Page 2 Column

Caught Off Guard By Card Feedback

by John Hammer
write the author

May 10, 2012

The marriage amendment to the North Carolina Constitution passed by an overwhelming margin on Tuesday night, May 8, leaving no doubt that North Carolinians want marriage in the state to be defined as between one man and one woman.

It is unfortunate for the state that the debate over the amendment was so filled with lies, scare tactics and vicious attacks.

Orson Scott Card wrote a compelling column in favor of the amendment last week, and I was shocked by the response. The column was picked up by the Huffington Post and linked to rhinotimes.com. The New York Daily News also wrote about the column and linked to rhinotimes.com. Other websites around the country picked up the story and linked to the column on our website. So the responses we got were by no means limited to North Carolinians, or for that matter even to Americans.

But I have to say that I was stunned by many of the responses, and I didn't see the worst of them. The hatred and the viciousness of the personal attacks were totally out of the realm of civilized discussion. The amendment was and is a political issue. It is matter for debate and discussion and, ultimately, for the people to decide. One of the arguments for putting it on the ballot in the first place was that the people of the state, not the elected officials, should make this decision. We should be able to discuss the pros and cons of the amendment without people being subjected to personal attacks for eloquently stating their opinion.

It is true that it would be foolish for most of us to get in a war of words with Card. He has written more books than many people have read. It would be like getting in a dunking contest with an NBA All Star; you're not going to win.

And of course most of the comments we received were pretty much what you would expect on a hot issue, but the few that went overboard really stand out.

We are no strangers when it comes to verbal attacks. When we printed the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, we were inundated with calls and letters that were highly critical of us. But we didn't get the level of vitriol that we received from Card's column.

We also are the only newspaper in the country with a court injunction preventing the Ku Klux Klan from using our paper as a vehicle to spread their hateful, racist propaganda. The injunction was the result of a long court case, and we received plenty of comments from white supremacists who thought what we were doing was awful. They were not complimentary.

But in those instances, which also were national and not limited to responses from our regular readers, I don't remember the level of vicious personal attacks that came from Card's column.

It's easy to see why there were not more yard signs in favor of Amendment One. People didn't want to be attacked for having a political belief different from what is considered acceptable by liberals. It is amazing – so many liberals are all in favor of free speech as long as it is free speech with which they agree.

We had graffiti on the sidewalk in front of our office chiding us in rhyme for being in favor of Amendment One. I will have to say that whoever wrote the poem did it in chalk so it didn't cause any damage, was environmentally friendly and I enjoyed the poem. However, some people don't like things written on the sidewalk in front of their office critical of them, and I think people were genuinely frightened of being identified as being in favor of Amendment One.

The amendment passed even in Greensboro, which is a liberal city, but I remember seeing very few signs in favor of the amendment and a ton against. The city was evenly divided. It couldn't have been much closer, but the sign count was not even close. Which might be a lesson to candidates running for office that signs are not the same as votes.

Email Link

Feedback

Not especially surprised
May 10, 2012 | 08:30 AM

While it is unfortunate that many respondents went for the personal attack I am not surprised. Card's article was well written and persuasive for an audience that already agreed with him, however it implied motives just short of evil behind persons who want to liberalize marriage.
When someone has come to a strongly held belief after much consideration and because they think that it is the right thing to do - and then someone else ascribes nefarious motives to their actions most people would justifiably feel that they are being personally attacked and will attack back.
The last 5 lines of his article especially imply (or sometimes directly state) that people who support gay marriage are:
Trying to destroy marriage.
Trying to brainwash children.
Trying to stifle debate.
And do all the above knowing they are in the wrong.
As the finishing lines, those are the statements that are supposed to be remembered. They are an attack and so no, I was not surprised at the response, you shouldn't have been, and I am sure Card wasn't.
As a last point. While I can believe some of the possible results that he describes could be plausible I wouldn't put them as probably and I certainly don't believe that any significant amount of the population is as malicious toward society as he implies.

Kirby
Hate Speech
May 10, 2012 | 08:40 AM

It was very interesting to see how many of the comments accused Card of hate speech. Often while engaging in hateful commentary.

People assume the virtues in others that they find in themselves.

Prufrock
May 10, 2012 | 10:49 AM

So your not going to address any of the false claims and out and out lies OSC wrote in his column? And by the way...Mr. Card is a published author. As such when he speaks out as vehemently as he has on this subject his fans have the right to criticize him and boycott his work. You do remember the Dixie Chicks don't you? Did you come to their defense?
I can't speak for anyone else...
May 10, 2012 | 10:57 AM

...but I was one of the commenters on Card's column who disagreed with both his stance and his arguments. And I am a resident of Greensboro.

I will confess I did not read every comment. Though I did see some comments that resorted to personal attacks (mostly telling Card that they would no longer be reading or recommending his books), I would say the great majority of comments weren't personal attacks.

The great majority of the comments that I saw were disgareements with Mr. Card's stance that, often, went so far as to attack his arguments. This is what debate is.

That said, I mostly wanted to respectfully disagree with your characterization of the margin between those who voted for the amendment (60%) and those who voted against the amendment (40%). I wouldn't call those numbers "overwhelming." Granted, the vote was not a close one. But "overwhelming"? To me, overwhelming would have been a 75-25 split. You could even make the argument that a 70-30 split was "overwhelming." But 60-40? Not overwhelming, in my opinion.

Elizabeth
Since comments are off on the original article
May 10, 2012 | 11:22 AM

What sort of cowards are you that you'd shut off the comments on the original article?

Since it's closed maybe you'll post it here - but I don't have a lot of hope on that account.

Replace "gay" with "black" and you sound just like the bigots who were against interracial marriages 50 years ago.

"There are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples"

- That was until my husband (we were legally married in Massachusetts) of 15 years was in a car accident while visiting his parents in Utah and was in a coma. Since Utah doesn't recognize gay marriage his Mormon parents had legal authority - not me - since we were not legally married in Utah. Then they barred me from visiting him and went so far as to file a restraining order against me to prevent it. The judge supported them (contrary to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution). He died after 15 days and I never got to even say goodbye to him.

I am never going to buy a thing of yours again. In fact I think I may just burn it all.

Editor's Note: Comments are still being accepted on the original article.

David A. W.
May 10, 2012 | 11:26 AM

Really? Shocked? Your party is telling millions of tax paying citizens that they don't deserve the same rights and you are shocked that people are upset over it. And you keep talking about a having a discussion over it. Churches coordinated with each other to present the same message to their congregants: VOTE FOR. How is that having a discussion? And if your side really wanted to only protect the word "MARRIAGE" you wouldn't have included banning civil unions or domestic partnerships. Face it...you don't like gay people. You may not want to admit that to yourself and so you say things like "I have gay friends". Whatever. No one is buying it. IN fact prove it. Write a column stating that gay couples should have protections like inheritance and visitation rights and that you are encouraging elected leaders to pass legislation accomplishing this. Its time to put up or shut up.
May 10, 2012 | 12:38 PM

I had assumed that the original article was closed to comments since no comments had been placed on it since yesterday afternoon.

That's what I get for assuming (Assuming is the mother of all foulups._

I am sorry for the "coward" comment directed at the editors.

Thank you!

David A. W.
Are you kidding me?
May 10, 2012 | 12:58 PM

I'm sorry, but that was not a good and accurate article. Orson Scott Card's article was nothing but vitriol and slippery slope arguments.
We are supposed to just quietly sit here and let him write such ridiculousness? I'm sorry, but no. Just because people are on the left or believe in gay marriage doesn't mean they want to destroy MARRIAGE. Where do these folks get this notion from?
There aren't people on the right who believe in gay marriage? People who are religious who accept their gay sons and daughters and their lifemates?
People on the left don't get married and have children and treasure their spouses?
Most of the comments I read have actually been rather civil. It's heartbreaking to realize a writer that has influenced so many teens, including me when I was a teen can spout out such INACCURATE INFORMATION AND HATE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE!

Synesthesia
May 10, 2012 | 01:39 PM

It seems very much like too many of those supporting the redefinition of marriage believe the issue is important enough to resort to intimidation and violence, thus discrediting their position.

Some argue that laws preventing men from marrying men and women from marrying women treat people unequally. They don't. Straight men and gay men have the same restriction if they want to marry: they must marry a woman.

All arguments for changing the traditional definition of marriage to allow men to marry men and women to marry women apply to polygamous and other non-traditional relationships (and, in fact, since polygamy has been practiced throughout history and is still practiced in some parts of the world, it can be argued that it is much more traditional than gay marriage despite being illegal in all 50 states in the US).

Those arguing to redefine marriage should at least be consistent and argue that other non-traditional marriages be legalized as well.

TM Hatter
Liberal Discourse
May 10, 2012 | 01:53 PM

â€œLiberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.â€ William F. Buckley, Jr.

...which leaves non-liberals with nothing but their vote. Thankfully, we still have that avenue to take....

I hope this will be a lesson to all regarding sensitive or divisive issues: don't choose the strategy of intimidating and insulting your opposition up until the bell rings. It's a bully's filibuster and as long as there are free elections, it's a loser's game.

Tina
May 10, 2012 | 02:26 PM

Somehow allowing gays to marry and have some of the same marriage rights straight people take for granted doesn't seem to be the same thing as destroying marriage.
These folks can never explain accurately how you can destroy marriage. Nor can they focus on the the things that actually destroy marriage such as domestic violence. Where is the same vitriol for men or women who beat, dominate and torment their spouses and children?
It makes no sense. Domestic violence breaks up families. Allowing the gay couple next door doesn't. If anything is unhealthy it's the vitriol people have for gays. If your child is gay, you will toss them aside rather than love them?
That's very tragic... I'd love my future kids no matter what.

chromesthesia
Voting
May 10, 2012 | 03:51 PM

Basic human rights is not something people should get to vote on.

If a majority vote to deny a minority those rights the fact that they voted doesn't make it legitimate.

Also had Card just said as a believing Christian I believe my faith says marriage is between a man and a woman, people would have disagreed but not been offended. When he tried to justify this with some fear mongering about Liberal agenda he crossed a line.

Also prefacing your article that you have Gay friends and as a non gay you think they have enough rights is so intellectually dishonest. It deserves ridicule.

Jon Bernstein
You can't stop the caravan
May 10, 2012 | 04:05 PM

I venture to say that when you're dealing w/someone's rights, vote or debate do not do it justice. Enlightenment is the only recourse. At one time many debated the merits of slavery and @ another time others voted in those that sent thousands to their deaths in furnaces because of their religion. Our Declaration of Independence starts of by ascertaining: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." You can not vote or debate someone's rights; they are "unalienable". People may be try to vote them away or put up "compelling" columns how giving someone their rights will bring about all sort of doom such as teaching slaves to read but inevitably as a civilization becomes enlightened they recognize that you can't deny "that all men are created equal" and thus are all entitled to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Thank heavens for those brave 40% in NC who are standing up for what's right but in time as w/any other fight for human rights truth will prevail. As the proverb says: "Dogs bark but the caravan rolls on"

Tony
May 10, 2012 | 06:34 PM

Mr. Hammer you can't be serious expecting us to believe that Card is being persecuted. He's on the board of the National Organization for Marriage. He probably gets paid for writing articles like that.

And as a sci-fi author he is no different than any one else who needs the public to buy their product in order to make a living.

I agree with the earlier responder...if he had simply said my religion requires me to vote no he would not have gotten the outpouring of replies that he did. Instead he chose to sensationalize the issue and use fear to ensure its passage.

You reap what you sow. Oh and I'm from Greensboro also. If you need further proof I like the Stamey's on High Point road better than the one on Battleground.
Mixed feelings.
May 10, 2012 | 07:14 PM

I still stand by my stance that the government should NOT be defining marriage. I personally believe that homosexual activity (regardless of sexual orientation) is a sin in God's eyes. I'm not sure that I'm correct in this belief, as God has not personally visited me to clarify the matter. That said, I believe that freedom of religion and belief mean that the government shouldn't interfere in matters that are essentially private.

Whether or not you choose to believe the evidence for or against the staticness of sexual orientation (and there is evidence for both sides of that question), all other science around questions of child-rearing and what-not is unquestionably mixed in terms of findings. Some articles suggest that same-sex couples raise children who are not as well-adjusted, while other evidence indicates that same-sex couples raise children that are equally adjusted as mixed-sex couples. Far stronger factors seem to be things like familial stability, emotional strength and well-being of the parent or parents, financial well-being (yes it matters, sadly), and similar things. Arguments frequently resume at this point talking about whether or not same-sex couples are equal to mixed-sex couples on those other factors, but it's a silly game.

In the end, I feel strongly that the science surrounding this debate is, in general, lacking sufficient rigor and objectivity for the government to have any hope of resolving the questions on the basis of science at the present time.

On the other hand, it is clearly in the interest of the government to know when two people are married, and to maintain, for a variety of legal reasons, a database making such things clear. Society would run quite horribly if *every* case of divorce and child custody had to first spend hours and hours debating the legality and reality of a relationship.

I personally feel that government should step back, allow people to marry according to their religious convictions (or in the case of serious agnostics and atheists, whatever moral or ethical convictions they have). If this means that a religion allows same-sex marriage, then fine. If it means that a religion allows polygamy, what of it? My wife would never go for that sort of spider-web marriage, but that's between her, myself, God, and Church.

Of course the government should refuse to recognize marriages based on an abuse of power difference, such as minors being wed to older partners, or people marrying animal (both of whom clearly cannot give legal consent).

As far as employers and hospitals refusing to recognize marriage, I think that should be the role of the government--to verify that organizations extend the same rights to all married couples.

Would this open the door to same-sex marriages and polygamy? Sure. But it would also change the way that people frame education around the issue (at least I think it would), as it would prevent the teaching of what's legal (and therefore acceptable) as being what is moral. Instead the education would need to state that different religious and secular groups define marriage differently, and that is their right.

Personally, and for me, I think there are much more pressing issues to be dealt with, so the sooner we can resolve this whole question, the sooner we can get around to figuring out how to prevent poverty while still encouraging people to work. Or how to make sure that talented individuals are allowed the ability to work where they are most talented and still make a decent enough living to support a family.

As for Mr. Card, I think he writes very well, and is a very intelligent man. He may have views that many disagree with, but that's part of what makes life interesting--knowing that not everyone agrees with everything.

-Ben
Shocked!
May 10, 2012 | 07:52 PM

So, you publish an article advocating taking away the liberty of your fellow citizens and you were shocked that you received negative feedback?
Really?

I was impressed by the quality of many of the comments. Contrary to your claim that the comments were full of "hatred and...viciousness," I found them to be quite insightful and factually correct. Of course, I'm not even talking about the discrimination that many homosexual individuals have endured for being gay and wanting to marry. I dare say Mr. Hammer they have faced far worse than you ever have.

If there is any silver lining in the cloud on this issue, it's that while older people support bans on gay marriage by a wide margin, young people (35 and under) support gay marriage by the same margin. Someday these aging voters are going to overturn many of the bans you and your cohorts have argued for.

And despite your claims to the contrary, the institution of marriage will remain intact.

Robert
consequences
May 10, 2012 | 08:40 PM

I am not a North Carolinian, so perhaps you will think I have no right to comment. However, I *am* a Tennessean who lived in Knoxville for many years, so I am at least a close neighbor.

Many other worthy responses have been made both to Card's op/ed piece and to your commentary. However, I would like to specifically remind readers of one essential fact. Specifically, people are very very rarely murdered for the "crime" of being heterosexual -- yet men and women across the globe ARE murdered every day simply because they are homosexual. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that feelings would run high when the mere fact of homosexuality and support of homosexuals are being attacked, as it most certainly was in OSC's column. In fact, it is very very easy to think of OSC's piece as hate speech and even as indirectly encouraging violence itself, no matter how politely he may try to couch his rhetoric.

Ione S.
Hate Speech?
May 11, 2012 | 01:49 AM

Card has refered to people in the LGBT community as, 'abominations', 'twisted', 'perverts', and any number of other colourful terms in numerous venues. That's pretty much the definition of hate speech.

Conversely, calling Mr Card a complete 'expletive', of any stretch is not hate speech and to describe it as such is a gross betrayal of minorities and marginalised groups who have been maligned by similar rhetoric.

Aaron
Caught off guard
May 11, 2012 | 09:09 AM

Read Genesis 19:4-11 When people have turned themselves over to their own selfish desires, they can no longer control themselves when someone deprives them of something they think they should have. It is not about their rights, it is about their wants.

Lynn
May 11, 2012 | 01:23 PM

I feel sad for all the Christian teenagers who have been so bullied at school the last couple of years that they took their own lives to escape the pain.

Oh wait...there haven't been any...those were all GAY teenagers.
Depends on the subject matter
May 12, 2012 | 09:32 PM

"It is true that it would be foolish for most of us to get in a war of words with Card. He has written more books than many people have read. It would be like getting in a dunking contest with an NBA All Star; you're not going to win."

You're not going to win if it is a science fiction writing contest. But OSC is pretty much a hack when it comes to political commentary.
Gays & Confused
May 15, 2012 | 10:47 AM

I appreciate your defense of OSC against some of the heated feedback from his op-ed piece. However, I don't understand your defense of the piece itself. It reads in a nearly schizophrenic fashion. Tolerance and ignorance are tightly intertwined in a way I've never seen before. If OSC truly understood the issue and really knew gay couples, then he would have stood firmly with them against this amendment.

The amendment may have passed, but why was it on the ballot in the first place? Same-sex marriage was already illegal in NC, so the amendment ends up hurting mostly non-traditional heterosexual couples. Furthermore, why are my human rights as a minority determined by the will of the majority? Let alone when the measure was put on the ballot during a heavily Republican primary. Call it the will of the people if you want, but partisan politics in an election year won last week.

David McDonald
May 15, 2012 | 12:33 PM

Old people will die, and then I'll finally be able to be married and have equal rights as a straight person. It sucks that it must come to that, but it seems that the conservative voting block, especially the part of it comprised by those older folks, is determined to make me live a miserable life and live alone.

A quick point of response before I wash my hands of this.

"It seems very much like too many of those supporting the redefinition of marriage believe the issue is important enough to resort to intimidation and violence, thus discrediting their position."

I agree that intimidation and violence suck. Which is why I'm a pacifist too. You're a pacifist, right? And against war too, right? Because if you aren't... Talk about undermining your position.

Actually, that's a pretty delicious non-sequitor. Arguing against segregation with a violent tactic didn't undermine the value of the argument. It just discredited those that held it and were violent.

"Some argue that laws preventing men from marrying men and women from marrying women treat people unequally. They don't. Straight men and gay men have the same restriction if they want to marry: they must marry a woman."

And we want all people, gay or straight, to have the God-given right to have a gay marriage. It's not just a gay thing - Straight people can have gay marriages too. Wait... Does that not appeal to you? A gay marriage for a straight person? Do you not think that you'd have the same experience of companionship and love in that relationship? Guess you just walked an inch in my shoes. You've got a bunch more to go.

I'm also bypassing the other rights, outside of marriage, that gay people don't have.

Goodness. I cannot wait until 10 or 20 years from now when somebody will look back and feel embarrassment for their country and faith, and wonder "How could we ever do that?" Just as I feel ashamed for my faith's, Christianity's, role in the segregation era, the holocaust, and any number of horrible happenings.

Nathanael
May 15, 2012 | 12:35 PM

So legalizing gay marriage is an attempt to undermine freedom of religion in this nation but screening comments is not an attempt to undermine freedom of speech and urging for and end to boycotting the work of someone with whose views consumers disagree is not an attempt to undermine freedom of petition?

Someone has his priorities on backwards, and the tag is showing. You get to choose one of those positions. Not both. Otherwise you risk looking like an inconsistent hypocritical whiner.

The law passed your way. You don't get to stomp your foot because some people don't like it. You'd be doing the same thing if our positions were reversed.

Lou

Reader Feedback Submission

Use this form to submit Reader Feedback. Your submission will be reviewed by our staff before appearing on the Web site.

* required value

Rhino Search

Advanced Search

News

Opinion

Page 2 Column

Caught Off Guard By Card Feedback