Uncategorized

Little Big(ot) Horn

Cake TopperThe folks at unCiviltas are all wadded up about gay marriage. They’re still worried about defending marriage from loving, committed partners. I thought that divorce being commonplace, more so here than in the nation as a whole, was the institution’s biggest threat, but that’s what you get for thinking. The real problem is that even though gay marriage is illegal in North Carolina, it’s not illegal enough. It needs to be written into the constitution, you know, otherwise my gay friends and relatives might someday enjoy the same civil rights that I do. We can’t have that.

The latest assault on the assault on traditional marriage comes from one Jessica Custer. Perhaps English is not her first language, so I want to be sensitive to that. I mean, it’s the most difficult language on earth, so more power to Jessica to wrestling with it in the name of her values, but her ability to construct a coherent argument – about either the vagaries of marital law or the NC General Assembly’s resistance to a constitutional amendment – was sadly hindered. Wanna taste?

The movement to extend marriage from the traditional definition of a ‘man and woman’ is part of the larger sexual revolution that began in the 1960s and is slipping into middle and elementary schools today.”

Here’s the thing: Revolutions can’t slip anywhere. Not larger revolutions, or even eensy-weensy revolutions. Custer may be disturbed by people’s increasing embrace of the values commonly referred to under the rubric “the sexual revolution”, but I can’t tell because she doesn’t say so. I am unable to infer her meaning because she then applies it to institutions – elementary and middle schools – that are objects, and, thus, have no social values. Perhaps she means that the students and/or the administrations of these schools have shown too much willingness to empower women or to wear mini-skirts and take the Pill, but, as I said, I can’t really divine her meaning from her writing. I do know, though maybe Jessica doesn’t, that elementary and middle-school students have inherent sexual natures, as all animals do, but that it is inappropriate to accuse them of lax sexual values at a time when any sexual activity they have is, in most cases, either innocent or illegal.

Custer also believes that traditional marriage has been defended in unlikely places, such as California and beauty pageants. California, “a state that is home to a liberal Hollywood agenda”, is understood to be an unlikely venue for a defense of anything traditional, but the state has a Republican governor, albeit an unconventional one, and is home to many legal same-sex marriages. I can’t see how a beauty pageant could be considered an unlikely place for the upholding of traditional values. Beauty pageants end when one woman triumphs over a group of competitors as the most conventionally attractive. It seems like the perfect place to hew to a traditional understanding of femininity and gender roles, within marriage and society at large.

As for defending marriage from same-sex couples, I think we can learn from Massachusetts. Five years after gay marriage became legal there, the state retains the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Maybe conservative North Carolinians who have time on their hands to defend marriage should head up to the Commonwealth and find out what they’re doing. If you’re truly interested in the institution of marriage, that’s the place to go.

12 Comments

  1. James

    August 29, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Nice work.

  2. Sarah

    August 29, 2009 at 11:40 am

    oh Andrea. Here’s the thing: I read Jessica’s article and found it quite interesting. I consider myself to be more liberal in my way of thought so I am not agreeing with her but I am disagreeing with you. You attacked Jessica in a personal way commenting on her ability to speak English and not being able to “construct a coherent argument” is just ridiculous! Can we not find anything else to comment on? Must we be so petty as to find humor in the way she writes or her last name (see title). Have we sunk that low? I believe that what Jessica meant when you quoted her was that the idea’s of the revolution are being taught at elementary and middle school levels (which they are, my son, who is in seventh grade asks me questions about it). If you had maybe read her article then you probably would not have written this article the way you have, focusing on the facts of the article vs. your own personal agenda. If anything, you should take some advice from you good friend jess and write in a more factual way!

  3. old social worker

    August 29, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    Thanks again for exposing the sophistry of those who would deny basic human rights to gays and lesbians. These people, like the segregationists of yore, always have some leaky excuse why gays and lesbians should be denied full citizenship. In sweet reason they will meet their Waterloo.

    As for parents with venerable and lovely Old Testament names who may be struggling to explain nature’s sexual diversity to their issue, rest assured that there are many fine family therapists who can help.

  4. Little Big(ot) Horn

    August 29, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    […] Random Feed wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe folks at unCiviltas are all wadded up about gay marriage. They’re still worried about defending marriage from loving, committed partners. I thought that divorce being commonplace , more so here than in the nation as a whole, was the institution’s biggest threat, but that’s what you get for thinking. The real problem is that even though gay marriage is illegal in North Carolina, it’s not illegal enough. It needs to be written into the constitution, you know, otherwise my gay friends and rela […]

  5. Rob B

    August 29, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    It’s funny how “conservatives” sometimes really want the government to get involved in something, and it’s especially funny when it’s something tyrannical, like an amendment that’s actually an invasion of privacy and expressly denies rights to certain people. “But if you want the government to do something positive, like make basic healthcare affordable, then it’s tyrannical!” Gotta love that tight, right-wing logic!

  6. […] The Progressive Pulse – Little Big(ot) Horn pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2009/08/29/little-bigot-horn – view page – cached Cake Topper The folks at unCiviltas are all wadded up about gay marriage. They’re still worried about defending marriage from loving, committed partners. I thought that divorce being commonplace, more so here than in the nation as a whole, was the institution’s biggest threat, but that’s what you get for thinking. The real problem is that even though gay marriage is illegal in North Carolina, it’s not illegal enough. It needs to be written into the constitution, you know, otherwise my gay friends and relatives might someday enjoy the same civil rights that I do. We can’t have that. — From the page […]

  7. Billy

    August 30, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    Sarah, I think you miss the point of both articles. Jessica went on a tirade about how gay marriage needs to be made more illegal (as Andrea points out) yet she fails to offer any reason why that needs to happen. Jessica also mentions that the anti-gay marriage bills trying to pass had been sponsored by a ‘bipartisan majority in both houses’ and when they fail to even be brought to a vote, she blames the power-hungry liberals. It’s just another example of her argument not being rational, if a bill is sponsored with a majority of bipartisan support, why then, would it not even find the support needed to get a committee hearing?
    So while Andrea may have taken a small jab at Jessica’s inability to argue in a cogent and coherent fashion, I don’t see why she should have refrained. Andrea kept her article to the points Jessica made and observed where Jessica’s argument didn’t even make sense. Personally, I feel if someone is writing for a paper, they should at least understand when their argument follows logically. And as for writing about facts over a personal agenda…Andrea uses statistics and pertinent examples while Custer misses the big picture by just distilling out what points she thinks support her personal agenda of traditional marriage. Clearly, Sarah, we read different articles if you feel Andrea was just personally attacking Custer.

  8. John

    August 30, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Billy, your conclusion stating that “if a bill is sponsored with a majority of bipartisan support, why then, would it not even find the support needed to get a committee hearing?” Is pretty similiar to the question Custer is asking. She wrote, “House Bill 361 and Senate Bill 272 were sponsored by a bipartisan majority in both houses. They provided strong language to defend marriage as a union between one man and one woman. However, despite the support and public pressure to pass such legislation, these bills did not even receive a committee hearing. Why?…”

    Look at the bills for yourself. They do have bipartisan support and yet fail to reach committee, frustrating isn’t? The reality is North Carolina residents (ie: you and me) should be given the opportunity to vote on this and silence the debate once and for all. If what everyone on the left claims is true- that the majority of North Carolina residens support same-sex marriage- then let the Act pass and when the vote comes in November, strike it down. It is that simple. If conservatives want the vote so bad, let’s give it to them and then let the people who this actually effects decide.

    And “small jab,” Billy, please. Andrea offered a down right personal attack on Custer (even if “Custer” is an easy target). Which is what the left does, it attacks and attacks and calls people intolerant without actually being tolerant themselves.

    Custer’s article isn’t providing info as to why there needs to be an amendment, it points out the trends that are happening everywhere in the country, except North Carolina and questions why. And I think everyone would like to know and would like the chance for voters to decide.

  9. Twitted by ripconstitution

    August 30, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    […] This post was Twitted by ripconstitution […]

  10. HunterC

    August 30, 2009 at 10:41 pm

    John, the trends are in Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine.

    All of these happened AFTER the majority referendum on minority rights in California (which only passed by a couple of percentage points).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

    And if we’re putting things up for a vote, I want straight marriages up for a vote too — or at least the hypocrisy of no-fault divorce — like Ronald Reagan’s first marriage (hint, it wasn’t to Nancy).

  11. Andrea

    August 31, 2009 at 7:06 am

    For the record, I was not attacking Custer personally. I played off of her last name to highlight my hope that on this issue she will meet a resounding defeat. It’s all in pun.

  12. JK

    September 25, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    We need to get tough on our Democratic politicians. I received a disappointing reply from Kaye Hagan, after sending a note asking her to support the repeal of DOMA.

    Cowardly, spineless Hagan, in the great civil rights tradition of the region, “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman”, believes that it’s a “state’s rights” issue (WOW), and supports NC state policy banning marriage equality. However she’s kind enough to articulate her fuzzy and meaningless support for “protecting rights for individuals in same-sex partnerships when it comes to hospital visitation, financial matters, employment and housing”. The “when” qualifier is her addition.

    What a useless tool this woman is turning out to be. First she is publicly exposed to be an early-on opponent of the public option. Now this. We really need to get a progressive primary challenger to run against her, to give her some motivation to start acting with courage and principle. She has done nothing proactive, courageous, or progressive to date.