This is so pathetic it is not even funny. I think the most ironic part of this fiasco is the loudest criers of freedom and individual liberty as well
as small government and getting government out of their lives are the ones voting for denying rights to one group of people that another group gets to
enjoy. Being as this is a democracy, the majority should be the ones winning the vote. This is not happening and doesn't happen on most issues.
Our system of government through representation is one of the core reasons the will of the people is almost never expressed. In this situation, we
have a small group of voters coming out in overwhelming numbers and basically "drowning out" the majority's voice, who don't come out in large
numbers. These "family values" organizations that are persecuting gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgenders operate by targeting a core
demographic, of extremely religious far-right people, and using propaganda to inflict fear and paranoia on to that group. When you take this small
group, who is known to be very politically active especially in voting, and launch a massive propaganda campaign through peddling massive amounts of
fear, paranoia, and ignorance against them; Expect some trouble. This small demographic will then turn out to vote in astonishing numbers,
effectively shouting out the majority's will.
I found this paragraph from the article particularly telling. The following is a quote by Rachel Lee, a mouth piece for a propaganda outlet.
"Making this a constitutional amendment was important, said Rachel Lee, a spokeswoman for Vote For Marriage NC, because 'those statutes are
vulnerable to the will of an activist judge or future legislature who could overturn the law with a single court ruling or by a single vote of the
What she is basically saying here is that she is worried that the Supreme Court or state court would interpret this law as unconstitutional because
it is unconstitutional. The only way this law would not be restricting the rights of an entire group of citizens would be if we lived in a theocracy
which is living under the rule of the bible. Since marriage is totally different concerning our government than it is concerning the church, it is
clearly unconstitutional. Marriage in the church cannot be regulated or altered. Marriage, when talking about the government, changes two people's
legal status and that entails many things including different tax rates and special benefits. By withholding the government's equal treatment in the
eye of the law of homosexual people, this bill is unconstitutionally limiting the rights of a group of people. I may not have explained that too
clearly, but I am trying to illustrate the difference of marriage through the eyes of the church and the eyes of the state and federal government.
The two ARE mutually exclusive, which is a fact supporters of limiting gay's rights often seem to miss. This spokeswomen, or propagandist, would not
have said what she said if she was 100% sure this was constitutional.
To prove the propagandist nature of this group's message, I will dissect the short quote from the spokeswoman. Just so people understand, what
this woman said was pre-written or was a statement carefully crafted to evoke specific emotions in specific types of people. They practice responses
to questions in order to control the message. There is thought put into everything this woman says. The essence of propaganda For this analysis to
make sense, you must realize this group panders to the religious far right.
* those statutes are vulnerable to the will of an activist judge or future legislature
She used the word vulnerable in order to make these people wary of the future. The word future was even used to describe the possibility a
"liberal" legislature could overturn the law if it wasn't a constitutional amendment. Conservatives, more exactly Christian fundamentalists of the
far-right, are notoriously known for their fear of the unknown and their paranoia/distrust of other people trying to take away their religion. Ever
hear them complain of "freedom of religion?" That's some proof for my statement. She also used "activist" judge to evoke thoughts of
"liberal" judges trying to challenge the will of the evangelicals. She could have just said judge, since judges are to be free of bias and a judge
would evaluate this on it's legal merit alone, the use of the word "activist" is chosen on purpose.
Recap: Our political system is not only owned and operated by corporations and Wall Street, but is also perverted by tiny minorities being
manipulated by special interest groups such as the "Family Research Council," headed by the notorious Tony Perkins. (Completely misleading name of
the organization, more proof of the propaganda effort) These small groups actually vote in greater numbers than the true majority. They are lead by
fear, paranoia, and ignorance.