States of Misgiving (NC Marriage Ban Update)

N.C. considers putting amendment to ban same-sex marriage on ballot – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs:

'via Blog this'

Suffice it to say, things aren't looking so forward thinking in North Carolina surrounding this impending (probable) ban on even the mention of gay marriage in the State of NC. Longstanding evangelical hate group leader Tony Perkins showed up in full force to display their animus. Rallies are being put together for today and tomorrow to demonstrate just how regressive and pointless such a move would be, (primarily because its not legal in the state as is), but it looks as though the vote was rushed and not passed through the proper channels for a reason. More as this develops.

As for my feelings on the prospect, it doesn't exactly make for a very welcoming environment to spent a decade or two, does it? A state that is so concerned about a given couple's inability to marry that it legislates it three ways from sunday. All the while, how about that unemployment rate? Way to keep our eye on the proverbial ball, guys.

In more active news, please check out the Equality NC facebook page , and consider attending the Marriage Equality Rally on the 13th. (click the link for more information). Its going to be interesting around here over the next few days, and by interesting I mean potentially volatile. I can only hope the legislators see sense at the last minute.

EDITED TO ADD: Facebook co-founder and former NC resident Chris Hughes has written an open letter to the State assembly expressing strong aversion to the bill, citing that its bad for business and alienating to potential residents. Well worth the read.

And now for some subversive singer/songwriter action: Rufus Wainwright's "Going to a Town" showcases a little of how I'm feeling right now, and does so as eloquently as ever.

The Neighborhood (North Carolina and Gay Marriage Bans)

Once again I find myself torn on North Carolina politics. The tea party one upmanship, the arena of making a point by threatening to defund this institution or that... it seems that on the state level is where the fringe is doing the most damage; especially if Wisconsin, Maine and Florida (which is shaping up to be some of the most unethical legislation I've ever seen) are any indicators. North Carolina has apparently expressed interest in not being outdone in this regard now that it seems to be using its political currency to not only disallow but BAN outright same sex marriage in its state's constitution.

The message it sends its particularly calloused to not only its gay and lesbian taxpayers, but to the idea of civil liberties on the whole. While the reaction among editorials in papers in NC seems squarely opposed to the constitutional ban, it seems a surefire way to score points with its increasingly belaugered base. Obviously there's little in this feint aimed at job creation, but one would hope that ruse has lost any pretense of meaning at this late juncture. Instead those in the conservative majority seem interested in defaming as many liberal "sacred cows" as possible before the clock runs out.

As for implications, this ban if passed will strike a blow against the perception that North Carolina is any different than its southern counterparts- a feather that fit well in the state's cap as it pertained to Ashville, Raleigh and Charlotte at least. While local opinion on the ban and its possibility of success seem mixed...if this goes the way it may look, I'll be relocating well before I look into settling down and spending serious money in state.

Persecutory Complexes At Their Finest.

Another great post from good old JoeMyGod, http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/05/world-net-daily-poll-christians-are.html See, here's the problem with their argument: They believe that anyone rejecting the idea that their right to discriminate based on religion is "discriminating" against their religion. Which is just plain false. The level of entilement required to push this argument forward is epic in its scope. Beyond the reality that a religious statistical majority cannot be at the same time a put upon persecuted minority, there are a few other logical snags with this sort of assertion. The problem here is that the equation works out that a.) Christians may not be inherently homophobic but homophobia tends to be an inherent part of the interpretation of the Old Testament, b.) Because of this, Christians tend to be opposed to both the "evils" of homosexuality and any equality granted to what it considers "sin" based on this interpretation, c.) when the state and the constitution acts in ways that is counter to this wish, and society does not back in masse this "hate the sin/sinner" brief, they take it to be an affront not only to their position, but an attack on their ability to practice their religion. In other words, to discriminate is in this view a cornerstone of their religion, and not being allowed to do so based on either the idea that being disallowed the right to marry is unconstitutional or the idea that Western cultures are relaxing their views on issues regarding sexual orientation is seen as a cause of anxiety. All cultural change regarding stigmatized minority groups tends to take this shape. As the minority group moves from internalizing the social expectations and condemnation of the dominant culture (the minstrel phase), they gain a sense of normalcy that comparatively serves to express to those in the dominant culture that the differences between the two groups are fewer than previously believed. All this comes at the cost of those in the dominant culture who seek to cling to the power that comes with being able to apply the label of deviant to the groups it wishes to minimize or control. Those in the religious set see their losing of the ability to stigmatize homosexuals and rigidly control the expectations of marriage as an extreme loss of power. Catholicism and its various offshoots and iterations have insinuated itself into numerous aspects of society, and as people become less religious and less dependent on that authority the traction of the church as an agent of social control wanes. On a personal note, I had a row with a man at a bar over this issue the other day. He kept resubmitting the statement that he was "concerned" about the idea of same sex marriage as a Catholic who feared that "those people" would force his church to marry them despite their objections. Its an argument I hear from the more progressive of the Xtianists, so its one I'm willing to entertain. I told him that while his concern might have some far flung possibility to it, I don't know many rational people that would seek out social institutions for one of the most important days of their lives that have made it glaringly obvious they're not welcome there. By nature of the exclusion the Catholic church (and many others) make policy as it pertains to its would be homosexual membership, its basically ensured that many a gay person of faith has rejected Christianity out of the vilification and rejection it insists upon. And any self respecting person I can think of isn't going to give money or invest emotionally in an institution STILL actively interested in discriminating against them.Further, if you approach this from a civil rights model, it becomes even more difficult to justify the position. Even IF various religions will still have the right to discriminate based on same sex marriage, and people who want to marry honor that without a fuss...is it even something that is comparable legally? Do churches get to dismiss the wishes of interracial or interfaith couples if it flies in the face of their belief system? Legally I could forsee this becoming a tad wonky, but again, I submit that when gay people are allowed to marry the lionshare will gladly do so in environments that have been welcoming and supportive to them- not ones that have been tooth and nail fighting their ability to do so. Its telling that the tenor of the argument for anti-gay institutions and groups here has become such that a lot of the forthrightness and moral certainty of late seems to be waining. What I find interesting about how religion intersects with the argument, those actively going about the work of dis-empowering and enshrining institutional discrimination are those framing the argument in a way where they are in fact the victims. And now for something outstanding from Ra Ra Riot (again...they've been getting a ton of play on my ipod)