" of sin, the Catholic Church has such a ranking system (at least they did back when I was a kid). There are MORTAL sins and there are VENIAL sins. Examples of Mortal sins include things like murder or being a bigoted, racist scumbag. Venial sins, on the other hand, include telling little white lies or taking paperclips home from work. The really cool part of being a Catholic is that you can be as big a scoundrel as you want, so long as you check in at the confessional each week to say "Sorry!!" Of course all Christian religions offer the "Get Out Of Hell Free" card, whereby you accept Jesus as your savior at the moment of your death. For those on a budget, this is a great way to save on those weekly collection plate offerings. I'll now remove my tongue from my cheek and return you to the normal rantings.

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

jimt first you admit patient O was who I said he was the you say there were those infected before him, Do you understand the concept of a Patient O, it is that they are the first, There were NO cases of HIV before Patient O, NONE, thanks for proving you're being deliberately obtuse ............................ Mr Heim as usual you say something stupid and cover by questioning the intelligence of others, An ideologue without a factual premise or even an original thought in his head, just party line rhetoric. You're boring sir.

JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago

Bentpan, I asked a noted physician about the Patient 0 thing and she laughed. I'll take that as you have no idea what you're talking about.

It took medical science years to figure out what was going wrong. The victims of this disease were simply that - victims.

And no one ever selects their sexuality any more than they choose their race or height. And for the same reason.

How about you tell us about the day you 'chose' to be straight. Were you with your friends and debating whether go gay and wear stylish clothes and know how to decorate a room (or paint the Sistine chapel or beat the Nazis in WWII). Did you just decide girls weren't yucky after all and join the straight side? Just how difficult was that decision?

An interesting study made the news this week suggesting that homophobes are generally conflicted about their own sexuality. How's that debate going?

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

I'll only make 1 more comment here: My account has decreased by $0.10.

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

JimHeim 59 minutes ago Bentpan, I asked a noted physician about the Patient 0 thing and she laughed. I'll take that as you have no idea what you're talking about.

Sir there has NEVER been a verified case of HIV infection prior to 1981 when it was discovered by the CDC in the American Gay community, So your "noted physician" who I assume is your wife is apparently no brighter than you are. And no you cannot chose your sexuality, but living the "gay lifestyle" is a choice. As to the rest of your rant, I've never expressed any malice towards homosexuals, to me they suffer from a mental illness and I do in fact feel pity for them.

JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago

Bentpan, how can your Patient 0 be the originator in 1981 when the first known AIDS death in this country occurred in 1969?

Gays don't need your pity any more than the red-headed and left-handed. It is one of life's great puzzles that so many people want to run other people's lives. They are just not content to run their own.

username 1 year, 1 month ago

N.C. Gen. Stat. 51-1 already restricts a valid marriage to one between a man and a woman. This law has been challenged and shown no signs of being struck down in NC courts. This Amendment adds no additional protection against gay marriage that isn't already there. There is no threat to passing a law in NC that allows gay marriage. This Amendment goes too far and infringes on everyone's rights, not just homosexuals. This Amendment is vastly overinclusive if the General Assembly and the people of NC only want to make gay marriage against the N.C. Constitution.

Basically, it's unnecessary and a stamp of inferiority on homosexuals. Discrimination has a much stronger effect on the hearts and minds of those discriminated against when it is sanctioned by law.

Arestorer 1 year, 1 month ago

Bentpan,Please explain again how patient O,was the first to have AIDS,and where they got it....I Cant Stop Laughing!!

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

Patient O had just returned from Africa where he spent a wild week parying with a group of monkeys, baboons and a couple of apes. He thought what happened in Africa stayed in Africa. Boy was he wrong. Though in all fairness, most of the party guests were female - Jane being the guest of honor.

JER 1 year, 1 month ago

Thank you bentpan. Please continue to share your viewpoints. Democrats and the unaffiliated voters in the middle look forward to having you shine the spotlight on how conservatives think.

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

As a conservative (and a pretty far right conservative at that), Bentpan's (and you can lump cantstandya in with BP) opinions are his own and do not represent conservatives anymore than Sean Penn represents liberals.

DoubleHeroides 1 year, 1 month ago

I feel like the AIDS discussion has reached an impasse so if I may I would like to try to address my concerns I brought up yesterday regarding the problems that might come up from the government saying what is or is not acceptable from a religious stand point if we are truly taking this amendment forward on religious grounds.

What future actions might the state take or stances might it hold in dictating what people have to do when following the Christian religion? I only ask because I know some Baptists and Presbyterians that can’t even be in the same room with each other to have an ecumenical discussion, let alone agree on what is the “right” way to say the Lord’s Prayer.

Guy_Forks 1 year, 1 month ago

DH I'm not afraid of living under a religious theocracy, Santorm dropped out....

DoubleHeroides 1 year, 1 month ago

I don’t want this to skew off into the idea of a true theocracy or a discussion of the merits of any particular political candidate. I think we can all see that a theocratic government has never really worked out for anyone who has tried it. The issues with tying government to any form of religion is why there was such intolerance in England and the pilgrims fled to the New World.

My concern is that while a true theocracy will likely never happen, if this amendment is adopted at what point does the line get drawn when the state is creating amendments to the constitution on religious grounds? Is this too slippery a slope back into what drove people to leave their homes and found this country in the first place?

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

Si!

FightFireWithFire 1 year, 1 month ago

DH: "What future actions might the state take or stances might it hold in dictating what people have to do when following the Christian religion?"

Why is religion being used in government discussions or decisions at all, I though that our forefathers left England to get away from church dictating state affairs? Could it be that my understanding of our history that I have defended for the last 20 years is wrong? I want the church to stay out of politics, and the politics to stay out of church, no matter what religion it is. You see what a government whose sole basis is religion has done in the Afghanistan region? That is where we are headed if keep letting our politicians dictate religion to us. Freedom to choose our faith is a very basic premise of our Constitutional rights. Why are we being forced to live according to Christian standards in this country when we are not all Christians? Is this the coming of another Crusade?

DoubleHeroides 1 year, 1 month ago

@FightFireWithFire I completely agree, that was the point of my mostly rhetorical questions. As you pointed out, recreating a condition of life that bred religious intolerance by tying religion to government seems backwards and demonstrates the public's lack of understanding of current events and the history of both this country and indeed the world.

The question you quoted was me wondering about the consequences of a state-religion hybrid and how the state taking away the rights of a religion by dictating what its stances are legally is not the answer. The idea of America becoming a theocracy is way out in left field and wouldn’t ever happen but the ground work could be unfortunately formed by this kind of amendment. (I don't seriously believe that there is a "coming theocratic movement" or anything, just that it is a possible consequence, like a hurricane from the flap of a butterfly's wing)

JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago

Courseaire: Patient O had just returned from Africa where he spent a wild week partying with a group of monkeys, baboons and a couple of apes.

I assume those would be the captain and first officer...

Thatcher 1 year, 1 month ago

JimHeim-- You are correct about the captain and first officer. They both have the "Patient O" look on their face, as is clearly demonstrated by this alarming documentary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_wFEB.... Be well!

nothingspecial 1 year, 1 month ago

I am perplexed by a couple of things implied by some of the comments above:

--I am supposed to check my values at the door, like a hat, whenever I am dealing with government issues because the set of values used for governance is an evolving modern set different from my own?

--Let me get this straight, the modern idea of discrimination is, if I determine through my set of values that I want to buy a Toyota and will never buy a Land Rover, then I am discriminating. Discriminating is a word used around the word prejudice alot, so I am wrong to discriminate, to make a choice anytime - no actually I must make the choice to not make a choice or discriminate any time?

--Our laws have been determined recently by a minority of citizens to no longer be made based upon a set of values that this country was founded upon and that are still held dear by the majority of our citizens. Our laws are to be based upon the values determined to be the right values by a minority of our citizens. If I am a Christian, my God will understand this and allow me to change my values - I have some great arguments and sound bites to use with him about this.

I'm getting the impression some of you would like me to raise my kids with the above concepts, right? Just checking.

JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago

Nothingspecial, you may buy the car of your choice. Please allow the rest of us the same privilege. Don't want to marry someone of your own sex? Fine, don't. But try not to impose your restrictive views on others. We'll try to do the same.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

Marriage is not a car, ns.

And no, you're not supposed to check your values at the door. But you don't get to demand that everyone else check theirs. Some people's faith allows for gay marriage. Yours doesn't. What you want is for what your faith says on the issue to become a Constitutional amendment. That's not how America works.

There's an old saying that "your rights end at the tip of my nose."

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

Marriage is not a car, ns - Though sometimes you wish you could trade in for a new sleek model with that new leather smell.

FightFireWithFire 1 year, 1 month ago

Courseaire: "Marriage is not a car, ns - Though sometimes you wish you could trade in for a new sleek model with that new leather smell."

You owe me one new keyboard. I'll take receipt of said keyboard immediately, thank you.

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

Or you can just Pimp your old ride: http://now.msn.com/now/0405-pimp-horse-viral-video.aspx#scptm2

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

JimHeim 23 hours, 8 minutes ago Bentpan, how can your Patient 0 be the originator in 1981 when the first known AIDS death in this country occurred in 1969? Really, you're just going to totally make things up now, Wow I just remembered who I was talking to, of course you are. The 1981 HIV Patient O was determined by the American CDC, BTW you do understand the "O" in patient O stands for originator, don't you? probably not, no wonder Moore County Democrats are in limbo with you at the helm,

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

BP: Try this link - http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/28/us/boy-s-1969-death-suggests-aids-invaded-us-several-times.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

SallyLarson 1 year, 1 month ago

There was a time in my memory when people respected the diversity of religious differences and somehow all got along; religion was viewed as a personal and private part of our lives. Government's job is to establish laws designed to govern all Americans in a fair and unbiased way with the understanding that societal views change over time and laws need to be re-adjusted accordingly. Using any religious book to make arguments for making laws is self indulgent and an attempt to control and force everyone to adopt one religious view over another and becomes counter productive to our government's job. We all have the freedom to believe and practice our personal spiritual beliefs but we all have a responsibility respect our differences and understand that we have no right to dictate over others because they believe in something you don't agree with.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

BTW you do understand the "O" in patient O stands for originator, don't you? probably not, no wonder Moore County Democrats are in limbo with you at the helm,

Actually, Bentpan, it's a zero, as in "Patient Zero."

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Patient+Zero

Heh. And you called ME stupid.

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

If Patient O means Patient Zero, then what does President O mean?

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

Oprah's running for President?

TOYTIME 1 year, 1 month ago

The headline of this article says it all, I agree with both the clear minded Rs and the Ds who think this is discriminatory.

Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago

No, Oprah is just referred to as "O", she needs no titles.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

Though sometimes you wish you could trade in for a new sleek model with that new leather smell.

Courseaire, you kinky devil, you.

JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago

Bentpan - Two words, Robert Rayford. You can look him up. And a study published by the National Academy of Sciences in 2007 threw a lot of cold water on the Patient 0 myth, showing that HIV/AIDS came to the US in 1969 via Haiti. You can look that up too.

As it says on a plaque in front of Faber College, 'Knowledge is Good.'

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

Duke Energy CEO opposes proposal to ban gay marriage

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/power_city/2012/04/duke-energy-ceo-opposes-proposals-to.html

“This is the 21st century,” he said. “We’re competing with people around the world. We’ve got to be inclusive and open.”

You have to listen to him, Republicans. He's a "job creator." One of your corporate overlords.

SallyLarson 1 year, 1 month ago

Dusty, that's a great point. The world has moved on and we don't live in the 1950's any more. People who want to hold on to that era are setting themselves up for a fight that isn't going to happen and is causing a huge discrepancy between what they want and what is really happening. It's wrong to continue in this vein to try to control the population to fit into what they want the world to be like when the reality is we all are allowed to be who we are and can do what we want within the structure of our laws. To discriminate against a group of people because it makes them uncomfortable is wrong and inappropriate for the American population. After all, we are the land of the free and are allowed to believe what we choose to believe.

hardluck21006 1 year, 1 month ago

For my conservative brothers and sisters: The liberals always tells us that Jesus would be a liberal because he was against the rich, wanted to heal the people, and wanted us to give to God what was God's. My answer to this would be that yes he would want this but he would not have used a Roman sword to enforce it. Amendment 1 is wrong because it force others to live how we want them too. I HATE OBAMACARE, taxes on the rich when 49% of the population do not pay federal taxes, the Federal government telling the churches to cover contraceptives. I can not be one way and then force my beliefs on someone else. Jesus told his disciples to go and spread the word to the word but that it would be God's judgement to condemn man, their own. If you think homosexuality is wrong then please do not force it on others.

SallyLarson 1 year, 1 month ago

hardluck21006, I'd say please don't force your beliefs on others.

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

Courseaire 12 hours, 6 minutes ago BP: Try this link Took a look but all it says is that his symtems sugess and that it's possible, hardly what I'd call diagnosis much less proof, in other words a supposition nothing else, I think I would trust the CDC over the NY Times on medical matters.................................................................................................................................Patient O, an individual identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the person who introduced the human immunodeficiency virus in the United States. According to CDC records, Patient Zero, an airline steward, infected nearly 50 other persons before he died of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in 1984. Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago

JimHeim 10 hours, 49 minutes ago Bentpan - Two words, Robert Rayford. You can look him up. And a study published by the National Academy of Sciences in 2007 threw a lot of cold water on the Patient 0 myth, showing that HIV/AIDS came to the US in 1969 Mr. Heim I still see a lot of supposition abet strong but supposition no less but even IF we agree Robert Rayford was the first or even one of the first, it appears you didn't get to the point where his treating Dr. felt he was a homosexual male prostitute engaging in passive anal sex, which brings us full circle to my original point, set and match. you've lost the debate, I am not wasting anymore of my time on this.

Amendment One Is Discriminatory

More like this story

Comments

May events