Comments on: Little Big(ot) Horn

By: JK

JK — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:49:07 +0000

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.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:06:12 +0000

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.

By: HunterC

HunterC — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:41:42 +0000

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).

By: Twitted by ripconstitution

Twitted by ripconstitution — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:31:45 +0000

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

By: John

John — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:19:10 +0000

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.

By: Billy

Billy — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:41:24 +0000

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.

By: Twitter Trackbacks for The Progressive Pulse – Little Big(ot) Horn [ncpolicywatch.org] on Topsy.com

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:47:59 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Rob B

Rob B — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:03:50 +0000

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!

By: Little Big(ot) Horn

Little Big(ot) Horn — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:46:52 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: old social worker

old social worker — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:42:31 +0000

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.