A cold day in November

so i've spent a good portion of the past week talking to voters and candidates, and i've learned something important. what i've learned is that regardless of what most people's beliefs, politics, pet issues and party affiliation, most people are decent, upstanding citizens. for the most part my interactions with the voting public and the candidates for office has been pleasant or at least reasonably non-vitriolic.

see, the thing about the word "most" is that it demands a "some". and the some were the blithering idiots that believe whatever Bill O'Reilly tells 'em to believe. or worse, the ones that take Pat Robertson seriously. a guy who said this about haiti after the earthquake hit and all this shit.

pat robertson, seriously....

now, this is america, and people in america have the right to belive whatever stupid thing they want, because 'murica. but when people don't know facts, when they vote some unimportant pet issue over their needs, an they do so based on the tripe they hear from false prophets and agenda spouting talking heads, i gotta draw the line. see, the drewniverse isn't just about enriching people's lives, it's about fighting ignorance for the good of the drewninites!

you're welcome

so let me tell you about the one guy:

so i'm out at the polls spreading the word about my candidate (running for district court). everybody out there seems nice. i'm out there with a bunch of people running for school board who really care about fixing the sorry state of our public schools, judicial candidates who are dog tired of judges acting like pseudo-legislators and just want to interpret the laws as they are written, and state house candidates who are tired of the culture of obstruction and regressive, nonsensical policies that have made NC a laughing stock among forward thinking people all over the country. 

or black. or latino. or muslim. or charlottean.

then up walks this guy. this isn't the guy, but he is a guy. so he walks up and the first thing he asks is: "is your candidate conservative?". i respond, "i'm not allowed to discuss my candidate's politics because judges don't run partisan campaigns" to which he repsonds, "see that's why i can't vote for them. i have to know if they're conservative". 

a few things:

1. "conservative" is this word right wingers like to throw around as a euphemism for people who fear progress. "conservative" ideas keep the country from being competitive in the new global economy because they are as a rule against anything that might shake up the status quo and actually move the ball forward.
2. the idea that you can only vote for somebody if they fit your political mold is, well, bad. sure, when voting for partisan offices it's helpful to know the leanings of the candidate, but in non-partisan races that puts the emphasis on the wrong thing. you shouldn't worry about what grade this  or that org gives a judge candidate, but what their history is and what they're stance on the constitution and the laws of the jurisdiction is.
3. really? you tune out any information that isn't filtered through your favored lens? how are you gonna see the whole picture if only a fraction of the spectrum gets through to you?

see? it's all... drab and way hyperfocused

ok, so now the guy: he comes up and asks the school board lady: "what's your stance on marriage? do you believe that marriage is just between a man an a woman?" the lady holds her tongue, but another candidate is more than happy to oblige the man. he then says "is it wrong of me to say Jesus Christ is my lord and savior? is that ok anymore?"

now i'm getting steamed. you see, it's one thing to value tradition, and another thing to just admit you're uncomfortable with the idea of two dudes doin it. but to say that  it's because of jesus, or imply that the religion is under attack is where i draw the line.

also the line 

i get sick and tired of this argument. marriage equality is not an issue of the righteous versus the wicked. it's not an attack against the "christian values our great nation was founded on" (more on this later). it's cut ad dry a civil rights issue, one the courts have consistently found no legal reason to rule against. hell, they found the marriage amendment unconstitutional, so basing your vote on a candidate's stance against a settled and nigh untouchable issue makes you, well basically...

and in case that wasn't clear enough, having those beliefs means:

 dude man wasn't done. no he went on to say this: "you know separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. that's a lie made up by the liberal media"

....
....
.....
.............

ok, let's unpack this: no. that's not even remotely true. that's about dumb as hell. the level of ignorance it takes to even entertain that notion is baffling. it's so damn easy to refute that statement i'm not even gonna do it myself. i'll let the document speak for itself: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 

see that there? it's a little something called the establishment clause.  it keeps the government from telling you what religions you can and can't practice. it also prevents the state from establishing a religion or passing laws that favor any one religion over any other. in other words CHURCH AND STATE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE SEPARATE!!!

not convinced? ok. here's another constitutional scholars stance on the establishment clause:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State."

that guy? just founding father and author of the declaration of independence, and co-drafter of the constitution thomas jefferson in this letter. There it is.  Wall of ETERNAL separation between church and state.  boom. shut down. never be that dumb about constitutional issues around me again.

I'M A LEGAL SCHOLAR, BITCH!