big·ot·rynoun, plural big·ot·ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
Bigotry declares the state of mind of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group. Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view, such as Republicansim..
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigots with the following quote: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”
And so the great state of North Carolina, never wishing to take a back seat to any of the known bigot-states has embarked on a campaign to amend the state constitution with the following language:
“Marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”
And guess who has weighed in on this fanciful nonsense?? Why none other than Presidential wannabe Newt Gingrich—or President Moonbeam as we have come to call him. In a rambling video promoting North Carolina's proposed constitutional amendment to ban any benefits to unmarried couples, President Moonbeam urges voters to support the anti-gay measure. In a dance worthy of the best shape-shifters, he swings right through the idea that all people are equal, to charge right into an argument that gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be equal to their straight counterparts. None of this equality for all stuff for President Moonbeam. And recall please, the Newt’s own personal history--married three times. His ex-wife claims he asked her for an open marriage so he could continue having sex with his mistress (now his 3rd wife Callista Plasticwoman). Gingrich left his first wife while she was battling cancer to take up with the second.
And on the bill itself?? Well, Republican leaders in the state legislature elected not to allow any public comment, which enabled them to fast-track the legislation to a vote and passage only 24 hours after it was first introduced. The state House of Representatives passed the same bill shortly thereafter. The bill passed by a 30-16 vote in the state Senate, in which Republicans hold a 31-19 majority.
But the law could have unintended consequences for many unmarried couples, both gay and straight.Maxine Eichner, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, and some of her colleagues prepared a report on the proposed amendment in June that outlined potential problems. Even with the revisions made in the last week, Eichner said in an email, the amendment could still interfere with existing child custody and visitation rights and invalidate trusts, wills and end-of-life directives in favor of an unmarried partner, no matter the genders of the unmarried pair.
"The Amendment still has the potential to invalidate domestic violence protections for members of unmarried couples, as an Ohio court did with even narrower language in its state’s marriage amendment," Eichner warned. Further, the North Carolina amendment would invalidate domestic partner benefits now offered by several municipalities.
My wife and I thought about this travesty a lot before we entered the voting booths in Concord, NC. We are now approaching the 57th anniversary of our one and only wedding to each other. Clearly, we treat the institution of marriage with some seriousness. And are we worried that some people we label Gay, or Lesbian will somehow tarnish or diminish this institution called marriage? Hmmm. Well, NO. In fact, welcome to the party LGBT folks. No, that group of independent souls poses no threat to marriage, or even the concept of marriage. No, instead, it is the people like President Moonbeam who threaten the concept of marriage.
If one does a statistical analysis, I imagine that we would have a near perfect correlation between heterosexual weddings and “marriage-deaths" (aka divorces). So, I’m thinking that maybe we need a constitutional amendment that bans heterosexual weddings. That would provide almost perfect and permanent protection for the sanctity of marriage.
I wonder how the republican state house in North Carolina would treat such a suggestion???
Oh, by the way. If you’re thinking about voting this May in North Carolina, please:
VOTE NO on this bigoted and mindless Constitutional Amendment.