I don't get too bent out of shape when people misspell, punctuate poorly, or use the wrong word, as long as it's in their personal communication. It pains me a little, because I like the precision and beauty of language, but not everyone has a facility for it, and they are not putting the mistakes out there in a public forum.
But in professional communications perfection should be the goal, and I am flabbergasted that people and businesses pay to print and distribute materials--not to mention display signs--that contain glaring errors. Is there really no one along this continuum--the writer, the manager, the owner, the printer--who can recognize that something is incorrect?
I was following a truck recently that advertised the services of its owner, a landscaper. Along with mowing, edging, and laying sod, there was 'prunning.' I'm sure this custom sign wasn't cheap--it was large and looked well made--and yet, obviously, at no point did anyone see this simple misspelling. Even if the owner couldn't spell, wouldn't you assume he'd ask someone to proofread before he spent hundreds of dollars on a sign that was his face to the public, so to speak? Or that there would be someone at this sign-making enterprise that would double-check for accuracy before they committed the goof-up to posterity or had to haggle over redoing it?
But it is the misuse of apostrophes (particularly, when they denote possession) that is starting to make me crazy, not just because it's ubiquitous, but because their proper usage isn't all that difficult to comprehend.
Menus are the worst offenders. Oyster's, martini's, and entree's, for instance. This leaves me wondering. Which oyster? Which martini's what? Olive, onion? And while menus represent less of an investment than a huge roadside sign, consider this one in my town: 'Cap't Bill's Backyard Barbecue' which is 'catered by the Musser's.' The apostrophe is used correctly after 'Bill,' because the backyard barbecue belongs to him. But what or who is 'the Musser'? And catered by the Musser's what??
Aaaarrgh...! It's really not that hard. If something belongs to something or someone, you indicate that with an apostrophe: the dragonfly's wing, Mr. Pettifogger's hat, the owner's name, Peggy's pet peeve.
If it's simply a plural, then leave it alone! Martinis, lunch specials, entrees, the Mussers. For you eating establishments out there, "Wednesday's special" is correct, but "Beer special's on Wednesday's" is not.
Okay, I feel better now and am ready to move on. I think I have a couple of shrubs I need to prun.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
NC teacher tells student he can be arrested for criticizing Obama
If you haven't heard about it yet, an audio recording by a North Carolina high school student has gone viral on YouTube. He recorded an exchange (that's misleading--it wasn't nearly that civil) with his Social Studies teacher, in which she tells him that he could be arrested for criticizing the president. Apparently, she was suspended once the furor escalated, but for what hasn't been made clear. For 'teaching while stupid'? I don't know.
The focus has been on her obvious ignorance; the student pointed out to her that he had in no way threatened the president, he had simply countered her 'fact of the day' (that Romney bullied someone in high school) with a question--namely, hadn't Obama also admitted to bullying someone--and that he was only exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
There are many disturbing things about this episode. For starters, this was the teacher's 'fact' of the day?? From my reading of it, it's not undoubtedly a fact. Romney may indeed have been a high school bully, but was this teacher going to start a discussion about the Washington Post's incredible lack of journalistic ethics (putting words into the mouth of a supposed witness to the effect that he had 'long been bothered' about the incident, then simply altering the story rather than issuing a retraction when this man made it known he hadn't even been aware of the incident until the Post contacted him a few weeks earlier), or mention the fact that the 'victim's own family disavowed the Post's portrayal of him and the incident?
Something tells me...no. And then there is the atmosphere in the classroom and the way this woman interacts with her students. I taught high school for many years, and while there often were laughs and spirited discussion, at no time--ever--was I trying to teach or conduct a debate while shrieking, laughing, unrelated conversation, and general 'carrying on' reigned while I simply tried to shout over it. These kids clearly had no respect for this woman--but why should they? She had no control over her classroom because she had no control over herself. She screamed like a fishwife, cut students off and shut them up because she wouldn't tolerate being disagreed with.
And quite frankly, she was an ideology-driven dummy. What a waste of time for all involved with her. If you can stand her loud, grating voice, you can find the clip and listen, but towards the end, she smugly tells the students that, 'as a Social Studies teacher,' she can't 'allow' them to disrespect any president--past or current--only _moments_ after she has responded to the student's comment that people 'talked shit' about Bush all the time with the shrieking rejoinder that he (Bush) "was shitty!"
I'm sorry to say that, based on my own observations over a long period of time, very few teachers maintain the objectivity they should when it comes to politics and their students. Their job is to challenge students' assumptions and reasoning (whatever their opinions) so they can make them better thinkers. But, by and large, they don't. They freely try to influence, and it's safe to say that most of them don't have a sufficient level of self-awareness to realize they are profoundly wrong--even immoral--to do so.
This woman is a temporary embarrassment to the education establishment in Rowan County, NC, but she is a great illustration of why we are pouring tax dollars down a hole, shortchanging our young people, and falling ever farther behind the countries who demand the very best of their students and teachers.
The focus has been on her obvious ignorance; the student pointed out to her that he had in no way threatened the president, he had simply countered her 'fact of the day' (that Romney bullied someone in high school) with a question--namely, hadn't Obama also admitted to bullying someone--and that he was only exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
There are many disturbing things about this episode. For starters, this was the teacher's 'fact' of the day?? From my reading of it, it's not undoubtedly a fact. Romney may indeed have been a high school bully, but was this teacher going to start a discussion about the Washington Post's incredible lack of journalistic ethics (putting words into the mouth of a supposed witness to the effect that he had 'long been bothered' about the incident, then simply altering the story rather than issuing a retraction when this man made it known he hadn't even been aware of the incident until the Post contacted him a few weeks earlier), or mention the fact that the 'victim's own family disavowed the Post's portrayal of him and the incident?
Something tells me...no. And then there is the atmosphere in the classroom and the way this woman interacts with her students. I taught high school for many years, and while there often were laughs and spirited discussion, at no time--ever--was I trying to teach or conduct a debate while shrieking, laughing, unrelated conversation, and general 'carrying on' reigned while I simply tried to shout over it. These kids clearly had no respect for this woman--but why should they? She had no control over her classroom because she had no control over herself. She screamed like a fishwife, cut students off and shut them up because she wouldn't tolerate being disagreed with.
And quite frankly, she was an ideology-driven dummy. What a waste of time for all involved with her. If you can stand her loud, grating voice, you can find the clip and listen, but towards the end, she smugly tells the students that, 'as a Social Studies teacher,' she can't 'allow' them to disrespect any president--past or current--only _moments_ after she has responded to the student's comment that people 'talked shit' about Bush all the time with the shrieking rejoinder that he (Bush) "was shitty!"
I'm sorry to say that, based on my own observations over a long period of time, very few teachers maintain the objectivity they should when it comes to politics and their students. Their job is to challenge students' assumptions and reasoning (whatever their opinions) so they can make them better thinkers. But, by and large, they don't. They freely try to influence, and it's safe to say that most of them don't have a sufficient level of self-awareness to realize they are profoundly wrong--even immoral--to do so.
This woman is a temporary embarrassment to the education establishment in Rowan County, NC, but she is a great illustration of why we are pouring tax dollars down a hole, shortchanging our young people, and falling ever farther behind the countries who demand the very best of their students and teachers.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Why would Hillary even want to be vice president?
Much speculation is floating around at the moment about the possibility of President Obama dumping Joe Biden as his running mate and bringing Hillary Clinton on board. The same thing happened a while ago and then died down; no doubt it's been revived because of the belated realization (on the part of Obama's campaign) that they might not coast to victory, after all.
I have read at least four or five opinion pieces on the subject, all related to whether or not it will actually happen and how it would be accomplished so as not to make Obama look bad. (The most popular guess seems to be that Biden and Hillary would make a switch, and he would be Sec. of State in a second Obama administration--in effect, that he would not be 'dumped,' but would agree to the swap.)
None of what I've read, though, addresses what seems the most obvious and important question. Why would Clinton even consider such a move? Why would it be in her own best interest? The assumption seems to be that it would--but I don't see it.
It's certainly in Obama's, because she could well boost him to a win (although I suspect this would be a particularly bitter pill for him and Michelle to have to swallow--needing Hillary...) She remains highly popular with her fans and her tenure as Sec. of State has earned her respect even among non-fans and past critics. Her substitution onto the ticket is unlikely to change any votes among those who've already decided Obama's performance doesn't merit a second term, but it could easily energize disillusioned Dems and still-undecided Independents who voted for Obama the first time.
But what's in it for Hillary? Regardless of her many strengths, she would still be just the vice president--the "spare tire in the automobile of government' as one v.p. famously put it. Certainly, if she's v.p. for a popular, accomplished president, her chances of succeeding him would be boosted. But if Obama wins, I don't see that happening. Obviously, for the good of the country and all the people out of work, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that if he gets reelected, he'll double down on what he's already done and what he wants to do, and the backlash will be that in 2016, the Republicans could run almost anyone and win. Being associated with Obama could be a huge liability for her, rather than a help.
In a situation like that, she would actually have a better chance running as the Democratic nominee if she had not been involved with the administration in such a capacity. Really, an Obama win, with or without her, doesn't necessarily improve her 2016 chances. If Romney wins, he's inheriting as big or an even bigger mess than Obama did, and a Democratic challenger will have more traction against him than against a new challenger after 8 years of Obama. Unless--and once again, for the good of the country, this would be the best scenario--Romney did a bang-up job.
Either way, it's a political calculation, but I don't see that hitching her wagon to Obama as his second-in-command really is the smart gamble. And my opinion of her (for 2016) is not going to be improved at all if she cooperates with Obama to turn Uncle Joe loose as Sec. of State. That's really what we need in today's world, isn't it? As our top diplomat, a man who merely opens his mouth and people hold their breath and cringe because they don't know what might come out. Oy.
I have read at least four or five opinion pieces on the subject, all related to whether or not it will actually happen and how it would be accomplished so as not to make Obama look bad. (The most popular guess seems to be that Biden and Hillary would make a switch, and he would be Sec. of State in a second Obama administration--in effect, that he would not be 'dumped,' but would agree to the swap.)
None of what I've read, though, addresses what seems the most obvious and important question. Why would Clinton even consider such a move? Why would it be in her own best interest? The assumption seems to be that it would--but I don't see it.
It's certainly in Obama's, because she could well boost him to a win (although I suspect this would be a particularly bitter pill for him and Michelle to have to swallow--needing Hillary...) She remains highly popular with her fans and her tenure as Sec. of State has earned her respect even among non-fans and past critics. Her substitution onto the ticket is unlikely to change any votes among those who've already decided Obama's performance doesn't merit a second term, but it could easily energize disillusioned Dems and still-undecided Independents who voted for Obama the first time.
But what's in it for Hillary? Regardless of her many strengths, she would still be just the vice president--the "spare tire in the automobile of government' as one v.p. famously put it. Certainly, if she's v.p. for a popular, accomplished president, her chances of succeeding him would be boosted. But if Obama wins, I don't see that happening. Obviously, for the good of the country and all the people out of work, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that if he gets reelected, he'll double down on what he's already done and what he wants to do, and the backlash will be that in 2016, the Republicans could run almost anyone and win. Being associated with Obama could be a huge liability for her, rather than a help.
In a situation like that, she would actually have a better chance running as the Democratic nominee if she had not been involved with the administration in such a capacity. Really, an Obama win, with or without her, doesn't necessarily improve her 2016 chances. If Romney wins, he's inheriting as big or an even bigger mess than Obama did, and a Democratic challenger will have more traction against him than against a new challenger after 8 years of Obama. Unless--and once again, for the good of the country, this would be the best scenario--Romney did a bang-up job.
Either way, it's a political calculation, but I don't see that hitching her wagon to Obama as his second-in-command really is the smart gamble. And my opinion of her (for 2016) is not going to be improved at all if she cooperates with Obama to turn Uncle Joe loose as Sec. of State. That's really what we need in today's world, isn't it? As our top diplomat, a man who merely opens his mouth and people hold their breath and cringe because they don't know what might come out. Oy.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
NC Amendment One passes--a follow-up
Wow, what a news day, yesterday. North Carolina passed Amendment One (defined in my last post as stipulating that marriage between one man and one woman will be the only legally recognized relationship in the state) and President Obama finally made a definitive statement on the subject.
Coincidence? Probably not. Although the state’s fourteen electoral votes don’t constitute a huge number, they could make a critical difference, and after months of reports that North Carolina seemed very winnable to the Obama campaign (with many visits scheduled, to that end) more recent rumors have been that they are wondering whether they should expend the effort. One has to wonder if the timing, partly, is a message to the base and to undecided, socially liberal independents.
The pronouncement was a gamble, and carefully calibrated, I think, to try to do three things: reassure and appeal to the two groups just mentioned, and at the same time, not lose undecided independents who are more socially conservative and/or consider the 10th amendment an important issue. This tightrope-walking consisted of voicing a definite personal opinion in favor of gay marriage while maintaining that it’s still an issue for individual states to decide. Whether this works or backfires is yet to be seen.
I am not overly critical of the political opportunism involved; Mr. Obama is, after all, a politician, and one who had to get elected and is trying to be re-elected by a center-right country. Obviously, Mr. Romney—who was against gay marriage, then for it when he was running for governor of the most liberal state in the union, and is now against it—will have to tread carefully here.
But what makes it such a gamble is the issue of his base. As most people know, turnout among the young and among blacks are critical, and there is simply no appealing to both with this. Young people will respond positively, but the majority of black voters will not, and will be very conflicted, as a result. Neither demographic is likely to turn out for Romney, but they might stay home out of a dearth of 2008 enthusiasm. (This is an unscientific observation, I know, but a black friend—intelligent, passionate about politics and issues, an intriguing mix of liberal and conservative who nonetheless tends to the former, and a devout Christian—had already told me he couldn’t vote for Romney. He’s not thrilled with Obama anymore, but would have voted for him. Now he expects to stay home.)
Thinking of this young man’s support for Amendment One leads me back to the vote, itself. As polls predicted, it wasn’t close—about 60/40 was what I saw. One thing did surprise me, though, given that the polling numbers were readily available. On Facebook, where the majority of my friends are liberal (or perhaps the conservative ones stay quiet; I don’t know) there was an outpouring of surprise, even shock. “Who are these people who voted yes?” one of them asked. I don’t know any of them.” One of his friends assured him they were just uneducated rednecks, so of course he wouldn’t have known any. There were numerous posts decrying the ‘bigotry’ of this vote, and as I pointed out in my last post, this is dangerous ground when people often want to paint ‘bigots’ with as broad a brush as possible, given that black voters overwhelmingly agreed with the ‘rednecks.’
There is a kind of insulated thinking here that hampers the efforts of those who opposed this amendment—and they would do well to consider it as they marshal their efforts toward repeal. When you only talk to one another, when you reinforce each other about how your own feelings are the only valid ones, when you demonize those who disagree with you as either ignorant, bigoted, or both, you lower your preparedness and your effectiveness. (I believe this same phenomenon is at work in the Obama re-election campaign—they have seemed ignorant or dismissive of the genuine reservations of intelligent, concerned voters, and have relied, unwisely, on the supportive coverage of a largely biased press, to the point where they have up to now believed the seas ahead were largely smooth. I’m not surprised that James Carville is currently trying to sound the alarm that a defeat is entirely possible.)
I should make it clear that I’m not saying it’s just those who opposed the amendment who should do more listening to those who supported it. That goes both ways. Those whose religious convictions are firm, like my friend, are unlikely ever to change their mind, but those convictions do not make him ignorant, or a bigot, or a hater. And some sincere interchange might change the minds of those whose concerns are cultural and societal, or whose religious reservations are more open to amelioration.
I was kind of heartened to see a post on one of my Facebook friends’ pages, in which one of his friends (who was clearly opposed to the amendment) seemed to be making a genuine appeal to supporters to explain their thinking. Dialogue may not promote agreement but—engaged in with a determination to be civil—it can promote understanding and respect, and a renewed will to find solutions.
Coincidence? Probably not. Although the state’s fourteen electoral votes don’t constitute a huge number, they could make a critical difference, and after months of reports that North Carolina seemed very winnable to the Obama campaign (with many visits scheduled, to that end) more recent rumors have been that they are wondering whether they should expend the effort. One has to wonder if the timing, partly, is a message to the base and to undecided, socially liberal independents.
The pronouncement was a gamble, and carefully calibrated, I think, to try to do three things: reassure and appeal to the two groups just mentioned, and at the same time, not lose undecided independents who are more socially conservative and/or consider the 10th amendment an important issue. This tightrope-walking consisted of voicing a definite personal opinion in favor of gay marriage while maintaining that it’s still an issue for individual states to decide. Whether this works or backfires is yet to be seen.
I am not overly critical of the political opportunism involved; Mr. Obama is, after all, a politician, and one who had to get elected and is trying to be re-elected by a center-right country. Obviously, Mr. Romney—who was against gay marriage, then for it when he was running for governor of the most liberal state in the union, and is now against it—will have to tread carefully here.
But what makes it such a gamble is the issue of his base. As most people know, turnout among the young and among blacks are critical, and there is simply no appealing to both with this. Young people will respond positively, but the majority of black voters will not, and will be very conflicted, as a result. Neither demographic is likely to turn out for Romney, but they might stay home out of a dearth of 2008 enthusiasm. (This is an unscientific observation, I know, but a black friend—intelligent, passionate about politics and issues, an intriguing mix of liberal and conservative who nonetheless tends to the former, and a devout Christian—had already told me he couldn’t vote for Romney. He’s not thrilled with Obama anymore, but would have voted for him. Now he expects to stay home.)
Thinking of this young man’s support for Amendment One leads me back to the vote, itself. As polls predicted, it wasn’t close—about 60/40 was what I saw. One thing did surprise me, though, given that the polling numbers were readily available. On Facebook, where the majority of my friends are liberal (or perhaps the conservative ones stay quiet; I don’t know) there was an outpouring of surprise, even shock. “Who are these people who voted yes?” one of them asked. I don’t know any of them.” One of his friends assured him they were just uneducated rednecks, so of course he wouldn’t have known any. There were numerous posts decrying the ‘bigotry’ of this vote, and as I pointed out in my last post, this is dangerous ground when people often want to paint ‘bigots’ with as broad a brush as possible, given that black voters overwhelmingly agreed with the ‘rednecks.’
There is a kind of insulated thinking here that hampers the efforts of those who opposed this amendment—and they would do well to consider it as they marshal their efforts toward repeal. When you only talk to one another, when you reinforce each other about how your own feelings are the only valid ones, when you demonize those who disagree with you as either ignorant, bigoted, or both, you lower your preparedness and your effectiveness. (I believe this same phenomenon is at work in the Obama re-election campaign—they have seemed ignorant or dismissive of the genuine reservations of intelligent, concerned voters, and have relied, unwisely, on the supportive coverage of a largely biased press, to the point where they have up to now believed the seas ahead were largely smooth. I’m not surprised that James Carville is currently trying to sound the alarm that a defeat is entirely possible.)
I should make it clear that I’m not saying it’s just those who opposed the amendment who should do more listening to those who supported it. That goes both ways. Those whose religious convictions are firm, like my friend, are unlikely ever to change their mind, but those convictions do not make him ignorant, or a bigot, or a hater. And some sincere interchange might change the minds of those whose concerns are cultural and societal, or whose religious reservations are more open to amelioration.
I was kind of heartened to see a post on one of my Facebook friends’ pages, in which one of his friends (who was clearly opposed to the amendment) seemed to be making a genuine appeal to supporters to explain their thinking. Dialogue may not promote agreement but—engaged in with a determination to be civil—it can promote understanding and respect, and a renewed will to find solutions.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Trying to decide how to vote on the NC 'marriage amendment...'
I prefer to make voting decisions based on facts, not emotions, and I'm currently deciding how to vote on the so-called 'marriage amendment,' which will be on North Carolina's primary ballot next Tuesday, May 8. The proposed amendment to the state's constitution reads as follows: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." Backers of the amendment cite a desire to make sure this definition is determined by a majority of voters, with immunity to reversal by a judge or judges. Opponents dismiss the concern, and allege that the motivation is simply anti-gay bias.
For many people there is no hesitation on how to vote. Either their faith and religious convictions motivate them to vote for, or their conviction that the amendment constitutes discrimination motivates them to vote against. Others, and I include myself here, are less passionate and are weighing intent, concerns about possible legal confusion down the road when disputes end up in court, vague wording, possible unknown consequences, etc.
For the record, I don't have any problem with gay marriage, in itself. But there has been a host of unanticipated consequences in the states where it exists--most notably public school education that clearly crosses the line from promoting tolerance to indoctrinating approval--and parents have no right to opt out of this if they wish to keep their kids in public school, no matter how much it conflicts with their most deeply held convictions. To endorse or promote gay marriage without at least considering the possible ramifications is unwise, I think.
And I guess where I differ with a lot of the amendment's opponents is that I don't dismiss those who are against it as 'haters' and 'bigots.' Polls routinely show that support for civil unions, for example, continues to rise among those who object to gay marriage, and while all some people may see in this is evidence of discrimination, it clearly doesn't indicate 'hate,' or a desire to leave people in gay relationships without any legal protections or status.
The religious objection to gay marriage is a discussion that almost always goes nowhere, because if someone else doesn't share the same foundation or worldview, it's never going to be a view that makes sense to them. In most cases they don't truly respect the conviction because they believe it's without any logical underpinnings, so they suspect it's just a smokescreen for bigotry and ignorance. The fascinating thing in terms of how this turns out next Tuesday is that, often, that implication (of bigotry and hate) is subtly or not so subtly coupled with hints that it is to be found in the 'right wing,' among 'conservative Christians' and 'Republicans,' with the subtext being that those groups are probably racial bigots as well.
But blacks--almost all of whom are Democrats--tend to be religious conservatives who are not in favor of gay marriage. Black pastors are solidly against the amendment and it is noteworthy that while the NAACP, in a difficult political position, has come out against the amendment, they caution explicitly that their opposition should not be interpreted as a position on gay marriage.
I have been leaning towards an 'against' vote for the reasons mentioned above and a number of others, but now am tempted to just abstain because of how turned off I am by the campaign of distortion being waged by the amendment's opponents. Here are two examples of 'facts' they are disseminating:
"This amendment would take away domestic violence protections for all unmarried people..." Please see the link below (you may need to cut and paste) for an unequivocal statement by a dozen or more prosecutors/judges/law enforcement personnel across the state--some of whom do not support the amendment but would like to set the record straight--to the effect that this allegation is 'utterly false.'
http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Domestic-Violence-Statement-5.1.12.pdf
Another 'fact' being put out there by opponents is this: "The amendment would automatically strip health benefits from unmarried people who receive coverage through their partners..' when the truth is that _no one_ who receives these benefits from companies that provide them will be affected. The state already doesn't provide benefits to unmarried couples, whatever their sex, so the only couples who may lose partner coverage are employees of one of the few municipalities--Chapel Hill is one--that provide these benefits. I am not saying this isn't of concern--it is--but to state that everyone with partner coverage will lose it is, quite simply, a blatant lie.
I haven't had time to investigate the other claims being made by opponents, but I really dislike being manipulated and since they are 0 for 2 so far, I'm not confident of their veracity. I am also deeply offended by some of the more absurd propaganda--such as the suggestion that abused women will be forced to consider marrying their abusers so they can have legal protection from them. Fearmongering is ugly and inexcusable no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.
So, I am sincerely interested in input from both sides, and I'm particularly interested in feedback from people who live in states where gay marriage is legal.
Thanks
For many people there is no hesitation on how to vote. Either their faith and religious convictions motivate them to vote for, or their conviction that the amendment constitutes discrimination motivates them to vote against. Others, and I include myself here, are less passionate and are weighing intent, concerns about possible legal confusion down the road when disputes end up in court, vague wording, possible unknown consequences, etc.
For the record, I don't have any problem with gay marriage, in itself. But there has been a host of unanticipated consequences in the states where it exists--most notably public school education that clearly crosses the line from promoting tolerance to indoctrinating approval--and parents have no right to opt out of this if they wish to keep their kids in public school, no matter how much it conflicts with their most deeply held convictions. To endorse or promote gay marriage without at least considering the possible ramifications is unwise, I think.
And I guess where I differ with a lot of the amendment's opponents is that I don't dismiss those who are against it as 'haters' and 'bigots.' Polls routinely show that support for civil unions, for example, continues to rise among those who object to gay marriage, and while all some people may see in this is evidence of discrimination, it clearly doesn't indicate 'hate,' or a desire to leave people in gay relationships without any legal protections or status.
The religious objection to gay marriage is a discussion that almost always goes nowhere, because if someone else doesn't share the same foundation or worldview, it's never going to be a view that makes sense to them. In most cases they don't truly respect the conviction because they believe it's without any logical underpinnings, so they suspect it's just a smokescreen for bigotry and ignorance. The fascinating thing in terms of how this turns out next Tuesday is that, often, that implication (of bigotry and hate) is subtly or not so subtly coupled with hints that it is to be found in the 'right wing,' among 'conservative Christians' and 'Republicans,' with the subtext being that those groups are probably racial bigots as well.
But blacks--almost all of whom are Democrats--tend to be religious conservatives who are not in favor of gay marriage. Black pastors are solidly against the amendment and it is noteworthy that while the NAACP, in a difficult political position, has come out against the amendment, they caution explicitly that their opposition should not be interpreted as a position on gay marriage.
I have been leaning towards an 'against' vote for the reasons mentioned above and a number of others, but now am tempted to just abstain because of how turned off I am by the campaign of distortion being waged by the amendment's opponents. Here are two examples of 'facts' they are disseminating:
"This amendment would take away domestic violence protections for all unmarried people..." Please see the link below (you may need to cut and paste) for an unequivocal statement by a dozen or more prosecutors/judges/law enforcement personnel across the state--some of whom do not support the amendment but would like to set the record straight--to the effect that this allegation is 'utterly false.'
http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Domestic-Violence-Statement-5.1.12.pdf
Another 'fact' being put out there by opponents is this: "The amendment would automatically strip health benefits from unmarried people who receive coverage through their partners..' when the truth is that _no one_ who receives these benefits from companies that provide them will be affected. The state already doesn't provide benefits to unmarried couples, whatever their sex, so the only couples who may lose partner coverage are employees of one of the few municipalities--Chapel Hill is one--that provide these benefits. I am not saying this isn't of concern--it is--but to state that everyone with partner coverage will lose it is, quite simply, a blatant lie.
I haven't had time to investigate the other claims being made by opponents, but I really dislike being manipulated and since they are 0 for 2 so far, I'm not confident of their veracity. I am also deeply offended by some of the more absurd propaganda--such as the suggestion that abused women will be forced to consider marrying their abusers so they can have legal protection from them. Fearmongering is ugly and inexcusable no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.
So, I am sincerely interested in input from both sides, and I'm particularly interested in feedback from people who live in states where gay marriage is legal.
Thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)