A variety of groups that want North Carolinians to reject the Marriage Discrimination amendment in the May 2012 election are getting organized. One group, the Vote Against Project, is giving everyone who’s against the amendment a good way to take a public stand. The Vote Against Project makes its way to Charlotte on Feb. 3.
Raleigh photographer Curtis Brown organized Vote Against after becoming incensed by the harm the anti-marriage amendment’s ill-conceived blast of bias would cause many couples and families in North Carolina. Brown and a crew of volunteers have kicked off a tour of the state, hoping to put together a portrait of North Carolinians who stand unified in opposition to discrimination. They are conducting free photo shoots of amendment foes, all of whom will wear shirts (provided by the group) that read “Vote Against.” The images will be posted online and no doubt shared on websites of other progressive groups and individuals. Participants are urged to share their images with everyone they know.
The time and place of the Vote Against stop in Charlotte has not been announced, but will be soon. So make plans now: Just show up, slip on the shirt, have your free picture taken, and — voila — instant activism. Strike a pose and strike a blow against mud-stupid, fearful prejudice.
Keep track of the project here, and check the CL news blog, where we’ll be posting the Charlotte location and time when we find out. Meanwhile, here’s a video explaining the whole thing:
The Vote Against Project – Welcome! from Vote Against Project on Vimeo.
This article appears in Jan 10-16, 2012.
Perhaps those against the amendment should concentrate on education rather than just waiving signs and taking pictures. Try informing people the purpose of the Constitution (something Liberals don’t really understand). The purpose of the Constitution is to define the Rights and Freedoms of the People and Limitations of Government. Unfortunately in the past 40 years Liberals have gone to great extremes to give Government power it does not have and to take away the Rights of the People. In this case, some wish to put in an amendment that denies something to a group of people based solely on their sexual orientation while allowing everyone else to enjoy. This is NOT what the Constitution (State or Federal) is for. It should not matter whether you are for or against gay marrage, you should be AGAINST putting something into the Constituion that denies something to people. They tried to deny us alcohol via the Constitution. That certainly did not work out.
What an odd comment. It starts with an irrational, inaccurate rant against Liberals and then tells us to side with the Liberals in opposition to the Conservatives attempt to modify the Constitution to deny a group the rights that the Constitution now guarantees them. The amendment is, of course, an attempt to undermine the courts who have pretty consistently ruled that homosexuals have rights, too.
Marriage is defined and accepted as a union between a man and a woman.. It’s doesn’t need redefined.. In fact it cannot be and still remain the institution that it is..
I’m not aware of any discrimination in marriage..
For someone to hold such pea-brained and prejudiced notions and call themselves “Healthy Normal” – they should take a page from Young Frankenstein and call themselves “A.B. Normal” instead.
“Normal,” to the commenter who calls him/herself “Healthy Normal,” also probably means marriage between people of the same race. Folks, this is not about religious beliefs. (After all, Christianity, Islam, and all the other religions are rooted in compassion.) This is pure, unadulterated hateful bigotry. There has NEVER been a “normal” or “consistent” definition of marriage — not in this country, and not throughout history. Human culture has redefined marriage since the institution began. The anti-gay crowd is simply one more in a long, long tradition of of the frightened and intolerant. They dress it up in tough talk about morality. But really, they’re sad, pathetic, frightened children.
Playwright Jeff Goode summed it up best in his thoughtful, historically accurate essay “Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage”
“Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact, never existed at any point in history.
Because, honestly, which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?
…The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
…Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
…Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
…Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
…Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or Hispanics?
…Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?
No, the truth of the matter is, that we’re trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it “was and always has been” during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s – just before most of us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion (within reason). Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed. Those are okay.
But there’s something profoundly disturbing about amending the Constitution to define anything about the 1970s as “the way God intended it.”
mar·riage
noun ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union
—
Cherrypick much?