(VIDEO) Amendment C Proponents Turn to Personal Attack, False Guarantees
The chief spokesman for Amendment C spent a considerable amount of time last night at a forum at South Dakota State University attacking what he perceives to be the "lifestyle" of South Dakotans Against Discrimination's Jon Hoadley.
A number of SDSU groups sponsored the forum last night on Amendment C, the "quasi-marital relations" amendment to the state constitution.
In his later remarks in the hour and a half forum, Rob Regier of the S.D. Family Policy Council personally attacked what he believes to be Jon's lifestyle, saying he "would be dead before he was 40." Jon is 23.
Regier's attack assumes many things about Jon, none of which he knows for sure or is any of his business. The debate about Amendment C isn't how Jon or Rob (or you or me) decide to lead our lives. It is about making a mess of our state's laws and current rights than many South Dakotans--gay and non-gay--enjoy as citizens.
Furthermore, the debaters were there to talk about the legal implications of Amendment C, which Jon did in great form and style. Amendment C essentially allows the goverment to not only interfere with our personal lives, but also with our state's domestic abuse laws, personal contracts, health insurance, and other issues.
Regier also asserted that there was "no way" that Amendment C could ever take away personal contract rights, health care to domestic partners, or invalidate other states' recognition of common law marriage, among many rights and privileges.
There is obviously no way he or anyone else can guarantee what a state circuit court judge or the State Supreme Court or a federal court might do in interpreting Amendment C should it pass.
As Jon pointed out, domestic partners have lost health care coverage in Michigan under a similar law and single people have lost domestic abuse protections under a similar Ohio law.
KELOLAND TV covered part of the debate. Here is their coverage.
Here are Jon's sound bites (In Video!) from the KELOLAND interview that I videotaped during the interview.
*Amendment C's Unintended Consequences, :21--Click
061001 KELO 1 Unintended.mov
*We Already Have Law Banning Gay Marriage, :25--Click
061001 KELO 2 Already have law.mov
*Let's Actually Discuss Amendment C, :33--Click
061001 KELO 3 More than soundbites.mov
*Conversations Like This Are Helpful to Voters, :30--Click
061001 KELO 4 conversations.mov
Todd Epp
8 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
Rob Regier is a sad, sad man. He's obviously homophobic. And it greatly disappoints me that he grew up in Canton (which I just found out).
i only referred to studies that show that gay men die up to 20 years prematurely because of some in the crowd who insisted that we "love" our neighbors.
and i responded by saying that if i truly loved my neighbor, jon in this case, that i'd tell him the truth that the gay lifestyle is harmful to his health.
you also say that "there is obviously no way [i] or anyone else can guarantee what a state circuit court judge or the State Supreme Court or a federal court might do in interpreting Amendment C should it pass."
okay, so i would say the same to you, that there is no way you know anything a judge might do. a judge might rule that gay marriage, polygamy, adult-child marriages are legal.
but we do know that the intent of this amendment is to not affect personal, private legal arrangements, health care, living arrangements, and such.
you're just trying to scare people with these wild scenarios from other states that have completely different laws than ours.
you're not telling the whole story about michigan or ohio, intentionally misleading voters. it's dishonest.
and for you to imply that i was attacking or uncivil in that debate is wrong. it was people like haggs,here, who were uncivil. "homophobic?" haggs, give me a break. that brand of politically correct name-calling is old and tired.
mr. epp, i've always enjoyed talking to you, mostly through blogs. don't ruin it by casting false characterizations like this.
in truth,
rob regier (canton, sd)
p.s.--haggs, you're from canton?
And yes, Mr. Regier, I'm from Canton. Your father was my physician when I was growing up. I have fond memories of going to his office for check-ups. And that's one of the reasons I was so disappointed when I saw your comments.
i guess your tolerance is a one-way street. you expect me to tolerate the homosexual viewpoint, but my viewpoint, which is the Christian viewpoint, is fair game for attack.
besides, i'm sure there are some people, some things, you discriminate against. or is everything okay in your world?
And I'm tired of people saying that those views are Christian views. I'm a Christian and I don't agree with your views. I was raised to respect people for who they are. If you don't want to respect people of the same sex in a loving, committed relationship, that's your business. But creating laws to ban them from being able to marry just because of your belief is wrong and mean and goes against God's command to love our meighbors.
It kills me inside that my brothers and sisters in Christ are so willing to trample on the rights of other people just because they don't like who they are. I'll pray for you, Mr. Regier.
just like a gay activist told me once: i will no longer tolerate your intolerance!
haggs, if you reject the Bible as the truth, then it's fruitless to debate biblical issues. either it's true or it is not. you cannot pick and choose which passages to believe. because if you actually read the Bible, you'd see that God/Jesus is the most intolerant person that ever walked this earth.
He even said that "anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
"raca" is a hebrew word of contempt. i suppose "jerk" would be similar to that. but then again, you might not believe Matthew 5;22. so go ahead and keep calling me names, bro.
because i love my neighbor, i am compelled to sometimes say "no." to tolerate or affirm something that is sinful and harmful is the very definition of hatred.