Sunday, May 13, 2012

Bigotry Isn't Only a Southern Brew

I'm a native North Carolinian and my state turned to the dark side this past Tuesday, voting to amend our state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, indeed any type of union other than a so-called traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I don't know if that means in the tradition of Kim Kardashian or if those who voted for the amendment have something a bit bit longer in mind before it counts as a marriage.


I voted against the amendment as did all the people with whom I'm still speaking. I have no patience with bigotry of any sort and there is no rational basis for such beliefs. The "I'm entitled to my opinion" argument doesn't fly with me. I'm entitled to discontinue all association with you if you choose to be a bigot.


However it is not my intent to rant about bigotry in this post. 


I am disturbed at a trend that I've spotted among quite a few non-southern folks to declare this anti-gay marriage bigotry to be a southern problem. It's not that I mind well deserved criticism directed at my state for the recent vote to add legalized discrimination to our state constitution. I am disturbed because as long as it's the other guy who is responsible then we avoid uniting in a collective effort to dismantle these laws as in clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  History is littered with denials of rights up to and including genocide in which everyone says, "Who me? I didn't approve of it. It was ________." (fill in the blank).


Thirty-one states have amended their constitutions to declare that marriage is between a man and a woman. Unless the South has cloned itself, this problem extends way beyond the south. 
Only the gray states lack an amendment prohibiting gay marriage.
It was particularly disturbing to read one person's comment, on a blog post about NC's recent vote, asserting that she lived in Virginia and would not set foot in NC because of the passage of Amendment One. Virginia already has a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage. It's as if the country has been asleep since around 2004 when state legislatures began amending state constitutions to enshrine bigotry as legal.


What NC has done is draw attention to this problem yet again. By the way. Minnesota plans to vote on this issue in November 2012. I'm not good at geography, but I'm pretty certain that Minnesota is not in the south. Only six states and the District of Columbia allow same sex marriages as of May 2012. Wikipedia has a good article identifying which states have passed anti-gay marriage amendments and the effect of those amendments that is accurate up until May 2012. It includes NC's recent vote.


Until we face the reality that bigotry knows no geographical boundaries, we're simply going to engage in periodic indignation when homophobia slaps us in the face, blame it on the south and then go on about our business, secure in the myth that only those other people practice bigotry. Thirty-one states down, only 19 more to go. This is a national issue, not a southern one and we need a national strategy to address it.

12 comments:

  1. Sheria,

    I think the problem is narrow-minded versions of religion, not region. I doubt that anyone bothers to maintain an anti-gay stance on this or any other issue without resorting to the old line, "the Bible tells me so." And one can resort to that in any state in the Union.

    This country was founded by people desperate to get away from just the sort of constipated dullards who today go around rattling off the dodge-line, "I believe marriage IS between a man and a woman." Yup, usually it is -- but that isn't the question decent Americans are being asked to consider. The question is marriage equality, and it can't be answered with a description of the way things have generally been.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Being a North Carolinian what disturbs me more than the passage of this amendment is the fact the GOP controlled state congress pushed the amendment for a vote during PRIMARY which we all know draws only 1% of the voters as opposed to allowing this most important decision to be on the ballot during the GENERAL election in Nov when I believe it probably would have been defeated.
    My hope now is that there will be federal challenges early on due to the particularly prejudicial and ornerous language attached to this amendment and that it will be defeated on the federal level, setting precedent for challenges to other states' amendments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BTW - I couldn't agree more; this is a national issue that needs to be dealt with and people need to look at the big picture - are we a democratic nation where all are created equal or do we throw the constitution out the window and declare this country a religious entity governed by the Krazy Kristian Koalition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Technically, as well as factually we are a democratic republic, not a democracy. As designed by rge founders of this democratic republic.

      Delete
    2. fat finger typo; "the" not "rge."

      Delete
  4. A question of semantics as these two terms are inclusive of each other - therefore not germaine to this conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think more people regard the South as especially blighted with bigotry because for so long it was systematized, written into law, institutionalized and proudly proclaimed as synonymous with "our Southern way of life." Elsewhere, prejudice was for a long time acted on in less formal ways. But yes, it's been a nationwide problem throughout our history.

    rockync, FWIW, direct democracy, as practiced in amphitheaters in ancient Greece and in town meetings in colonial New England, involves people who wish to being given a chance to bring up an issue and speak, then others to speak pro or con. Next, those interested enough to attend get to vote whatever it is up or down.

    That kind of democracy works reasonably well in small jurisdictions. As jurisdictions become larger, it goes quickly from being unwieldy to being unworkable. Thus the switch to representative democracy. Unfortunately, representative democracy can quickly go from being marginally representative of the people as a whole to completely sold out to the highest campaign contributors.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Comments of this sort:

    "Technically, as well as factually we are a democratic republic, not a democracy. As designed by rge founders of this democratic republic."

    are indicative of two things.

    The first is that the author* is both credulous and lazy.

    The second is that the author is a SKKKrotalMurKKKanPatriotiKKK Front member.

    * "author" in this case not meaning the person who actually "authored" that bit of reactionary horsepucky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So say you. I simply must respectfully disagree.

      I appreciate your acknowledgement I am not a "SKKKrotalMurKKKanPatriotiKKK Front member."

      Delete
  7. Florida approved one of the asinine amendments in 2008. My wonderful son spent many days standing by the side of the road defending marriage equality. Unfortunately though, many who came out in DROVES for Obama in this state (Catholics, Hispanics, African-Americans) are not comfortable with the thought of marriage equality.

    It's sad. But I am fairly certain it is true.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "So say you. I simply must respectfully disagree.

    I appreciate your acknowledgement I am not a "SKKKrotalMurKKKanPatriotiKKK Front member."

    Actually, I should have included a third indicator instead of just the two. The third one would be a lack of ability to read for comprension.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.