2012 Election | Crime | Gay Marriage | North Carolina | Religion | Republican Party | Video

UPDATE: Men, Beasts, And Larceny: How The Other Side Is Gearing Up For Amendment One Vote (Video)


As Bill Clinton robocalls North Carolinians to explain the importance of civil unions to families, communities, and businesses, the pro-Amendment One people are getting weird.

One week ago today was the Sunday designated by North Carolinian homophobes as "Marriage Sunday" -- a day when pastors would organize to inspire their flocks to cast votes against equality. At Beacon Baptist Church, which draws some 1,500 worshippers to praise each sabbath, Pastor Tim Rabon devoted his entire sermon to Amendment One. One of his remarks is getting special attention in the blogosphere:

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, plus the District of Columbia, have already redefined marriage to include the union of any two people. May I just insert here: what is stopping them from refining marriage as between a person and a beast? We're not far from that. 

But, really, if you're interested in hearing how homophobic North Carolinian Baptists discuss weighty matters in their natural habitats, it's worth listening to the whole sermon. Fascinating stuff. Example: Shortly after reading from Genesis, Rabon explains, somewhat gnomically, that the reason marriage is immutably between one man and one woman is that Jehovah created the institution on the sixth day of creation. Which sounds like the usual craziness -- until you realize that he's predicating the Baptist argument for Amendment One on a literal reading of Genesis, and therefore on Young Earth Creationism. That and much more is available AFTER THE JUMP. 

Meanwhile, a 44-year-old mother by the name of Heidi Thompson was arrested Wednesday on her way to her home in West End for stealing anti-Amendment One signs out of people's yards. From WRAL:

"I didn't feel like I was stealing signs at the time," she said. "I just looked at it as picking up trash along the side of the road."

Thompson was driving with her 13-year-old daughter at the time, and she bid the girl assist in the thievery. She's now been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor:

"I know it's making me look like a bad parent, but we've taught that it's not right for men to be married to men and women to be married to women, so we stopped and picked them up," Thompson said. "Had I known it would be such a political issue, I wouldn't have done it."

... There is nothing political about the charges, [said Pinehurst Police Chief Earl Chipps].

"We don't weigh any favoritism one way or another in an investigation. We look at the evidence," he said.

Thompson, however, disagrees.

"I just think they're making a statement out me," she said.

NOTE: The sermon in the below video is now restricted and un-embeddable. You may still see it here




Feed This post's comment feed


  1. It's scary to see people who are blatantly against the first amendment. They want government policy based on religion and don't want anyone expressing an opinion other than their own. They are the American Taliban...

    Posted by: Jim | May 6, 2012 11:46:44 AM

  2. Thompson, however, disagrees. "I just think they're making a statement out me," she said.

    No, Heidi, you're just an ignorant idiot who isn't worth going to all that trouble over.

    Posted by: jim | May 6, 2012 12:17:43 PM

  3. Unless I'm missing something, I dont see a First Amendment issue here, except very tangentially.....

    A private citizen posted a political sign and another private citizen stole it in an attempt to interfere with the message. Not a 1A issue. No government action related to free speech.

    Posted by: Pete | May 6, 2012 12:20:04 PM

  4. tim rabon - thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbors.
    heidi thompson - thou shalt not steal.

    Posted by: jed | May 6, 2012 12:43:32 PM

  5. But Jed, you forgot the most important commandment, which was also obviously part of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the Nicene Creed: Thou shalt hate gay people.

    Posted by: KevinVT | May 6, 2012 1:36:16 PM

  6. What is wrong with people into sex with animals? Don't they deserve marriage rights too? Aren't they part of the sexual freedom movement also? I know this is not right on the subject, but I have always wondered why the gay community ignores this point instead of responding "you are discriminating against those people also!"

    Posted by: NullNaught | May 6, 2012 1:48:11 PM

  7. This pending debate between Dan Savage and NomNuts will even more interesting when apparently LOGIC may not be present.

    --what on the 7th day god rested because of non stop polygamy sex from the 6th day--

    I wonder who was the top ?

    Posted by: anthony | May 6, 2012 2:00:13 PM

  8. I know that there are some decent people in North Carolina. Unfortunately, they are in a distinct minority. The number of hateful loons in that state is astounding.

    Posted by: Jay | May 6, 2012 2:56:34 PM

  9. once again proving that anti-gay conservatives lack even the most basic understandings of logic, reason and factual reality.

    no, a dog can't sign a marriage license, you idiots. this is not groundbreaking news. it's something every intelligent human being understands.

    and i'm glad the mother was arrested. she's clearly a lousy parent. she taught her daughter that it's ok to break a law because hating gay people is more important than, well, laws.

    i think what a lot of us are frustrated by is the blatant reality that 'religion' or "christianity" is so pathetically treated as a "get out of jail free" card. "NAHNAH! its' my religious beliefs so i can say whatever i want!"

    too bad there's no consistency, nor even at attempt at it.

    for example, anti-gay Christians seem to always be demanding more public prayer, and prayer in schools, etc.

    what a galling anti-Christian belief, considering that in the Sermon on the Mount Christ is rather explicitly attributed with commanding that prayer be done in private....

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | May 6, 2012 4:20:01 PM

  10. @littlekiwi
    Excellent post.
    Underage persons can't sign a marriage license, can they? But their parents can give consent, can't they? I really don't know about this, but I think that is the case. As owner, couldn't I give consent for my dog to marry? I don't see why anyone into sex with their dog would want to marry it, but what does it hurt?
    I really honestly see this as a sexual rights issue. Perhaps it is bad for the gay community in general to be standing up for people who are even less popular than ourselves, and I can see how it muddies the argument, but isn't sexual discrimintation still sexual discrimination no matter who it is aimed at? Again, I know this is a little off subject, and if you want me to be quiet about it, I will because it is no issue to me. I am just curious about the philosophical differences of which I see none.

    Posted by: NullNaught | May 6, 2012 4:38:23 PM

  11. "The creator of this video has not given you permission to embed it on this domain. This is a Vimeo Plus feature."

    I believe you used to include the direct links below the embedded videos. Always a good idea.

    Posted by: Randy | May 6, 2012 4:41:31 PM

  12. I'd be more careful with how you use the word sabbath. It's not always Sunday.

    Also, you think these people are "getting weird"? Hateful jerks have been weird for a while.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 6, 2012 4:52:18 PM

  13. if you "see no philosophical differences", Null, then i hope for your sake that you never breed.

    this is the type of thing even a moderately-intelligent 10 year old understands.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | May 6, 2012 5:04:10 PM

  14. It doesn't matter if you "own" it, an animal cannot give consent, ever. Please, please tell me you are joking. Even "if" a parent could give consent to the marriage, there are still legal age limits for sex with minors as well, also because they are not equipped to mentally understand and give consent to a sex act. But far more than an animal used for ones own sexual gratification. You seem literate, again I can only assume your posts were a joke.

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | May 6, 2012 5:07:34 PM

  15. michaelandfred, it HAS to be a troll-joke or else he's certifiably insane.

    his "argument" might as well be "what if a parent gives permission for someone to rape their child?"

    only a sociopathic dunce would ask such a question.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | May 6, 2012 5:16:10 PM

  16. I don't understand the anger. I said I don't know anything about marriage laws. I am sorry if I offended anyone, seriously. I am not trolling. I suppose I made a mistake to suggest anyone could give consent for their children to marry. I honestly didn't know better. I thought that must be the case because I had heard of underage people getting married so that one partner could get around the age-of-consent laws and the only way I could see that working was if the parent gave consent.
    I didn't mean to upset anyone about having sex with a dog. Don't worry, I have never owned a pet. I just can't understand what such people are hurting.
    I don't condone underage sex, either. Again, it was based on a lack of knowledge, and it was off the cuff. It didn't occur to me that my arguments could be taken that way.
    What philosophical difference I don't see is how a person wanting to have sex with their dog is hurting anyone, including the dog.
    My question was meant that if they could give consent for their underage child to marry than why not their dog. Perhaps I was foolish in thinking that parents could give consent for their underage children to marry. I never meant to suggest that parents should have the right to let their children be rapped. I don't understand how my argument got turned around that way. Do you really think that is what I was thinking? I was just looking on a group of people that I couldn't see how they were hurting anyone and they are being attacked for that harmless action.
    Is sex with animals harmful to the animal? If so, I am terribly sorry. I have never seen this done, so I wouldn't have known that. If it hurts animals, then I am very against it. I never heard that it did.
    If we can drop the comparison with underage sex and if it doesn't hurt the animal, what does it hurt to let people have sex with or marry their animal?
    Consent is important when the being you are having sex with is aware of the possiblity of rape. If the animal is not hurt, I don't think it has the sense of being violated. Could this be wrong?

    Posted by: NullNaught | May 6, 2012 5:49:50 PM

  17. @littlekiwi
    How does that work? I'm a troll when I disagree with you, but when I see the logic in your argument and change my mind, it is all peace and love with you. Do you really have that great a problem with mere disagreement that one person changes from being a troll or not depending only on if they argee with you?
    I had more respect for you than that.

    Posted by: NullNaught | May 6, 2012 5:52:06 PM

  18. your argument is terrifyingly stupid.

    you might as well be saying "the five year old consented because i think she had an orgasm while i was having sex with her"

    never breed.

    an animal cannot give consent because an animal doesn't operate on the same basic intellectual level as a human being, and any human who doesn't understand this is clearly a sociopath.

    can someone remind me to never read nullnaughts comments ever again?

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | May 6, 2012 5:54:27 PM

  19. @Littlekiwi
    I wish you would keep your word. You assured me before that you would 'permaignore' me. That sure lasted. Boy you're just the KING of willpower now aren't you?
    Keep you promises! Ignore me you foolish little boy.

    Posted by: NullNaught | May 6, 2012 6:08:47 PM

  20. I'm ignorant of marriage laws as well, but I do know that consent laws, although they can vary, generally look at sex between a minor and someone substantially older as incompatible with the concept of consent, even if the minor says yes and is totally on board, because the minor is deemed incapable of making a reasoned decision.

    And really, the sex with animals thing is so crazy. We're talking relations with different species in addition to the inability to give consent.

    With both of theses situations, there is also the abuse of power thing to consider. In both cases, the adult human ought to know better. The adult human ought to exercise judgement and be responsible.

    With same-sex relationships, you are talking about attraction and orientation with members of the same species. Relationships where power and age difference are not factors, they are no different than those between opposite sex people. They don't cause any more problems than the usual ones felt by anyone who is in a relationship. The problems come from outside the relationship, not the structure and nature of the relationship.

    Posted by: TJ | May 6, 2012 6:38:52 PM

  21. Gee, Wilbur, I don't know the difference between having sex with an animal and another person either. I mean, if I get them both drunk enough they don't seem to complain too much...

    Posted by: Michael | May 6, 2012 7:38:02 PM

  22. @MICHAEL - Exactly! Dope 'em up enough and any warm body will do.

    Posted by: TJ | May 6, 2012 8:06:33 PM

  23. @TJ
    Thank you very much. I understand this response. Thank you for understanding I don't have the insight to see these things clearly for myself. I hope you know it is a liability for me because I don't want to anger people. I fixate on odd details at the price of the entire big picture.
    A person who has such a need for power that they want to have sex with a dog has a mental disorder. I think then, that they should be medicated and given some way to exert power over things to satisfy this urge in a more socially acceptable way. Hopefully they would get lots of psychotherapy as well. But I don't think being mentally ill is a moral failing. I don't think they should be punished. They are not, hopefully, rapeing people yet and can still be stopped.
    I really didn't care about marriage consent laws. I should never have made the comparison, but I was fixated on the statement "dogs can't sign a marriage liscense..." and I thought "that is no barrier! Dogs don't need to give consent. They don't give consent to veterinarians." I really thought that was the big issue.
    I had never seriously considered what I was saying about people's consent because I read and awful lot of history(in the middle ages the parties had no consent) and I believe there are arranged marriages in America, so it didn't occur to me that what I was saying could be seen as such a big deal.
    So thank you for taking me seriously and showing me the ropes. I appreciate it a lot. :)

    Posted by: NullNaught | May 6, 2012 8:40:04 PM

  24. While I think the whole 'marry a dog' thing is a stupid distraction from the issue of gay rights... to the people here speaking to consent:

    Does a cow consent to be slaughtered for it's meat?

    The whole argument that you shouldn't be able to have sex with or marry an animal because it can't give consent is stupid. We do stuff to animals all the time without their consent. Forced breeding, genetic manipulation, mass extermination... it happens every day, everywhere.

    Find another argument that makes sense, or chalk it up to an acceptable societal convention. Basing it on consent is simply not logical.

    Posted by: Mousie | May 6, 2012 9:06:30 PM

  25. MOUSIE - An animal cannot give consent in a legal sense. It cannot enter into a contract. It cannot form a relationship in the way two people can based on equality.

    An animal can give consent for sex, and might even enjoy it. Same can be said of a child. They can say yes through word or deed. But they can't say yes in a legal and moral sense.

    Posted by: TJ | May 6, 2012 9:19:33 PM

Post a comment


« «Bill Clinton On Amendment One: Audio« «