Media, leftists depend on voter confusion to battle marriage amendment

At a recent social gathering, I overheard a dear friend comment:

“I am voting AGAINST this Amendment One thing.  We cannot have Adam and Steve getting married in the front of my church.  What’s next, Steve and his Pomeranian? ”

She was under the mistaken impression that the marriage amendment on the May 8th ballot MAKES GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL.   That misunderstanding makes sense, given what the media and their leftist comrades have done to sow so much fear and misinformation into the debate.  If you want to keep the definition of marriage AS IT IS — man and woman — VOTE FOR the marriage amendment.

I don’t believe a single major newspaper in this state has actually printed the text of the proposed constitutional amendment.   It’s so much easier to lie about it when you don’t tell people what it says.  Take Comrade Steve Bouser, editorial page editor at our local paper:

Web commenter Bentpan really let us have it the other day. Appending one of many comments to the end of The Pilot’s Friday editorial expressing opposition to Amendment One, Bentpan wrote: “I notice no one at The Pilot taking credit for this opinion piece. Don’t blame them. What a steaming pile of left-wing propaganda.”

The not-so-subtle implication here was that the pointy-headed person responsible for writing the editorial, which took issue with the idea of making same-sex marriage even more illegal than it already is in North Carolina, lacked the guts to come forward by name, opting instead to cower behind a cloak of anonymity.

Big lie, there, Steve.  If you showed some integrity, and actually printed the text of the amendment, people would truly see that you are misinforming your readers.  The marriage amendment simply takes WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE GENERAL STATUTES (aka  state law) and PUTS IT IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION.   I don’t know how you — honestly — call that making it more illegal than it already is.

The worst case of leftist disinformation on the amendment is being aired on statewide television. It’s an ad narrated by a woman detailing her abuse at the hand of a live-in boyfriend.  She makes the point that she will have NO protection from continued physical abuse if the marriage amendment passes.  Oh, B-S !!!

First, and foremost,  if you are physically assaulted, that is a crime.  You can call the police or file a report with a magistrate.  Charges can be filed, and a judge or magistrate — if a credible case is made — can approve a restraining order.  Marriage has nothing to do with it.  You can file a restraining order against ANYONE you are truly afraid of — a neighbor, a girlfriend, whomever.

(You can also MOVE. )

One more time, here is the text of the amendment:

Sec. 6. Marriage.

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, private contracts are not prohibited.  It sounds as though gays can leave stuff to each other in wills.  They can make each other beneficiaries of insurance policies.  They can give each other powers-of-attorney.   In other words, it doesn’t change a thing from current SOP.  What this amendment does is hamstring creative judges who like to make up new rights with the wave of a magic wand and the bang of a gavel.

The Soviet Union had Pravda.  We have this nonsense.

The First Amendment was installed as a protection for the people FROM the tyranny of government.  Unfortunately, we now have a mainstream media that is a bootlicking mouthpiece for International Marxism and others who would like to see the destruction of capitalism and western civilization.  Fortunately, we now have the Internet and new media to protect us from The Left and their comrades in the allegedly mainstream media.