[Durham INC] INC Resolution on Anti-gay constitutional amendment

[Kelly Jarrett]

I've been pretty silent on the INC list of late, but I want to thank Tom 
for his letter. Respectfully, "agreeing to disagree" is an extremely 
inadequate and weak response to the denial of the full citizenship and 
civil rights of other North Carolinians and Americans. It is the same 
kind of letter that well meaning pastors and leaders wrote Martin Luther 
King when he was in the Birmingham jail: Just be patient. Don't rock the 
boat. It's not time yet.

I would respect the NAACP response suggested below IF it was saying that 
the state should not be involved in the matter of marriage at all: The 
state will issue certificates of civil union to all couples who wish to 
enter one--gay or straight, and will leave it to churches to determine 
their own positions on the sacrament of marriage. THAT, I could tolerate 
as a respectable position. But the reality is, I could go out today and 
find a church that would "marry" my partner and I. And that and $2.00 
would get me a cup of coffee. It would not get me the full rights and 
benefits of state marriage glibly handed out to any two straight people 
who get a marriage license signed. None of them. No rights to visit when 
ill. No rights of survivorship for the property we own together. No 
protection from state-recognized next-of-kin who might want to override 
my claim to these things. No medical benefits. No right not to testify 
against my spouse. No access to social security. Nor any of the hundreds 
of other rights that go with civil, state-recognized marriage. THOSE ARE 
WHAT I WANT.

When the NAACP starts defending the full personhood and citizenship and 
articulates a position regarding state-sponsored marriage and full civil 
rights for all citizens, then we can use their position as a model. 
Until then, I think Tom's done just fine. I'm all for calling bigotry 
and discrimination what they are. The full civil rights on any citizens 
should not be put up for popular vote. And denial of the full civil 
rights of any citizens should not be inscribed in our US or State 
constitutions. One would think we had learned that lesson  . . . .

Kelly Jarrett


On 9/12/11 12:00 PM, inc-list-request at rtpnet.org wrote:
> Send INC-list mailing list submissions to
> 	inc-list at rtpnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	inc-list-request at rtpnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	inc-list-owner at rtpnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of INC-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1.  A Model of Positive Advocacy (Richard Ford)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:28:09 -0400
> From: Richard Ford<rbford at aim.com>
> To: inc-list at rtpnet.org
> Subject: [Durham INC] A Model of Positive Advocacy
> Message-ID:<FCA0451E-D0B9-4FE6-A50A-017F47B154D3 at aim.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I realize that I should have also suggested a positive model on how to handle the resolution.
>
> This is how the NC NAACP advocates against the Marriage Amendment, with respect and compassion for diverse views:
>
> 1. The NAACP does not and has not taken a position in support of or in opposition to gay marriage. The NAACP recognizes the issue of marriage rights for same-sex couples is a difficult and sensitive one. People of good will have heartfelt differences of opinion about it.
>
> 2. Most of us, when we consider issues of marriage and family, are guided by our religious and spiritual beliefs. The NAACP respects the different religious beliefs our churches regarding family life.
>
> 3. When the State of North Carolina is asked to put in our most important document an amendment prohibiting some of our people from making a highly personal choice, it places a matter of conscience and personal belief in the hands of the Government, not our churches and other faith communities. We support the constitutional right of faith communities to determine who they will and will not marry.
>
> I think our resolution was in the same spirit as the above. Shouldn't our letter be as well??
>
> Dick
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110912/f864627f/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
>
> End of INC-list Digest, Vol 81, Issue 12
> ****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110912/c74a11c2/attachment.html>