Whipping up fears about Amendment One (a/k/a “Be afraid of those simple church people”)





I see the new editor of our local Pulitzer prize-winning, Nobel-nominated thrice weekly newspaper has already been trained by the Democrat politicos who own and operate said newspaper.   The rookie newsroom boss hit the front page today  with a piece painting all supporters of the proposed marriage amendment as the second-coming of Bull Connor and The Klan.  We’re getting used to this type of thing here in Moore County.  The owners of the paper are the same people who propagandized for the NC Democrat Party at The N&O for a century.

Par for the course, our beloved local paper is carrying water for the gay marriage position promoted by state Democrat HQ.  What has the newsroom so bent out of shape, locally? Let’s see:

If member Nick Picerno has his way, the Moore County Board of Commissioners will vote in April in support of the proposed state constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Commissioner Chairman Larry Caddell says he favors Picerno’s plan, which came to light during an exchange on the measure, called Amendment One, on the Facebook page of the county tea party organization.

In a Feb. 28 message forwarded from Moore County Republican Party Chairman Bob Levy to the Moore TEA Citizens’ Facebook page, 12th District Chairwoman Marlynn Burns commented: “Far too many of our voters are not aware of the marriage amendment that will be on the May primary ballot. Please join me in an effort to reach out to the voting public to raise awareness of the May ballot initiative. Our liberal opponents are organized and well-funded. We are leaders. This is our battle; this is our time to step forward.”

Picerno responded to that post with the following statement: “I’ve asked the county attorney to review/modify the resolution passed by the Wake County Board of Commissioners in support of the amendment and encouraging our citizens to come out and vote. I hope to have this on the second meeting in April.”

Last month the Wake County commissioners endorsed Amendment One, a ballot item that would amend the state constitution to say that marriage between one man and one woman is to be the only legally recognized domestic union.

OK.  So, he’s proposing the county board take a vote on endorsing the amendment, just like the elected officials in much-more COSMOPOLITAN Wake County did. (Brunswick & Stanly counties also held a similar vote.)   Sounds like democracy to me. Read on:

Mortgage loan officer Jim Turner, of Southern Pines, took issue with Picerno’s position, saying that he believes “fear” motivates the desire to control legislation over personal choice.

SCREEEEEEECHHHH!!!!  Did he say being gay is a “personal choice” ?  WOW.   The PC Police will surely send out the folks from Occupy, ACT-UP and Queer Nation to administer an — ahem — attitude adjustment on Mr. Turner.  Read on:

“Moore County is a very conservative area,” he said, “with many afraid of what they don’t understand in regard to relationships outside of the traditional man-woman role. I would ask them to consider this: Don’t we all have a right to sit at the front of the bus and to use the water fountain? The government has no business dictating these types of issues to its citizens.”

Ah.  So, there is no difference between drag queens, those guys at the hair salon and florist shop, and your average black person? WOW.  I foresee Jesse Jackson, The NAACP, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan joining the aforementioned attitude adjustment.   Comparing the modern gay rights movement to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s is gross dishonesty.  Back then, blacks were mired in poverty, not allowed to vote, had limited education opportunities, and often had little to no assistance or protection from police, fire and other public safety officials.

Today, gays tend to be among the wealthiest and best-educated members of our society.  They have the right to vote.  There have been a number of openly gay elected officials in all levels of government.  Hate crime laws are on the books which make hitting a homosexual, and calling them a bad word, much worse than just hitting the person.  Plenty of protection under the law.  There is no comparison to black folks in the 1950s and 60s. None.

Mr. Turner says government “has no business dictating these types of issues to its citizens.”  Really?  Government has laws forbidding people over 18 from having sex with, or marrying people under 16.  Your kid can’t take a Bible to school, or participate in an after-school Bible study.  Try moving your kid out of a classroom led by a cross-dressing lesbian who teaches your kid — in clear violation of your family’s personal and religious values — that Adam & Steve playing husband-and-husband is A-OKAY.  Try helping your kid change college dorms because he’s uncomfortable with his college-assigned roommate’s openly gay lifestyle.  Oh, you’ll be dictated to then.  Some bureaucrat will basically tell you to shut up if you know what’s good for you.  You’ll be publicly scorned as an idiot or bigot.  Their values are OK. Yours are NOT.

Amendment One is not about punishing anyone.  It is about clarifying a definition.  You, unfortunately, have to do that in an era where activist judges and lawyers find a right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Some may say “What’s the harm in letting them get married?”  If you give lawyers and bureaucrats an inch, they’ll take a mile.  Look at the civil rights movement. It started off very reasonably:  let black folks go to school with white folks, let black folks vote for their governing officials, and make sure that black folks get the same protections under the law as white folks.  We achieved all that, but the lawyers and bureaucrats pushed for more.  Now, we have a bloated social welfare system that has a good chunk of the nation’s black population mired  in a perpetual state of poverty.  We have government mandating reverse discrimination — requiring that college admission slots, jobs, and contracts be set aside for blacks.  The bureaucracy has made a mess out of what started off as a noble cause.  Give an inch, and they’ll take a mile. 

Voting down this amendment and giving some activist judge the opportunity to dream up a right to gay marriage can easily open up several new cans of worms.  If you’re going to provide health benefits to Mr. & Mr. Steve Johnson, how do you get away with not allowing your straight employees to sign up their live-in lovers as dependents?  Can’t you see the new government mandates requiring ANYONE who says they are in love with one of your employees be covered under your company’s health plan?  You think health insurance is expensive NOW?

Opponents of Amendment One claim supporters are pushing their values on them.  Good Catholics see recent ObamaCare mandates as an attack on their values.  Opponents of Amendment One, like Mr. Turner, ask for “tolerance” but blast those they see as simple-minded conservative churchgoers. Gay rights activists tell others to “stay out of the bedroom.” But too often these folks force their bedroom business on the rest of us.

The Amendment One vote is all about democracy, not bigotry. It’s about the people of North Carolina setting their community standards.  Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, New York, California, and Iowa.  Those communities decided what was best for them.  If Adam & Steve want to spend the rest of their lives in holy matrimony, they can move to ANY of those states.  Staying here, and trying to make us be like your California friends is a lot like — ahem — forcing your political agenda on other people.

It’s not shameful to stand up for the values instilled in you by your family and your church.  Block out the extremist scare tactics, like those on display in our local paper, and give the whole issue serious thought.  If we don’t decide this issue, some judge down the road will do it for us. 





2 thoughts on “Whipping up fears about Amendment One (a/k/a “Be afraid of those simple church people”)

  1. This amendment is in defense of democracy, at least as much as marriage. It does not change the law regarding marriage, but it will thwart any attempt by activist judges to dishonestly claim that some obscure provision in the NC statutes or the NC Constitution has the unintended effect of legalizing same-sex and/or polygamous marriages. If you believe in the principle that legitimacy of governance requires the consent of the governed, then you should vote YES for this amendment.

    Note that this amendment explicitly provides that it in no way restricts voluntary contracts between individuals. That’s the 2nd sentence of the bill:

    “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 if someone wants to designate a person of the same or opposite sex as his heir, or healthcare PoA, or patient advocate, or insurance beneficiary, or joint owner of his property, this amendment will not interfere. Or if a company wants to offer insurance coverage to same-sex or unmarried opposite-sex or polygamous partners, this amendment will not interfere.

    But if this amendment passes, then NC will continue to issue marriage licenses only for traditional marriages, between one man and one woman.

    That’s important. To put society’s endorsement on disordered sexual relationships, by making them legally equivalent to marriage, is to encourage unwise, unhealthy, immoral life choices. To encourage immoral life choices is to encourage Death:


    The brunt of the consequences will be borne by children. Children are best reared in healthy, traditional families, of one man and one woman, who are loving and faithful to each other, and cemented together by Christ. If non-traditional “family” groupings are legally recognized as equivalent to marriages, then how are we to protect children from being adopted by them?

    Children need to be protected. Even where homosexual “marriages” are not legally recognized, adoptions by homosexual couples are already happening, with catastrophic consequences for children. If you doubt it (and if you have a strong stomach) google these guys from down the road in Durham, NC:


    That represents the extreme case, as advocated by NAMBLA / MARTIJN / “Butterfly Kisses” etc. Most homosexuals don’t go that far. Most homosexuals aren’t sexual abusers of children, and do not support that. But even so-called “mainstream” gay activists, who do not support sexual abuse of children, are broadly supportive of extreme & appalling coarsening of society, with utter disregard for its effect on children. This has been going on for years, with obscene public demonstrations and threats against people who stand up for traditional values, from Sen. Jesse Helms and Kirk Cameron to 14yo Sarah Crank.

    Sarah testified on 1/31/2012 (her 14th birthday) before the Maryland State Senate, against a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. In retaliation, gay activists targeted her with cyber-bullying and death threats:


    For another recent example, google what they’ve done to Rick Santorum:


    I applaud Sarah, Kirk, Jesse, Brant, et al. for courageously standing up for the Truth. If the world hates you, Sarah, for standing with Christ, just remember that it hated Him first, and consider it an honor to be hated for His sake.

Comments are closed.