Bothwell announces opposition to Amendment One

Announcement from 11th district congressional candidate Cecil Bothwell:

“Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly have decided to put one of their favorite wedge issues on the state primary ballot, May 8. The proposed amendment to our state constitution is wrong on multiple levels. It denies equal rights under the law, a mainstay of America’s democracy since the beginning. It is so poorly worded that it is likely to cause real harm to women, to unmarried couples with children, to seniors living together, in addition to its stated goal of preventing same sex marriage.

“Such an amendment will very likely impede our state’s business recruitment, since forward-looking companies across the country are changing with the times and need to be able to recruit the best and brightest employees regardless of gender or sexual orientation. It will undo the efforts we have made in Asheville and other cities across the state to provide health care benefits to all of our employees. And it would add to our state constitution a provision that is almost certain to be overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court, as other lawsuits already underway work up through our federal court system. It would therefore demand expensive litigation at a time when our financial troubles are forcing cuts in schools, environmental protection, public safety and more.

“Let’s not permit the GOP to divert our attention from the real issues facing our community, our state and our nation. We need a jobs program that puts people to work now, meaningful support for education, and legislation that protects Medicare and Social Security. I urge my fellow citizens to step up, get out the vote, and turn back the tide of divisiveness and fear mongering unleashed by the GOP. It is time to stand up for freedom and love.”


SHARE

0 thoughts on “Bothwell announces opposition to Amendment One

  1. “Bill supporters decided to put the question on the May primary ballot next year rather than the November 2012 general election ballot, ensuring the proposal would win support from enough Democrats to clear the 72 House-vote hurdle for proposed constitutional changes. The move alleviated concerns among Democrats who support the amendment that Republicans were pushing the question to boost turnout from social conservatives for next year’s presidential election. At least one Democrat, Rep. Jim Crawford of Oxford, said moving the vote to May was crucial to winning his support. Ten Democrats and 65 Republicans voted for the amendment.”

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/09/13/1483783/house-oks-amendment-banning-gay.html#storylink=cpy

  2. Mr. Bothwell argues that Amendment One (1) would violate rights, (2) could cause harm, (3) would impede employment, (4) could be expensive in litigation and (5) would be overturned anyway.

    Most of these arguments appeal to the impracticality of amending the state constitution. Only one addresses the moral objection: that this amendment would represent a violation by the government of the unalienable individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness based purely on religious grounds.

    I would like to see Mr. Bothwell, and other opponents, emphasize and reinforce the moral arguments and explicitly distinguish them from other practical arguments. Specifically, that this amendment:

    (1) violates individual rights by preventing free adults from using their best judgment regarding social contracts. Individuals have the right of association, the right of contract and the right of freedom of action without interference by others or by the government.

    (2) represents the conflation of church and state by codifying religious precepts in a law that forces everyone to adopt, in practice, the religious views of a majority. Law should at all times reflect a strict separation of religion and government.

    (3) appeals to mob rule to determine right and wrong by delegating the right to violate rights through an electoral process. No individual, no majority, no society, no government has the right to violate rights.

    It is for these moral reasons that the amendment poses practical problems. The amendment is impractical because it is immoral.
    ………………………….

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.