GOP NC Senator's wife: NC Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment 1 Written To Protect 'Caucasian Race'

GOP NC Senator's wife: NC Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment 1 Written To Protect 'Caucasian Race'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/north-carolina-gay-marriage-amendment-1_n_1470956.html

North Carolina Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment 1 Reportedly Written To Protect 'Caucasian Race'

...

According to the alternative Yes! Weekly, writer and campaigner Chad Nance spoke to a pollworker who told him that Jodie Brunstetter said, "The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce."

....

Of course, the GOP Senator's wife started whining that it was taken out of context, but WTF good context is there for this? Then she went on to say:

"I'm afraid they have made it a racial issue when it is not," Brunstetter said of the poll workers. Pressed on whether she had used the word "Caucasian," she said, "I probably said the word," but that she hadn't used it in a race-related manner.

But nobody at all was talking about race and this issue (at least in public) until the Republican brought it up! OMFG, what is wrong with these people?

It's what you sadly have as an electoral, political system that creates legions of such folk. A whole large chunck of the citizenry support the GOP remember.

She is, no doubt, a Christian.

As such, I refer her to 1st Timothy 2:12.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

"I'm afraid they have made it a racial issue when it is not," Brunstetter said of the poll workers. Pressed on whether she had used the word "Caucasian," she said, "I probably said the word," but that she hadn't used it in a race-related manner.

But nobody at all was talking about race and this issue (at least in public) until the Republican brought it up! OMFG, what is wrong with these people?

Obviously she's worried about people from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, extreme southern Russia, northern Turkey & Iran
Apparently those nefarious georgians are stealing all the white women from NC

I especially like this part from Brian Clarey:

Nance provided an edited transcript from the video. I’ve left all spelling and punctuation errors intact to preserve its integrity.

Sang has that same sort of "integrity"! And –of course– the same hobbyhorse…

Nance has been working as a volunteer poll worker for the campaign of NC House candidate Ed Hanes Jr. and the campaign against the marriage amendment. He is a primary source for an unrelated story published by YES! Weekly about efforts to manipulate Democratic voters for the benefit of a favored slate of candidates. Nance said an African-American poll worker identified only as “Michael” initially told him about Jodie Brunstetter’s alleged remarks during a conversation with opponents of the marriage amendment.

Nance paraphrased the remarks, as told to him by those who were present: (I, OakdaleFTL paraphrase, here:) "Crackers oughta know better'n use the term Cauc-asian when it comes to gay marriage… Summon' tol' me she did: She's racist and homophobic, an' so's her ol' man! Vote Democrat!"

————————————
From a related post:

[Heather L. Moore of Winston-Salem, the committee’s treasurer] said the first she heard about the illegal electioneering activity inside the buffer zone was from a reporter on Monday.

“I will make sure for future reference that they know that’s not acceptable,” she said. “We’re not going to inform anyone to engage in illegal activity…. That was not anything that has been instructed to anyone.”

A native of Winston-Salem, Nance said he was motivated to call out the activities of the Forsyth Leadership PAC by a desire for political reform in his hometown.

“I’m a lifelong and proud Democrat,” he said in an e-mail statement. “This issue isn’t about party or any particular candidate or race. This is about basic right and wrong. We as Democrats cannot point at GOP attempts to tilt elections in their favor with legislation like ‘voter ID’ or putting Amendment One on the ballot in an attempt to drum up turnout if we are not willing to point out the problems in our own party. It is hard to accuse the neighbors of having a shaggy lawn when you are unwilling to get off your ass and cut your own grass.”

Is it just me? Or do some people think "thought crime" is worse than actual crime? That it deserves punishment more swift and severe…?
Please note, Jaybro, your generation taught these people, one of whom (we can both find countless examples of the same ilk…) said: “We’re not going to inform anyone to engage in illegal activity…. That was not anything that has been instructed to anyone.”
Had you never felt utter frustration, trying to teach literature to those who didn't yet speak the language? (No smiley: I'm dismayed…)

for info --- What is the "Voter ID" Issue?

Originally posted by string:

for info --- What is the "Voter ID" Issue?

It requires that you show some form of info before you vote.

Historically, all one has had to do is go in, announce your name to the workers, sign your name, then vote.

With Voter ID, you must present a driver's license, state-sponsored ID, university ID, or something of the like before you vote.

There is a rather glaring loophole in the soon-to-be-law here in Mississippi; if you have "religious objections", you don't have to present any ID. As such, I'm in the market for a burqa and will soon profess my Pastafarianism.

This is generally a big issue in the South. What used to be rampant Democratic strongholds have finally converted to what was once labelled the "Carpetbaggers".

I doubt they will get too far though, at the current time, as Eric Holder will most likely declare them invalid.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I doubt they will get too far though, at the current time, as Eric Holder will most likely declare them invalid.

Holder, being our lord and master… Our sovereign? Our law-giver? (I don't think Dawg mispoke: Whether he agrees or not, he correctly sees that the majority liberal view is that the AG is "As God"… All it takes is a "declaration" — because, well, this is War! Remember when Obama was Lincoln? )
As per our current president, the Supreme Court isn't and the Bill of Rights is wrong; the Constitution is dissolutionary and should be more "impressionistic"; and the Rule of Law is anachronistic verbiage.

Of course, one shouldn't offer any sort of proof that one is a citizen, to vote: Democrats might loose!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It's what you sadly have as an electoral, political system that creates legions of such folk. A whole large chunck of the citizenry support the GOP remember.

While not in the habit of defending Republicans, implying that all, or even most, of them follow the instincts of the party's nethermost dimwits is wrong. The party has no position, actual or implied, on caucasians.

On your first point, the political system doesn't "create" anything of the sort. People come to political parties with predetermined beliefs, biases, and agendas precisely because the parties provide a comfortable home. Or they fall into them because of family habits.

My father was a lifelong Democrat because of his employment history as a factory worker. He was never a party member, however. The Republican Party doesn't support my economic interests, so you can imagine my stance there.

Neither party pleases me on some issues, but where's a body to go? Hint, hint...a country near Pakistan. Essentially, I don't do political parties.

Don't SNP members gravitate to the SNP precisely because it promotes separatism, something they already desire? They don't come to the Party and then decide to support separatism.

For the longest time, I never had to present ID. I didn't have to because the polling place officers were my neighbors and they knew who I was, presenting an ID would have been only a formality. Today that's not so true. I've moved since then, I've only lived here a couple of months and when I go to vote there's a good chance the officer won't have a clue who I am until I produce some ID.

You're geting fanatical thedawgfan in your anti- campaign. Hhm, too much moonshine effects in the end and I don't mean night time strolls!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Hhm, too much moonshine effects in the end and I don't mean night time strolls!

Naw suh, I don't do the Shine, thankee kindly.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You're geting fanatical thedawgfan in your anti- campaign

No, not fanatical, just being constantly vigilant. You'll find that in the "Sovereign" State of Mississippi, politicians try to trash the Constitution, and I simply won't stand for it.

Is there some reason for the rubbishing? I suspect it may not be the only State of that state of mind?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I suspect it may not be the only State of that state of mind?

(What the heck are we supposed to do, when RJ pays more attention than our own collegiate? )

This GOP candidate will do an admirable job of protecting the "'Caucasian Race", I'm sure.

Shaun Winkler, White Supremacist Idaho Sheriff Candidate, Hosts Cross Burning Event

....

"Mainstream society looks at cross lighting as a symbol of hate, but it predates the Klan by hundreds of years," Winkler told the Bonner County Daily Bee. "We look at it more as a religious symbol."

Maybe, but would he do something like this, knowing it's associated with the Klan?

Winkler went on to claim the ritual has Scottish roots dating back hundreds of years, but his status as a Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard and his candid admissions of racial and religious prejudice suggest that the decision to burn the cross may take inspiration from a more recent and ugly practice.

Oh, because he is a racist and KKK leader....

We'll find out on Tuesday if he wins. Idaho is a Republican and "conservative" state, so he probably will....

"Fuck – fuck, fuck; fuck, fuck…" You sound like the Gambone made-man in Elmore Leonard's Miami who finally got a line on "Chili" Palmer… Sittin' on the crapper, pants down around your ankles; unhappy to be interrupted — doing what most matters to you!

I don't recall your having a "problem" with Robert Byrd… (I don't know how you feel about "black" people; but –even if you yourself are black– you're a Liberal, first and foremost! Unfortunately, that's not unusual.) Can you consider expressing your disagreements with not-Democratic–Party candidates in less inflammatory language?

No, I suspect not.

You think you are owed something beyond what you can get by electoral politics. Indeed, beyond what democracy would give you. (How would you justify this? see Briggs on this point) But what you mean is, you would be king.

Well, you won't be. (You won't be queen, either.)

BTW (I won't use whispers to substitute for my blue pencil, anymore — your failings are fair game!): You should learn to speak and write a language, any language… I've got Google Translate.
What you've got, I can't imagine!

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

We'll find out on Tuesday if he wins. Idaho is a Republican and "conservative" state, so he probably will....

It's now Thursday… Wake-y, wake-y!

OakdaleFTL, you've broken D&D rule 2436e...no more than one parenthetical per post. Tsk, tsk.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

We'll find out on Tuesday if he wins. Idaho is a Republican and "conservative" state, so he probably will....

Oh yeah, on the upcoming Tuesday (not 2 days ago ) it will be the Republican Primary election. The winner of that will face Independent Rocky Jordan in November.

I was silly enough to look at Oakdale's post because I knew his reaction would be good for a laugh. Robert Byrd quit the Klan in 1952 and has since said:

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

and

he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions.

Once again "conserve" charges of hypocrisy are just plain wrong. If he had been involved in the Klan and still a racist upto his death in 2010, he would be as wrong as Winkler, but he recanted and repented 60 years ago

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

For the longest time, I never had to present ID. I didn't have to because the polling place officers were my neighbors and they knew who I was, presenting an ID would have been only a formality. Today that's not so true. I've moved since then, I've only lived here a couple of months and when I go to vote there's a good chance the officer won't have a clue who I am until I produce some ID.

I would have thought democratic voting was all about formality and consistency? I mean, two men turn up to vote, neither with ID. One of them is allowed to vote, one is not. Is that democratic?

Moderator edit: This comment was removed for breaching our terms of service.

Originally posted by Fatrat1128:

GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE.

What have you got against Steve? I know Steve, and he would take great offence if he knew that you though he was the spawn of the Devil.
If Eve was made from Adam's rib, then she had identical DNA, therefore was a male with XY chromosomes.
If Adam and Eve were married, who performed the ceremony?
etc.

Originally posted by Fatrat1128:

What has this country come to? Its even worse when the leader of a nation condones such sickness.

Did you know that research has determined that homophobes are very likely closet homosexuals, closeted even to themselves? One of several experiments on this was conducted by the University of Georgia. Of course, this confirms what gay people have been saying forever. Think about it. A response such as yours isn't really based on mistaken notion of what the Bible says on it....

Oh, in the same spot where the Bible calls it an abomination, the bible pretty says the same about about eating shell fish, drinking milk while eating meat, women on their period and all sorts of other silliness. That's because abomination, how modern people use the word is a translation, which is why newer translations don't use that word. The original word simply meant ritually impure. In other words, no hot guy on guy action in the temple - which makes sense.

Originally posted by Fatrat1128:

GOD intended marriage as the union of a man and a woman. NOT the abomination of man with man or woman and woman. GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE. GOD forbids this kind of sick mindedness. What has this country come to? Its even worse when the leader of a nation condones such sickness.

If he has such strong feelings about the issue, why doesn't he show up and tell me in person? Can't be that much of a bother for an all-powerful being.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Fatrat1128:

GOD intended marriage as the union of a man and a woman. NOT the abomination of man with man or woman and woman. GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE. GOD forbids this kind of sick mindedness. What has this country come to? Its even worse when the leader of a nation condones such sickness.

If he has such strong feelings about the issue, why doesn't he show up and tell me in person? Can't be that much of a bother for an all-powerful being.

He already has stated it, many times. You chose not to listen, or read, or disregarded what is written/spoken because you had your own mind made up.

I've only decided to step aside, for practical purposes, because stating the clear word isn't getting traction here. Besides, the King of Kings stated that those who do evil should continue to do evil, those who do good should continue to do good and so on until the end comes.

When we call evil "good" and good "evil", then you can know the end is at hand.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Did you know that research has determined that homophobes are very likely closet homosexuals, closeted even to themselves?

Of course, Sang can't be bothered to read what he links to!

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes?

While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the non-homophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'
(these are the final paragraphs of the article)

Psychoanalysis? Freudian "psychology" ... ? Exegesis?

Aren't the arguments about this topic silly enough already?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Fatrat1128:

GOD intended marriage as the union of a man and a woman. NOT the abomination of man with man or woman and woman. GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE. GOD forbids this kind of sick mindedness. What has this country come to? Its even worse when the leader of a nation condones such sickness.

If he has such strong feelings about the issue, why doesn't he show up and tell me in person? Can't be that much of a bother for an all-powerful being.

He already has stated it, many times. You chose not to listen, or read, or disregarded what is written/spoken because you had your own mind made up.

Really, where? Last time I checked it was humans all the way. Quite deranged humans at times.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

He already has stated it, many times. You chose not to listen, or read, or disregarded what is written/spoken because you had your own mind made up.

Really? Where in the Bible does it say that men must not marry men, and women must not marry women? As far as I can see, the tortured references that people have squeezed their anti-gay agenda from make no mention about marriage. Jesus was completely silent on the subject.

For that matter, where does it say that one man must only marry one woman? Yet that's a restriction in law. Perhaps this is because marriage is primarily a social construct, existing throughout the world regardless of which God people believe in.

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Where are all the ritual stonings of women who have had sex before marriage? Hmm? That's a fairly clear and explicit commandment there - far more specific than anything about gay marriage.

Isn't it a problem that we, in law, prohibit things that God has specifically commanded, because we have decided that our way is more morally correct? Doesn't that cause you a bigger moral dilemma than allowing gay people to be happy?

Moderator edit: This comment was removed for breaching our terms of service.

Posting this as a moderator, and for everyone's information:

Racism and other forms of bashing of people based on their skin color, sexual orientation, etc. will not be tolerated. Such behavior will result in a ban from the site.

(Do not respond to this message here. It is posted as information, and not as a topic for discussion.)

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I've only decided to step aside, for practical purposes, because stating the clear word isn't getting traction here.

It's not so clear, if one were to read the passages around the clubber verses, it's clearly not talking about normal same-sex relations. No, God did not say a same-sex couple can't love each other.

Out of context of the text itself and the time and place the Bible was written; men aren't even allowed to shave, is your shirt a mixture of cotton and polyester? Should women be allowed to cut their hair? Can a women teach a man anything? The last two are in the New Testament. In 3,000 years it will be silly for those people to attempt to live by our rules. It's silly for us to attempt to live by rules set down 3,000 years ago for Bronze Age - Iron Age civilization.

That's not disrespect for anyone's religion; it's common sense. Nor is it saying there isn't good in the Bible. For example, Jesus taught tolerance, judge not judging, etc. He even taught against racism in the parable of the Good Samaritan; the reason he choose a Samaritan for that story is because the common attitude toward that group of people was what we would call racism today. One thing Jesus never preached against, not even once, was about a couple of the same sex loving each other.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Out of context of the text itself and the time and place the Bible was written; men aren't even allowed to shave, is your shirt a mixture of cotton and polyester? Should women be allowed to cut their hair? Can a women teach a man anything? The last two are in the New Testament. In 3,000 years it will be silly for those people to attempt to live by our rules. It's silly for us to attempt to live by rules set down 3,000 years ago for Bronze Age - Iron Age civilization.

Yup, most of the dietary rules even made sense back then but not so much today. It never ceases to amuse me how these people pick & choose which rules to obey, which to quietly ignore, which to (try to) impose on others ( there's some overlap between the three, but not that much ), all while insisting that all the rules are clear, unambiguous and unchanging.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html

What followers is the transcript of the findings by GOP pollster Jan van Lohuizen:

In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:

1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).

2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.

3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:

a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:

“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits."

Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:

“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”

Why public attitudes might be changing:

“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”

Conservative fundamentals:

“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

Note the last section. Equal protection under the law is fundamentally conservative - personal responsibility, freedom, commitment and stability, limited government. At least that's what conservatives claim they're in favor of. If you're against these values, you're something other than conservative.

How many states have banned same-sex marriage, Sang?