Skip to main content

I am a firm believer in the notion that the will of the people shall be the rule of law. Yesterday, a majority of voters in the State of North Carolina voted to amend their state's constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Personally, I believe that the people of North Carolina have been misguided into voting for an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that will bring unintended consequences to the State of North Carolina. North Carolinians who voted for Amendment One will, at some point in the future, sadly regret having voted for it. The same "job creators" conservatives talk highly about may not want to set up shop in North Carolina because some of those "job creators" offer benefits to same-sex couples. Also, it is likely that the State of North Carolina will have to defend this amendment in court numerous times, potentially costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Also, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are just as part of society as heterosexual people. They shop at the same stores as heterosexual people. They eat at the same restaurants as heterosexual people. They drive on the same roads and highways as heterosexual people. They live in the same communities as heterosexual people. To supporters of Amendment One, you can vote down the rights of the homosexual minority, but you cannot vote them out of society.

Several hours ago, the campaign to defeat Amendment One in North Carolina came to an end. However, the movement for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people will not simply go away. The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die!

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  what veiled regret? which untold consequence? (0+ / 0-)

    such ominous rumblings that can shake a

    firm believer in the notion that the will of the people shall be the rule of law
    should be laid bare, must be made plain.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:40:31 AM PDT

  •  Ummmmm...wut? (3+ / 0-)
    I am a firm believer in the notion that the will of the people shall be the rule of law.
    Here's a stopped-clock-right-twice-a-day-moment for ya:
    Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
    Ayn Rand
    Go figure.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:49:52 AM PDT

  •  Also has economic impacts trying to lure companies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DownstateDemocrat, commonmass

    to the state,  Companines that give benefits to same sex couples are not likely to bring jobs to the state. My concern now with the passing of this amendment is will republican controlled state house and senate take this as an opputinity to pass more right wing legislation.  Also, I wonder when the first law suit will be filed against this amendment,  Taxpayer money will then be used to defend this amendment.  i wonder what state agency's budget will suffer from having to waste taxpayers money to defend it.

  •  That sanctity of NC marriage (5+ / 0-)

    Ahhh yes, marriage, and the sanctity and rules of, according to that bible, rewritten many times, is Only between a Man {and his mistresses} and a Women {and her boy toys, whatever} in the Bible Belt of the new fangled christian religious, jeeeesus says so, south and especially now in NC!

    One example: "Dating site says "sugar daddies" are booming in Charlotte."

    or how about another: "Charlotte ranks among nation's "smuttiest" cities" {that smut ain't dirty air it's porn}.

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:02:45 AM PDT

  •  "Will of the people". I call BS. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sagansong, political mutt

    My understanding is that it was a majority of about a quarter of all North Carolinians who bothered to vote yesterday. That does not equal a majority of voters, or, for that matter, a majority of North Carolinians. What just happened is that a tiny minority of all of the citizens of the state managed to get the constitution thereof amended in a way which is odious, bigoted, harmful and hateful not just to LGBT citizens, but to straight citizens as well--not to mention the deep stain of shame is leaves on an otherwise wonderful state. "Will of the people"? Really?.

    I'm not a North Carolinian (though I just happen to be writing this from Raleigh). I'm a Mainer. We have a "will of the people" problem too. His name is Paul LePage, he's a teabagger, and he's our Governor, and he won election in a four-way race (we have no runoff provision, yet) with about one third of the vote. You know who likes to consistently invoke the phrase "will of the people"? Paul LePage. Which is why many of us run around with these little "61%" stickers on our cars. That stands for the 61% of Maine voters who did NOT vote for the sitting Governor.

    I'm so sorry for what happened yesterday. But it was NOT the "will of the people".

    Santorum: Man on Dog; Romney: Dog on Car. Ren and Stimpy: Dog on Cat

    by commonmass on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:28:15 AM PDT

    •  It was a Republican presidential primary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, IreGyre

      plus the electorate was misinformed.  

      I don't see it as "will of the people" at all--more an in-your-face demonstration of how politics can be played against the will and interests of the people.

      First, you had a Republican presidential primary drawing Rs to the polls.

      Next, you had misleading wording.  It means the same, but had it said "marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships conferring any benefits of any kind to adults or their children shall be ILLEGAL for anyone except heterosexual married couples" I bet it would have failed.

      Finally, I thought the effort to oppose the amendment was creative and inspired.  I was moved and am proud to have been part of it.  They made great videos, and galvanized a lot of people, but they weren't sufficiently visible to overcome the misunderstanding about the amendment.  

      Apparently we are the last Southern state to pass this crap.  Let's be the first to overturn it.

      •  I can tell you right now, when businesses (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        political mutt, OleHippieChick

        who provide domestic partner benefits begin moving to Boston and New York (and likely, in November Maine will have re-instated marriage equality and would LOVE to attract more high tech from the Triangle) and others cross NC off their list of states to move into, Republicans in NC will blame.........outgoing Gov. Purdue.

        Just watch.

        I sincerely hope that this amendment bites NC in the rear in a major economic way. Not that I wish economic suffering on my friends in NC, but because it will be the only way to really get people re-thinking this issue. Unfortunately, only money talks these days.

        I can tell you that after I am done with this gig I am highly unlikely to ever set foot or spend money or do business with North Carolina again until y'all drag yourselves into the 20th century, let alone the 21st. What a shame, I really like it here.

        Santorum: Man on Dog; Romney: Dog on Car. Ren and Stimpy: Dog on Cat

        by commonmass on Wed May 09, 2012 at 05:45:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you've contradicted yourself. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You want us to learn from our collective stupidity, by suffering the consequences, but you point out that the Republicans will blame Bev Purdue, and you're right, they will, and their followers will buy it.

          Or if, against the odds, we elect Walter Dalton governor and the impact is felt during his term, they'll blame him.

          I heartily hope I'm wrong about the economic impact!  Seems to me the only ones who will see it for what it is are those of us who anticipated it.  The Rs will say "inhibiting tax climate" and our argument requires a few more words and concepts to express.

          Besides, I live here, my business is hanging by a thread and I'm in debt.  I see the effect of cuts all around me.  I know the consequences will be long term.  We really need the economy to get better, not worse.

          Don't leave.  Stay and be part of the solution.  We need you.  It's still the most civil and reasonable Southern state.

          •  Well, I have to leave. I don't live here. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            political mutt, jimcbq, mayim

            I'm here doing a temporary gig.

            I have thought about moving here, however. My best friend and colleague (with whom I'm working this month) lives in Raleigh and has been encouraging me to move here for a while. There are some opportunities, in fact.
            I have been here many times, and I find North Carolinians to be really, genuinely friendly and welcoming. In fact while I was waiting outside for my friend to vote at the polling place yesterday, I had a lovely conversation with a woman about my age (and clearly a democrat) and it came out that I live in Maine and am just visiting. "Well", she said, "you should move on down here, we'd love to have you in Raleigh!" adding "Heck, half of us are Yankees down here anyway". I've heard that a lot.

            There are many things I like about NC. I was pleasantly surprised, in fact, to see charging bays for electric cars at a local shopping centre.

            However, I have more work to do in Maine. We have a vote to restore marriage equality to Maine in November, a campaign I have worked hard on. And you know, about 18 months ago I moved back to Austin (I lived in Texas 20 years) while I pursued some job prospects. Unfortunately, they did not pan out. I came back to New England. I just couldn't live there anymore. I'm not sure I want to give up my life in a potentially equality state for life in one where I am officially not wanted. I have lived too long where I know I am not wanted to mess with that again.

            I hope your business recovers.

            Santorum: Man on Dog; Romney: Dog on Car. Ren and Stimpy: Dog on Cat

            by commonmass on Wed May 09, 2012 at 06:41:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  High tech companies already disagree (0+ / 0-)

          with the state house and senate budget cuts to education here.  The high techs were attracted to the state due the universities here but are concerned that the budget cuts will have an affect on having a qualified pool of  workers.

    •  That was the strategy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, OleHippieChick

      It went in a primary election where more Republicans were voting than Democrats.  All the size of the margin means is that anti-gay voters are more motivated and more Republican.  We can do something about the more motivated part.

      The amendment itself comes straight from the Society for the Preservation of the Confederate Warlords.  What kind of "rule of law" is it to single out gays and lesbians for domestic violence?

  •  I look forward to seeing heterosexual people who (4+ / 0-)

    have undertaken civil unions challenging this law in court, and it getting thrown out, leaving NC with egg all over its collective face.

    •  Why heterosexual people? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, Buckeye54

      They might not be covered by the "intent," whatever that is, but they're covered by the wording, and I don't see where "intent" makes a difference.

      Besides, the religious bigots want to punish unmarried heterosexual people for not living according to their rules, too.

    •  You realize that as this is now part of the (0+ / 0-)

      State Consitution that their civil partnerships are dissolved, and unlike marriage (which is mentioned in the Constitution) there is no federal Constitutional mention of civil unions.

      The issue in California was that it was marriage (which has  host of federal and state benefits and meanings) that got taken away, where civil unions are, well, nothing. Unless it is specified in the State constitution that there are such a thing a civil unions between and man and a woman, there is nothing to be litigated.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site