This is the fourth weekly edition of “Sex, Cash & Politics,” my new weekly commentary and opinion column. It was distributed to North Carolina online and print publications on Tuesday and published nationally yesterday at Bilerico.com. Each week, the column is distributed to North Carolina media free-of-charge for use as op-eds and guest commentaries. If you like what you’re seeing, I hope you’ll contact your local paper and send them to this link — sexcashandpolitics.com/weeklycolumn — and encourage them to learn more about, subscribe to and print the weekly column.

If there’s one thing that’s clear from Christian scripture, it’s that the God of the Bible is one of hope, peace and love. Yet, so-called “Christians” who have lined up to support the anti-gay constitutional amendment on North Carolina’s ballot on May 8 would rather hold to cynicism, division and hate - values that couldn’t be more antithetical to Christ’s Gospel.

The Human Rights Campaign this week released internal documents it obtained from the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM). The anti-equality group is among several supporting the statewide constitutional provision that would ultimately ban all marriage recognition for same-sex couples and further prohibit civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other relationship recognition for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

The documents expose NOM’s political strategies to pit African-Americans and Latinos against their LGBT brothers and sisters.

“The strategic goal,” NOM writes, “is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize, and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”

The group continues, “The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation.”

It’s surprising to see such divisive politics played out by groups like NOM, whose leaders have spent an inordinate amount of time stressing so-called Christian “family” values. Their political ploys resemble nothing akin to Christianity.

But, such anti-gay and racist politicking shouldn’t come as any surprise. Vote for Marriage NC, the referendum committee pushing for North Carolina’s proposed amendment, is no stranger to hate. After all, just last month the committee heralded appearances by Tony Perkins, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, at Charlotte’s First Baptist Church and other places of worship. Perkins’ group has been named a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Perkins himself has close ties to white supremacists like David Duke and the Louisiana Council of Conservative Citizens, a White Nationalist hate group descended from the 1950s and 1960s-era White Citizens Councils.

The effort to defeat Amendment One has gained more traction with each passing day since the campaign’s official debut in January. The reason is simple: Fair-minded and intelligent North Carolinians know a lemon when they see one. The “Christian” values being espoused by NOM, Vote for Marriage NC, Tony Perkins, and the Family Research Council aren’t “Christian” at all. They are divisive and harmful, and gay marriage opponents are wasting no time and sparing no resources in using whatever strategies they can to influence Tar Heel voters.

On May 8, North Carolinians will decide: Stand on the side of freedom, equality and fairness - the very essence of Christ’s message of neighborly love. Or, stand with hate groups and white supremacists who use God’s name to justify their own fears and prejudices while doing damage to families and children. The choice is clear.

(Photo: Fibonacci Blue, via Flickr. Creative Commons.)


U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), pictured right, was escorted off the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today after taking off his suit coat and pulling up the hoodie on his sweater while speaking about Trayvon Martin. CBS News has the details, and there’s video below. 

What makes this case of congressional antics so interesting is what Rush was saying — or, more appropriately, reading — while the chair was attempting to silence him and later having him removed from the chamber:

“He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
(Micah 6:8, NIV)

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
(Luke 4:18-20 NIV)

Had the situation been reversed — with a Republican congressman reading passages from the Bible under a Democratic chair — no doubt we would be hearing shouts of condemnation and strains of “Our religious freedom is under attack!” from the religious right.

Here’s your chance, our dear so-called Christian leaders on the religious right: Will you stand up for the Gospel-inspired words of Rep. Bobby Rush? Or, will Rush’s belief in a more Christ-like, humane, merciful and compassionate Gospel stand in your way and counteract the more divisive, fear-based “gospel” y’all prefer?


Last week, The Charlotte Observer reported on a series of Democratic National Convention-related emails from Charlotte city employees and other officials that had been severely redacted. I posted about it, too (“Peculiar Charlotte: Secrecy run amok”), poking fun at the city’s usual and predictable back-room politicking and decision-making process.

At the time, city staff insisted that it had blacked out information that was necessary to protect the security of the city during the national Democratic Party event in September. 

After more pushing from The Observer, we learn today just what kind of information was so damning and top secret: The color of paint chosen for a new Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department headquarters. 

You hear that faint sound? Listen harder… it’s the roaring laughter of the Tampa City Council (see, “Tampa: We’re proud we’re not like Charlotte,” though I’m waiting with bated breath on what they’re thinking now, ha!)

I’m still scratching my head. Why on earth would paint color be of any interest or importance to violent protesters or terrorists? Nevermind — it’s not for me to question the decisions made in Charlotte’s top-secret, closed-door, cigar-smoke-filled backroom. (Its location has yet to be un-redacted.)

Despite the pure laughable nature of the situation, Charlotte City Attorney Bob Hagemann continues to toe the line. In a statement, he said, “While the City’s initial review may be viewed as having been too conservative, the cold hard fact is that there are those that are looking for every advantage in achieving their goal of disrupting and doing harm during the convention. The City does not apologize for being vigilant in attempting to thwart such efforts.”

Hagemann is a great guy. I’ve loved working with him in the past, whether for work at the old day job at the paper or with Pride Charlotte. But, the usually rational mind that I’ve become accustomed to in Hagemann is now spending time and energy defending the ridiculously indefensible Charlotte status quo.

Bob, don’t lower yourself to their “standards.” Come on out of that backroom, forego the cigars and join the rest of us citizens in the sunshine.

Photo: SMN, via Flickr. Creative Commons.


Below is the third weekly edition of “Sex, Cash & Politics.” It was distributed to North Carolina online and print publications on Tuesday and was published to a national audience at Bilerico.com today. Each week, Matt distributes his column to statewide media free-of-charge for use as op-eds and guest commentaries. If you like what you’re seeing, be sure to contact your local paper and send them to this link — sexcashandpolitics.com/weeklycolumn — and encourage them to learn more about, subscribe to and print the weekly column. 

On May 8, 2012, voters in North Carolina will head to the polls and cast their ballots in the primary elections. Along with picking candidates in the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial and presidential primaries and a host of local offices, Tar Heels will also have the ultimate say on Amendment One, a state constitutional amendment that purports to “protect marriage,” but in reality does everything to destroy loving and committed families, both gay and straight. And, the day afterward, North Carolina’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and its friends, families and other allies will have a clear count of who among the state’s elected officials can be counted as our friends and our foes. 

This week, The Asheville Citizen-Times reported that two more local governments joined the anti-gay bandwagon in support Amendment One. Elected officials in McDowell County and Spruce Pine joined those in Wake and Brunswick Counties who have put their official stamp of approval on a provision that writes discrimination into our state constitution for the first time since Reconstruction. 

Aiding the governments in their misguided bigotry was Vote For Marriage NC, the referendum committee established to support Amendment One’s passage. “Rachel Lee, a spokeswoman for Vote for Marriage NC, said she expects more governments to show their support soon,” The Citizen-Times reported. “The group has provided sample resolutions to some local governments, she said.”

With the support of Lee and her not-so-merry band of haters (her group is tied to organizations listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center), I, too, expect that other conservative-leaning local governments will speak out in support of Amendment One. The good news, though, is that several other locally-elected bodies have already spoken out against the proposal, including Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro and Raleigh. 

Curiously absent from the list are the state’s largest city and largest county, among other municipalities across the state. Activists and citizens in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have been asking their elected officials to speak on these issues publicly for some time. Yet, no public action has come. Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx and several city council members and county commissioners have individually spoken about their opposition to Amendment One, but neither body has yet to debate and vote on resolutions to oppose the measure. 

The harms of Amendment One couldn’t be any starker. If passed, it will forever bar the recognition of marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples. It would also put an end to domestic partner benefits offered by local governments like Mecklenburg County and prevent cities like Charlotte, which do not yet offer such benefits, from offering them at any time in the future. Additionally, the vague, broad and untested language of the amendment could threaten child custody agreements, the enforcement of domestic violence statutes and any other benefits, rights or privileges currently received by both unmarried opposite-sex and same-sex couples.  

With such a clear and present danger staring us in the face, it is crucial that those who oppose the amendment speak out now. To remain silent is to, in essence and effect, hand a free pass to those who would wreak havoc on our state and its people, including LGBT citizens. 

For many years, a host of current officeholders in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have received the support and endorsement of the LGBT community. They say they are our allies, but are they? How do we really know? Their official deafening silence makes me doubt the veracity of their stated benevolence. Our foes are taking a stand. Why not our friends?

On the day after the May 8 primary election, who among the elected officials in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and other local governments across North Carolina will be counted as allies of LGBT Tar Heels? Will we be left with staunch supporters or fair-weather friends who stand by us only as long as the winds of political expediency blow their way? I’d prefer the former. No doubt, LGBT voters and citizens would prefer the same.

— A native of Winston-Salem, N.C., Matt Comer now lives in Charlotte and works as a progressive and LGBT-rights activist, blogger, community journalist and communications professional. He served as editor of QNotes, the LGBT community newspaper of Charlotte, from October 2007 to January 2012. Learn more about Matt and follow his commentary at MattComer.net.


On Sunday, state Rep. Rick Glazier, pictured right, joined our favorite anti-gay legislative rabble-rouser, Rep. Paul “Skip” Stam (or, “liar,” if you prefer), at an event where both were given the opportunity to speak to nearly 200 church goers on Amendment One, the proposed anti-LGBT amendment to the North Carolina Constitution.

In Glazier’s own words (emphasis added):

Yesterday, I spoke with between 150-200 congregants of five Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches in Concord. I presented the reasons to vote against the upcoming amendment on the May ballot and Rep. Paul Stam spoke in favor of the amendment. We then answered congregant questions for about 45 minutes. The overwhelming number of people came for information and a true discussion on the amendment and its implications. The event was organized by the pastors and ministers of those churches. I believe, based on the many questions during and comments after the event, most people felt they left the congregation far better informed and many, as well, determined to vote against the amendment. When people realize this amendment’s reach into the lives of hundreds of thousands of North Carolina families, that it will affect heterosexual as well as gay couples, seriously harm their children, negatively affect our economy, potentially eliminate domestic violence protection for unmarried couples of any gender, void benefit plan partner provisions of a number of NC towns and counties, and all without any agreement even by the authors of the amendment on what its words mean ( an admission made last night repeatedly by Rep. Stam)…..would you sign a document where you do not know the legal meaning of its key terms? If not, how can any of us vote to put into the state constitution an amendment that suffers from the same defect? Concord congregants reasonably seemed to suggest last night that you can’t. Lets all educate each other on what amendment one is really about—who it will harm is us—our children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters, neighbors, friends and colleagues.


No doubt, North Carolina has its fair share of shameful history. But, for the most part (and definitely compared to our brothers and sisters to the south), Tar Heels have managed to show thoughtful moderate, if not outright progressive, views and rise above the demagoguery of our state’s racist, sexist and homophobic riff-raff (The 1898 Wilmington coup a sad, unfortunate exception). 

As evidenced by the response of these Concord congregants, Amendment One will be no different than other portions of this great state’s progressive history. Once again, will rise above, live up to the standards of our own motto and strive to actually be a place where all are free… where all are heard and respected… where all can grow strong and great. 


A follow-up from yesterday’s post, “Numbers don’t lie, but Republicans do. Part III: Teachers and the budget” — The News & Observer’s editorial board writes today:

When they boasted of adding state funding for 2,000 additional teachers in their budget, Republican lawmakers fell all over each other to get to the spotlight. Yes, they did fund those 2,000 teaching spots with state money. But what one hand gaveth, the other tooketh away.

The additional state money didn’t cover the loss of emergency federal money that had funded more than 2,000 teachers. And, the GOP budget ordered local school districts to return to the state a total of $429 million. To meet that obligation, school districts had to cut, and some of them cut teachers.

Read the rest of the N&O editorial…


The Charlotte Observer has a fantastic piece out this morning on the Charlotte City Council’s and city staff’s overzealous redaction of emails and information related to the Democratic National Convention. 

The greatest line ever…

“Almost by definition, something that is publicly known can’t be a security issue,” [Amanda Martin, an attorney with the N.C. Press Association,] said. “They are being far more generous in redacting than I think is warranted.”

…which is like a big polite, Southern “screw you and your nonsensical, self-imposed  rules” moment. Kind of like the city has politely said, “Taxpayers citizens? Public monies and institutions? Elected officials and city employees? Ah, no one needs transparency or accountability. Shut up and trust us. Everything is under control — our control, that is.”

As previously reported by WSOC-TV, things are being done a bit more differently in Tampa. The Observer notes today:

Charlotte’s policy is different than that of Tampa, which is hosting the Republican National Convention. Tampa’s police expenditures are approved in a public vote by City Council. Council members there have criticized Charlotte’s lack of transparency about the DNC.

I hate to break it to Tampa, but they haven’t even gotten past the tip of the iceberg. Secrecy, the lack of transparency and an unwillingness for Charlotte’s city council to actually do their jobs and vote on important public matters is an all-too-common an occurrence in the Queen City and not just on matters related to the convention. 

I’d give you each a tour of the closed-door, cigar-smoke-filled backroom where these decisions are being made, but its location was redacted. 

More on the topic later…


From a release:

Russell and Sally Robinson have been married almost 59 years. They live in Charlotte, are active in the Republican Party, and like many North Carolinians, they both strongly oppose Amendment One, a constitutional amendment that will appear on the May 8, primary ballot, which would threaten protections for all of the state’s unmarried couples and their children.

But Russell Robinson has an added incentive for ensuring the state’s founding document lives up to its original intent of protecting all North Carolinians: it was his grandfather, North Carolina Supreme Court Justice William B. Rodman, who authored the 1868 North Carolina Constitution.

[…]

“The amendment is completely unnecessary. Same-sex marriage is now prohibited in North Carolina,” said Robinson.

Additionally, Robinson calls the amendment “poorly worded” and “absurdly broad,” criticisms that Mr. Robinson and many other legal scholars assert could lead to legal challenges in North Carolina courts for years to come.

Mr. Robinson also responds to the lesser-known and understood second sentence of the amendment, which will not appear before voters on the May 8, ballot, but will be included in the constitutional amendment if it were to pass.

The second sentence of the amendment, designed to ameliorate the broad language of the first, reads: “This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

Nevertheless, as Mr. Robinson points out, “There are a lot of family relationships that are not defined by contract.”

Robinson also states that second the sentence mitigates few, if any, legal and contractual consequences of the amendment’s first sentence. He warns that the second sentence as a whole “could wreak havoc in family law,” where few parent-child relationships are seen as “contracts.”

“I think the amendment is very bad, and I devoutly hope this state will reject that amendment when they vote on May 8th,” said Robinson.


Republicans sure do have a way with numbers. First, North Carolina’s higher education. Second, the national economy. This time, the state’s primary and secondary education budget.

The News & Observer’s Under the Dome ran a fact check today on claims being made in a TV ad by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation on Republicans’ state budget and the addition of 2,000 more state-funded teaching positions. 

The paper’s numbers — and those in the ad — are correct. So “facts” aren’t at issue here as much as perception and reality. And, if there’s one thing North Carolinians should have learned by now, our state’s Republicans are far less interested in actually solving problems than merely appearing to solve them — and then quickly shifting the blame, focus or attention away to others. That actual problem that never got solved? Oh, it’s still there — simmering under the surface as Tar Heel children suffer the consequences in the form of larger classroom sizes, decreased teacher efficiency and decreased teacher-student time needed to adequately educate the young.

But, back to those so-called “facts.”

The Americans for Prosperity ad states, “The new legislature balanced the budget, they cut waste, lowered taxes – they even added state funding for 2,000 more teachers.”

The News & Observer notes the facts:

Fiscal year 2011: Total teachers, 94,879 — 78,963 (state funds), 11,443 (federal funds), 4,473 (local funds).

Fiscal year 2012: Total teachers, 93,964 — 81,020 (state funds), 8,791 (federal funds), 4,153 (local funds).

Additionally, according to the paper, “the GOP state budget required local school districts to collectively send back to the state $429 million – effectively a reduction in state funding. The state budget gave local districts discretion on how to make the cuts and some districts eliminated teachers.”

They conclude: 

The ad is true – as far as it goes. The ad’s claim that the budget added 2,000 more state-funded teachers doesn’t represent the whole picture. In the end, the number of teachers in the state decreased this school year by about 1 percent. The ad could leave viewers with a false impression.

But, fact checking alone isn’t enough to explain this ad or the hubbub surrounding it. 

The News & Observer says the ad is factually accurate, but that isn’t the whole story. The paper notes as much and says the ad “could leave viewers with a false impression.” Understatement doesn’t even come close to describing the reality. A far more useful description of the ad would have been “misleading” and “deceptive,” as the ad is designed to manipulate and distort facts and lead viewers — and voters — with a an entirely incorrect conclusion regarding state Republicans’ budget. 

Taken together with Republicans’ $429 million budget reduction for local school systems, the North Carolina GOP has effectively decreased, not increased, the number of teachers. To say anything else is deception.

Far more important than mere “factual accuracy,” in only the strictest definition of the phrase, is the intended effect of the ad on viewers. Perception is reality — a point, I’m afraid, The News & Observer failed to drive home. Spin can often be as bad as an outright falsity. 

Photo: HPUPhotogStudent, via Flickr. Creative Commons.


From a Fox Charlotte broadcast from last Friday, on President Barack Obama’s opposition to Amendment One, the proposed anti-LGBT amendment to the North Carolina Constitution:

Northwest Charlotte resident Michelle Fleming says, “God has put us on here for man and woman. We’re here to reproduce and carry on our species, two men together, two woman together can’t do that.”

Fleming says it’s a matter of faith and she will vote in support of Amendment One.

I’d expect that kind of language from a blue-haired church lady. But this woman? Really? You’re going to talk about God and his design for sex and sexuality while wearing clothes that advertise a company that’s made God knows how much money off sex and lust? 

Talk about some mixed messages! Or, hypocrisy; that’s an appropriate description.

Click here to see the rest of Fox Charlotte’s story and watch the vid.


blog comments powered by Disqus
Page 1 of 14
Design by Craig Snedeker