John Locke’s Hood misrepresents Amendment One

 

 

 

First it was Renee Ellmers.  Now, it’s John Locke Foundation president John Hood.  We’ve had a mini-outbreak of alleged conservative leaders throwing in with the left to help throw North Carolina’s conservative grassroots under the bus.

The N&O recounted a recent column by Hood:

John Hood, the president of the conservative John Locke Foundation, has weighed in against the constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages.

In a recent column, Hood writes that neither the Foundation or he personally get involved in social issues, focusing on fiscal and economic matters. But he decided to make an exception after a free lance contributor to the Locke Foundation’s Charlotte blog used an offensive post involving President Obama attacking the president’s stance against the amendment.

“As it happens,” Hood writes, “JLF(John Locke Foundation) staffers and contributors have a wide range of views on social issues, including the marriage amendment. Some support it, based on a heartfelt moral or religious convictions. Others oppose it, including me.

“I think amending North Carolina’s constitution to forbid gay and lesbian couples from receiving any future legal recognition, including civil unions, is unwise and unfair,” Hood writes. “In my opinion the real threat to marriage is not the prospect of gay people getting hitched. It is the reality of straight people too quickly resorting to divorce, or never getting hitched in the first place.”

Hood then goes on to say he believes it will pass and calls for a civil discourse on the issue.

The Locke Foundation is a Raleigh-based think tank started by Raleigh businessman Art Pope. It has long had small-government, libertarian leanings.

So, it’s now clear that, if you work for Hood and The N&O and the leftist community attack you, Hood will throw you under the bus in a heartbeat.  <sarcasm>We all know how *important* it is to pacify The N&O.  Their newsroom can *absolutely KILL* you with conservative donors. </sarcasm>
Next, if Hood wants to claim libertarian purity, he should be for getting government completely out of the institution of marriage.  But instead, he’s FOR government drastically altering the institution.
Hood follows the lead of Ellmers, The N&O and the rest of the leftists in misrepresenting what Amendment One says.  One more time, here is the text of the amendment:
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.
So, gay “couples” can sign contracts leaving each other their belongings upon death.  They can sign agreements allowing for visitation at the hospital.  They can sign powers of attorney.  They just can’t claim they are “married” JUST LIKE Jack and Jill down the street.
John, do I really have to explain to you how Jack and Bill getting ” married” is different from Jack and Jill’s situation? 
There was no good reason to come out and do this publicly. Maybe John was scared of falling out of favor with the Raleigh establishment — getting left off of some cocktail party invite lists.
Instead of aiding and abetting the left in sticking it to people with traditional values, people like Ellmers and Hood need to educate the public on Barry & Bev’s economic catastrophe and to help fight for remedies.
Stuff like that this makes it CLEAR that we grassroots conservatives– outside the DC Beltway and the Raleigh beltline —  are ON OUR OWN.  


16 thoughts on “John Locke’s Hood misrepresents Amendment One

  1. I am the “divorced Jill” of a Jack & Jill marriage…as well as a widowed “Jill” who will receive close to $100,000 in Social Security surviving spouse benefits between the time I’m 60 and 66. Since same-sex couples are required to contribute to my welfare through their payments into the Social Security pool of funds, I think it only fair that marriage equality be extended to them as well. To tax people and withhold equal benefits and legal protections is unfair. Those opposed to marriage equality are no different than Wall Street greedy people – picking the pockets of gay and lesbian couples to help support their heterosexual lifestyle while denying the same dividends to same-sex couples. Shame on you for not pointing out the vast economic protections to which opposite-gender couples are entitled by marriage laws. All the power of attorney papers, wills, etc., that same-sex couples might acquire will never confer the same benefits that married, opposite-gender couples enjoy. Furthermore, I’m sure you know that and choose not to reference that fact in your defense of Amendment One. Shame on your willlingness to omit this! The American way is fairness and equality under the law – which is why I support marriage equality, liberty and justice for all. I stand opposed to Amendment One as a fair-minded American citizen. As an American citizen with ancestors on the Mayflower, ancestors at Lexington and Concord, and the descendant of an American Revolutionary War hero, I honor my forefathers’ memory, honor, and valor with my opposition to Amendment One.

    1. Oooooh, all the buzz words used to capture, and frame the same-sex marriage issue as a civil right. And I would agree with that position on the Marriage Amendment if homosexuality were the same as race, but that is certainly not the case … As we see with … (PFOX) Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays http://pfox.org/default.html. Even though equating race with homosexuality is one of the fallacious talking points of radical homosexuals and their supporters. Homosexuality is a transitory, aberrant sexual appetite that is unhealthy to the extreme. See below …

      Persons engaging in homosexual sex are many times more likely than others to acquire a new, highly antibiotic-resistant strain of the so-called MRSA bacteria widely know as the “superbug,” a UCSF-led study shows. January 14, 2008

      (CDC) – HIV among Homosexual, Bisexual and other Men who have sex with Men (MSM) quote: “In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women.” http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

      “We found that even if homosexuals behave the same way heterosexuals do — in terms of sexual partner numbers — homosexuals would still have a huge HIV epidemic,” Dr. Goodreau said Universities of Washington and New York Sexually Transmitted Infections Journal
      Sept. 13 2010 http://www.drugs.com/news/number-partners-doesn-t-explain-gay-hiv-rate-9307.html

      Study: HIV-positive Practicing Homosexual Men 9000% More Likely to Develop Anal Cancer http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1338/27/

      First Sexually Transmitted Typhoid Develops From Homosexual Sex http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/01/gays-incubating.html

      CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Homosexual and Bisexual Men, March 10, 2010
      http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

      Chlamydial infections remain common in people choosing Homosexual Sex
      15 February 2009 http://sti.bmj.com/content/early/2009/02/15/sti.2008.035311.abstract

      Bacterial Vaginosis has mutated to a STD among women choosing lesbianism
      New York Medical Center – National Institute of Health, 1995 Dec 21
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8749623

      Chlamydia trachomatis infection in increasing women who have sex with women
      CT growing among homosexual and bisexual women
      Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U. of Washington – National Institute of Health
      Aug 19, 2010, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724697
      http://www.centerforhealthtraining.org/projects/documents/CT%20WSW.pdf

      And I could go on and on.

      Now why would we want to codify an aberrant sexual behavior into law for our children to emulate or experiment with … that has such proven health risks? Even Thomas Jefferson wrote legislation against homosexuality. I believe I’ll side with the worldview of the framers of the Constitution in recognizing the negative aspects of homosexuality.

      1. Madam, we all pay taxes where we don’t directly receive benefits. Childless people along with those who no longer have children in the school system. Plus all the other instances such as welfare, wic, food stamps and on, and on and on. So get off your high horse.

        There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

        Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, and socially destructive.

        1. If homosexual couples are not recognized the same as opposite sex couple so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

          Denying marriage doesn’t restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives approval.

          Homosexual marriage is not about what homosexuals are being forced by others not to do, but what society is being forced to do by homosexuals: approve. They demand validation of their aberrant sexual behavior through the force of gov. And whoa be it to those of conscience who would object.

          And BTW … your ancestry and lineage carry no more weight for validation of your argument than anyone elses.

  2. You can be sure that grassroots conservatives are on our own … Don’t forget Thom Tillis giving aid and comfort to the opposition by his comments in a recent article …
    Thom Tillis sees marriage ban approved, then repealed
    http://www.news-record.com/blog/55771/entry/140365

    Really Thom??? So you have crystal ball? I see none of that going on in the other Southern states that have passed a marriage amendment.

    I have such contempt for the republican establishment and that sycophantic libertarian mindset that confuses liberty for license. And have absolutely no regard for the founding principles that made this nation great.

    I donated to Renee Ellmers campaign and I wasn’t even in her district … all I can say is, that will be the last contribution to people and organizations that have no regard for the
    fundamental right of conscience to dissent if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Will John Locke and Renee Ellmers support my right not to have my kids subjected to the mechanics of homosexual sex in the public schools? Will John Locke and Renee Ellmers support my fundamental right of conscience of not to be coerced by gov into validating this aberrant sexual behavior through the government schools or in my business?

    With their stance it looks like an aberrant sexual predilection now trumps the fundamental right of conscience. Infuriates me!!!

    How

  3. This is what NC can expect if the Marriage Amendment fails.

    What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts
    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

    This is what to expect in the schools. And I will have none of it.

    WARNING! (GRAPHIC)
    “The Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century”
    http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/black_book/black_book_inside.htm

    Fistgate II: High School Students Given ‘Fisting Kits’ At Kevin Jennings’ 2001 GLSEN Conference
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2009/12/08/Fistgate-II–High-School-Students-Given-Fisting-Kits-At-Kevin-Jennings-2001-GLSEN-Conference

  4. Andrew Sullivan … homosexual activist, writes, …. “Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable.”

    This is the real reason homosexual activists are relentlessly pushing to get the government to endorse same-sex marriage. Most don’t want to get “married,” but they do want the social approval that same-sex marriage will win them.

    Once they get that legal and social approval, no one disagreeing with them will be safe. Schools, businesses, churches, and charities will be bludgeoned with threats and lawsuits until they abandon their convictions and agree to promote what is pleasantly called “diversity.” Ironically, the only view allowed by the coming diversity police is the narrow view that you must celebrate homosexuality. No other view will be tolerated.

  5. John Hood and Renee Elmers are true conservatives. They believe that government should be limited. The proposed amendment would prohibit recognition of any civil unions. It would strip away benefits from the families of some people who receive recognition from municipal employers.

    At the same time Kathy is condemning gays and lesbians for not forming lasting relationships, she’s putting up obstacles to doing so.

  6. @George

    They might be conservatives in fiscal matters, but true conservatives understand the history and definition of what a Conservative is. And the ramifications of undermining the moral foundations and structures of Western Civilization. It’s a civilizations death by one of a thousand cuts to embrace this aberrant and unhealthy sexual behavior. Because once sexual boundaries have been breached, then what justification, or grounds can be given for denying any other aberrant sexual relationship or behavior?

    Which brings us to the lessons of the Roman Empire.

    In the book, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, we see that civilizations demise by one of those thousand cuts. Through the rampant decline of a moral society and culture. Homosexuality being one of those aberrant sexual behaviors that hastened the decline.

    No these so called “true conservatives” are short sighted in the extreme … and myopic, lacking in discernment and long-range perspectives. To the detriment, in the long term of the very liberty, freedom and civilization they proclaim to love.

    And you know the old saying? … “Those who ignore history, are destined to repeat it.”

    I see that very thing happening to America, because of the Marxist Left, and many of these so called “true conservatives” who have drunk the koolaid of the LGBTQ propaganda infused with moral relativism.

    (Quote)
    >>>At the same time Kathy is condemning gays and lesbians for not forming lasting relationships, she’s putting up obstacles to doing so.<<<

    Where do I condemn gays??? I point out the unhealthy lifestyle of LGBTQs behavior. But promiscuity is NOT the only reason for it's very harmful health effects. Even monogamous LGBTQ sexual behavior is unhealthy. See the medical stats I posted above.

    And you really believe that same-sex marriage will magically make LGBTQs monogamous? Really? If they aren't now, what makes you think that marriage will make any difference at all? It's patently ridiculous! And besides, many in the LGBTQ community could care less about being monogamous.

    Homosexual ACTIVIST LEADER Dan Savage who started the “It gets better campaign” lecturing on a college campus about how NOT being sexually monogamous helps make a couple stronger. In addition to admitting that “monogamy” for the homosexual community more often means sharing with others.

    And homosexual writer and pundit Andrew Sullivan wrote sympathetically about ”gay” male couples’ ‘understanding of the need for extramarital [sexual] outlets” and suggested such “honesty” and “flexibility” could “undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”

    Revealing Quotes by Advocates of Homosexuality
    http://americansfortruth.com/issues/the-agenda-glbtq-activist-groups/pro-homosexual-media/andrew-sullivan/

Comments are closed.