President Obama's recent (and by recent, I mean seriously recent) announcement on his support of gay marriage hasn't taken the heat off of North Carolina's decision to pass Amendment One. America is in an uproar and celebrities, both gay and straight, have a lot to say about it. The Twittersphere is hoppin' with disapproving hilarity along the likes of this tweet from Damien Fahey:

On the bright side you don't have to put an Instagram filter over photos of North Carolina anymore to make it look like the 1800's

Then there's the more direct distaste for the people of the wayward southern state by Matthew Lillard:

North Carolina, I spit in your general direction.

Dan Cronin had probably the most constructive criticism:

Young people of North Carolina, just move away. Then move back when they're dead.

That's right, North Carolina. You've officially pissed off everybody, sans the ones who voted in favor of this ridiculous amendment. Just let it be known, hell hath no fury like Neil Patrick Harris scorned:

North Carolina passed Amendment One. Unbelievable. 

For a little insight on how harmful Amendment One actually is, this large list of things same-sex couples are officially banned from doing is sure to get your blood boiling. After, feel free to take a load off and remember that not everybody (namely Barack Obama) is as backwards as North Carolina. 

Tags Twitter

Commentarium (17 Comments)

May 09 12 - 7:46pm
GeeBee

This amendment not only bars same-sex couple from obtaining the same rights as everyone else, it also removes rights (such as hospital visitation) from unmarried straight couples. Idiots.

May 09 12 - 10:18pm
BrosephofArimathea

The last one is actually by EMF.

May 10 12 - 9:48am
Ditto

Ohhhhhh! *synthesizer riff* (+1)

May 10 12 - 1:16am
WTF

Those in favor of gay marriage are the ones always saying that a majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage and that the voice of the people should be heard. But in public referendum after public referendum, the voice of the people votes against gay marriage. The voice of the people is being heard. The gay marriage lobby can bully the gutless legislators, but it's the voice of the people rings consistent: We don't want gay marriage in this country. Have a nice day.

May 10 12 - 2:25am
RW

No, the voice of the people that vote rings consistent. And the age of the people that vote is also consistent - old, ignorant, and willing to blame "the new" for all of the ills of the country, hence the virulent hatred of immigrants (ignoring that America is, and has always been, an immigrant country) and the untenable refusal to acknowledge that citizenship isn't contingent on sexuality (ignoring that marriage is, and has always been, a religious and non-governmental institution). Voter turnout for Amendment One was 34.37% - if you think that's the voice of "the people", you should go back and learn basic math.

May 10 12 - 5:10am
Basic Statistics

Given the population of NC, 34.37% is likely very representative of the entire population of NC. You should learn basic statistics and sampling theory. Another left-winger who loves to be dismissively arrogant but couldn't find his butt with both hands. Given the topic, it's likely he could find someone else's butt though.

May 10 12 - 9:26am
hm yeah

Good try Basic Stat. How would 37% of VOTERS (not of the entire population, mind you) be representative? But then, thinking so explains so much about your logic.

May 10 12 - 12:28pm
Kel

14th Amendment. You're welcome.

May 10 12 - 3:39pm
Ted

Dear Basic Statistics,

You do not seem to understand basic statistics despite your name. Your logic seems to be that the limited non-random sample size does not matter too much because it is North Carolina. It may be true that most people in North Carolina are bigoted assholes, but you cannot be sure about that because you do not know how representative the limited, non-random sample is of the general population. The question is whether the registered voters who voted have a different view of Amendment One than the total population. Given that registered voters tend to be older and in national polls older people are more likely to be assholes when it comes to gay rights, it is likely that the sample is not representative. This is not conclusively true, because young people in North Carolina may be unusually assholic, but it is very likely. Nevertheless, the assertion that 34.37% is likely very representative of the entire population is clearly false.

P.S. The part about finding someone else's butt was very witty. Did you go to school at Cranbrook?

P.S.

May 10 12 - 10:08pm
Basic Statistics

Gaussian. Distribution. My PhD in Math. Sorry, dudes but you don't know what you're talking about. 34% of a huge population is definitely indicative. And please don't say it's not a random sample because that only shows that you - maybe - hit undergrad stat.

Kel - You can't even get the Kingston Trio right. Don't try mathematics or Constitutional law; you're way over your head.

May 11 12 - 12:39pm
Ted

Dear Basic Statistics,

34% of a huge population is not definitely indicative. If there is a selection bias (as there was in North Carolina) then the results can be incorrect. For example, if you ask 34% of people living in the us who they like for president, but you only ask women, the answer will be Obama. If you ask the same question to 34% of people living in the us, but you only ask men, the result will be Romney. If you use a methodology to choose the sample (such as registered voters who voted in a Spring 12 election) that skews toward men or women, or old or young, or anything else; you can end up with incorrect results. The question is whether the characteristics of the sample which are not representative of the population skew the results of the variable you are looking at. If the sample, for instance, is overrepresented by people who have a social security number ending in an odd digit, it does not seem likely that views on gay rights would be impacted. However, if you are looking at registered voters who voted, you know the sample size (at least traditionally) is older. You also know (by recent polls, if you believe them) that older individuals are more hostile to gay rights. Clearly the selection bias will skew the result in this case.

May 12 12 - 6:25pm
Basic Statistics

Yeah, that's why they poll, what, 80-90% of a state to predict the outcome of an election, eh?

You're quite correct that the sample must reflect the population but at 34%, it's a lock.

Sorry, you're simply wrong here.

May 13 12 - 10:28am
Nac Dasty

Basic Stat

Why are you against gay marriage?

May 13 12 - 7:06pm
Ted

They do not have to poll 80-90% of a state to predict the outcome of an election because when they do a poll they attempt to choose a random sample, that is why they can use an extremely small sample. A sample that is 34% of the total population is not a lock to represent the population if the sample is biased.

Sorry that you think I am wrong, but Phd or no, you are incorrect.

May 10 12 - 8:50am
No dr Dorian?

I didn't even know Dr Dorian was practicing in north Carolina.

May 10 12 - 8:53am
North Carolina

Neil, Zach -

We will try to manage without you. I'm sure you can find a nice, homosexual-friendly place in one of the 20 states that has not banned homosexual marriage (yet).

May 10 12 - 9:00am
English malpractice

"angry celebrities tweet angrily?". Did happy people tweet happily? Ambivalent people tweet ambivalently?

Homosexuals tweet homosexually? Gay people tweet gayly?

Does anyone read his stuff before it's posted? They should because editors might tweet editorially.