My paternal grandmother died when I was twelve. I have fond memories of times I spent with her from the time I was very small. One memory in particular is especially precious to me. I believe it might have been the very last time I saw her, except for in the hospital when she was dying. And I believe I had already turned twelve. I don’t remember why it was that I got to spend the afternoon alone with her in the kitchen. That was unusual since she had 27 grandchildren. But I did and it was SO wonderful. I felt like she was treating me like a grown up because we talked and talked. About what, I do not recall. That’s the unimportant part of the memory. She was baking 2 loaves of bread, which promptly disappeared when some of my older cousins got out of school and they and their friends arrived to say hello. They lived close by, while we lived out of state. I doubt there was a day in their lives that they didn’t get to see her, if they wanted. Anyway, that memory has come to mind several times recently. Lately I’ve been wondering what conversations Natalia and I would have had and would she have had fond memories of them later on in life. It is my memory and that thought that inspired the next several blogs. I have actually spent the last couple of weeks writing all of the ideas. But I wasn’t satisfied and I wanted to do what I had been considering for quite a while; turn my ruminations into a conversation with Natalia, with the idea that, in my mind at least, I would be helping her as she saw difficult situations in life and was trying to figure them out.
Abuelita? Grandma?
Dime, amorcita. What, sweetheart?
May I ask you how you voted on that Amendment One thing?
Claro que si. Siempre puedes pedirme cualquier cosa. Of course. You may always ask me anything. I voted against it. Why do you ask?
Well, you know my friend Lucinda. She was telling me that her church was really for the amendment. They don’t believe in same-sex marriages. They even rented a sign to put outside their church that told people to vote against Amendment One. And I know Mr. Bigott, her dad, told her he would move out of North Carolina if the amendment didn’t get voted in. Oh, I always forget, he was a major in the army, and he wants Lucinda’s friends to call him Major Bigott. Anyway, Major Bigott said he wouldn’t live in a state that wouldn’t stand up for the Bible. He says that marriage is only between only a man and a woman. He says that people who vote for it are going to cause God to take His Blessing away from our country. What does that mean? What would happen if God took His Blessing away? And what is His Blessing? No entiendo. I don’t understand.
I don’t really understand it either, amorcita.
You don’t? Verdad? Really?
Really. There are lots and lots of things your grandma doesn’t understand. But I will tell you what I think and why I voted against the amendment.
Okay.
As I understand it, sweetheart, some people think God especially blesses America. They say it is because the men who founded our country founded it on Christian principles. I don’t know what they mean by God blessing us. I personally don’t believe God loves us any more than He loves people all over the world.
So I don’t have to worry that God won’t bless my abuelos in Mexico? He’s not going to treat us special just because we live in America?
No, I don’t think you should worry. I don’t think it is God who thinks we Americans are so special. I think it is some Americans who want to believe that. And I don’t read anything in the Bible that should give them that opinion.
Well, that is another thing I didn’t understand. I didn’t understand why God would bless us because of what men who lived a long time ago did. Doesn’t He look at each one of us as an individual? Like, God doesn’t judge me or bless me because of my parents or because of you and abuelo, right? Isn’t that what Christians believe? Because if I’m right, then it didn’t make sense to me that the rules would be kind of different for a country. I just don’t understand.
I agree totally, amorcita. It doesn’t make sense. And it is the opposite of what Christians say they believe otherwise. They do say each person has to decide for him/herself what s/he believes. They say a relationship with God can’t depend on what your parents or anyone else decides. I am pleased and proud of you that you are questioning things you hear and you are trying to think for yourself.
As to why I voted against Amendment One, there are a number of reasons. I would have to explain them and my thinking process to answer your question about why I voted the way I did.
Dime, por favor. Would you tell me, please?
Yes, I enjoy talking with you, Natalia sweetheart. The only thing is that at the same time I am proud of you, I am a little sad that you are so grown up we can discuss these types of things! Anyway, before I try and explain the reasons for my vote, let me tell you that I first went to the North Carolina government web site to read the proposed amendment. It was important I read it for myself in order to think it through, don’t you think?
Si.
The proposed amendment read, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. 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.”
I read what both parties said about the amendment. I didn’t think either side presented solid explanations for what all they were saying about the proposal. So, I had to keep studying. The first reason has to do with the amendment itself and why it was really proposed and why it was voted on during the primary election. Although I was against it, I still did some study to be sure I understood everything and most importantly that I wasn’t listening to what either party said. I can read and understand for myself. I don’t allow anyone to tell me what something says or means, unless maybe they are close family or friends. And even then I have questions and want time to consider an issue for myself. Anyway, I learned several things.
~ North Carolina already has a law against same-sex marriage. So why is this amendment necessary? Also, this type of vote in NC would normally NOT be presented during primaries. It would normally be voted on in November during the regular elections. Those two things made me question the motive. That means why something is done. Sometimes the reason people say they are doing something is not the real reason.
I don’t know if you know it sweetheart, but I am not a member of either political party. I like being independent. I think both parties have a few good ideas. And I think both parties have some bad ideas. Anyway, I decided to go online and see what the party that is in control right now listed as their beliefs. I thought that might tell me why they wanted this amendment and why they wanted it right now. I learned that what they say they believe and how they are actually governing by proposing this amendment didn’t fit together. Let me think of an example. Here’s one, maybe. Would you wear a blouse with big red polka dots and a printed skirt that had big splashes of green all over it?
That would look awful, Abuelita!! They wouldn’t go together!
Exactly. And in the same way, amorcita, lots of times all of us as human beings do things that don’t go with what we say we believe. We have to always be working hard to match what we do with what we say, just like you match up your outfits. Anyway, I found that what the party lists as their beliefs on their web site is the exact opposite of this amendment.
Ø The very first principle (That means a basic idea that you believe in.) listed under “What We Believe” it said, “We are fortunate to live in America.” Underneath that was an explanation that read, “The _____________ Party believes that the United States has been blessed with a unique set of individual rights and freedoms available to all”.
Ø And the fourth listed principle? “Small government is a better government for the people.” It was also explained underneath. “The ______________ Party, like our nations’ founders, believes that government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe upon the rights of individuals.” That word “infringe” means to break a law, or an agreement, so something could be taken away, for example.
But isn’t that the opposite of what this Amendment One is? Doesn’t it take away individual rights? And isn’t it the government that is taking the right away?
You see the discrepancy, don’t you? You see the contradiction between the stated beliefs of the party and the manner in which, the way, they are governing.
So because there wasn’t a match, because what they say and what they do doesn’t go together, that’s why you wondered about the motive, the reason they want the amendment? Do I understand?
You understand very well. I told you I see good and bad in both parties. Well, this is where I agree with this party. I agree with the part about the government not taking away individual rights. And with this amendment they are taking away the individual rights of only one group! That’s really, really the opposite of what they say government should do!! The government is taking the power to treat one group of people different than others.
So, you can explain the other reasons you voted no, right?
Sure! We were talking a few minutes ago about how some people in our country really believe very strongly that our country was founded on Christian principles and that God especially blesses us because of that. And I said I don’t understand that point of view. And I don’t, not only because it doesn’t match up with what the Bible says about God’s blessings, but not even talking about Christianity, I can’t find any reason for them to say that if I read the documents that were written to found our country.
You can’t?
I can’t. I reviewed the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to our Constitution, the ninth amendment to our Constitution, and the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag.
Abuelita! Wow! That’s like giving yourself homework. Way TOO MUCH homework!!
Well, when you aren’t in school you get to choose if and when you do homework. And this homework was really helpful. It gave me other reasons to vote against the amendment.
~ Our Declaration of Independence establishes the fundamental (basic) right of all men to “…Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So, when we became independent from England, at the very beginning of the written document declaring our independence, the men wrote about everyone being free and being able to find their own happiness.
~ The Preamble to the Constitution not only repeats the concern for liberty, but gives the reason for that concern and why it was right to think about it: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. In that one long sentence, Natalia honey, the men who wrote the Constitution explained what kind of country they wanted; one that was just and fair, one where people living in the country could get along and live together peacefully, one where as a whole they would protect their country, one where people could be happy and healthy. Very importantly, I think, they added that it was right to do both for them but for people born after them, to have those kind of rights and freedoms.
~ The Constitution, in Article IV, section 4, might be more difficult for you to understand. It deals with protection from invasion and domestic violence that states will receive from the federal government. That Article IV, Section 4 introduces those protections by saying, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” The Constitution established our country as a Republic, not a Democracy. That’s the part I think might be confusing for you because we are always called a democracy, by other countries. And we call ourselves that too. But that is incorrect, actually. The difference? A Republic has a written constitution that safeguards (protects) the rights of the Individual and the Minority. How, if we believe so strongly in following our Constitution, can we deny any individual a right so precious as that to be able to spend his/her life with whom s/he chooses? There has, in the past, been talk about amending our country’s Constitution that would take away that right. If ever such an amendment were to be ratified or agreed to, by the states, we would also have to have written disclaimers regarding the “Liberty” the founding fathers referred to in both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. A disclaimer, in this case sweetheart, would mean deny or reject. We would really be saying the liberty they wrote about is limited in some ways; some liberty would be denied to some people. I guess we would be saying they made a mistake in the Constitution.
~ The ninth amendment to our United States Constitution reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” “Enumeration” means mentioning something; giving some specific details. It means a list. So what this amendment is saying is that if the list doesn’t include every right, that no one can say a right that is not listed should be denied to people. It says people have even rights not spelled out in the Constitution. I think that was very wise on the part of the men who founded our country. They knew they might not have thought of every right and they wanted to be clear that just because a right isn’t listed, doesn’t mean the people don’t have that unnamed right. Do you understand?
Pienso que si. I think so. They wanted to protect people in the future. They didn’t want somebody to be able to use the Constitution to say they didn’t have a certain freedom. Is that correct?
It is. You did a better job of explaining it than I did! Good for you.
~ One other point about the Constitution that I reviewed, sweetheart. This ninth amendment is part of the first ten amendments we call the Bill of Rights!
~ The Pledge of Allegiance to our flag that you probably say each day at school? It ends with the assurance (promise) that the “republic”, which our flag represents, offers liberty and justice for all. You know what? I remember practicing it when I started school. I kept stumbling over the word “allegiance”. I learned a fairly new version of the pledge. It‘s the one you know that has the phrase “one nation, under God”. That part wasn’t in the original pledge; it was added in 1954, only a year or two before I started school. But I don’t think most people know that. I imagine some use it as another proof that we were established as a Christian nation. But, that really can’t be used if they know the history of the pledge.
When I reviewed the documents, Natalia, which I have actually done several times in the last couple of years, I came to the conclusion that they all had something very important in common. They all expressed one purpose and one belief. They clearly talk about the freedom of each person in this country. Like I said before, we all have to work hard every day to make sure what we say matches really well with how we act. I think this Amendment One to our North Carolina Constitution illustrates actions that do not fit with anything resembling our written documents about equality for all of our citizens.
There is one other thought I had about this whole issue. And it gave me yet another reason to cast my vote against the proposal.
~ If our laws are going to see some individuals or groups of individuals as unworthy of the rights we read about in these papers, and talk about so much, are we going to try and be less unfair in some way? Are we at least going to give them something in return for what we take away from them? I simply don’t think it is at all just and fair if they have to pay taxes to support their fellow citizens who enjoy rights that are unlawful for them. And why should we collect taxes from them that help to pay the salaries and benefits of the very legislators who want to refuse them the rights those lawmakers themselves have?
You know what, Abuelita, I think Mr..uh, Major Bigott is wrong. I don’t think he separates the Bible from the Constitution. If I were old enough, I would vote against this amendment like you did.
Maybe by the time you can vote, sweetheart, you and your generation will get to vote to repeal, get rid of the unfair laws and amendments that are being passed now. Maybe your generation will have less people like Major Bigott and the legislators and people who voted this amendment in. I do hope so.
