NC: Why I didn't write about Senate's tawdry marriage vote
A couple of you have written to ask why I haven't said anything about the North Carolina Senate's approval of a constitutional marriage ban, an action that sends the discriminatory measure to voters in the May 2012 primary. The simple reason why I haven't: Because what the hell is there to say, really?
Once again, we have the National Organization For Marriage and the Family Research Council swooping into a state, pairing up with whatever nationally affiliated local family policy council is in the state (in this case, NCFC) and whatever church community can be tapped (in this case it's largely evangelical) to convince just enough lawmakers to do the wrong thing by their constituents. By their state. By history. When it comes to that well-worn script, what is there even to say anymore? Other than a masochistic cry of "please sir, can I have another?" what does a "culture war" watcher say of the umpteenth elected body making the crappy choice to drag down their state?
In North Carolina, one of the leaders who's heavily credited for getting the ban to this level is Pastor Ron Baity:
[Family Research Council]
This is a man who is borderline Phelpsian in his extreme rhetoric, and yet he still gets proud acknowledgment from America's leading conservative groups? Still has influence in moving a piece of legislation through a GOP-controlled legislature? Still gets to play the role of a mere conservative figures, even while preaching about how "God will save" gays from their "learned lifestyle[s]," how equal rights proponents are sowing the "seeds of destruction," how gays "must recruit young people to their perverted, warped agenda," and how there is nothing "more nauseating, debased, lewd and immoral than recruiting precious young people into such shameful conduct"? (more here , here, and here) If this is the kind of thing conservative legislators care to either outright or tacitly support via their votes, what am I going to say that will change that?
In the coming months, I'll surely have much to say about North Carolina, as I have with every state where certain citizens' basic rights are put before the whims of a majority vote. But in terms of the machinations that got this crude discrimination to this level? What point is there pontificating on damages once again done? Our one, focused goal should be showing the public why they are to remedy the reliably hostile acts of an increasingly radical coalition.
comments powered by Disqus