Ban gay marriage to preserve the caucasian race

[mr friendly guy]

I first saw this on the Alyona show but a quick google search doesn't reveal mainstream media carrying much of it. So here is what I can get.

linky

ORIGINAL POST: Chad Nance, a Winston-Salem freelance journalist who is currently active in electoral campaigning, says poll workers outside the early voting site at the Forsyth County Government Center in downtown Winston-Salem reported to him that the wife of NC Sen. Peter Brunstetter remarked today that her husband sponsored legislation to put the marriage amendment on the primary ballot “to protect the Caucasian race.”

Nance said he recorded a conversation with the woman, whose name is Jodie Brunstetter, on video, and that she confirmed that she used the term “Caucasian” in a discussion about the marriage amendment, but insisted that otherwise her comments had been taken out of context by other poll workers.

Nance until recently served as campaign manager for Matt Newton, a Democratic candidate for the 12th Congressional District. Nance announced on Facebook today that he was resigning from the campaign because of Nance’s reaction to his plans to publicize Jodie Brunstetter’s alleged remarks. The Newton campaign has not responded to an e-mail request for comment about the resignation.

Nance has been working as a volunteer poll worker for the campaign of NC House candidate Ed Hanes Jr. and the campaign against the marriage amendment. He is a primary source for an unrelated story published by YES! Weekly about efforts to manipulate Democratic voters for the benefit of a favored slate of candidates. Nance said an African-American poll worker identified only as “Michael” initially told him about Jodie Brunstetter’s alleged remarks during a conversation with opponents of the marriage amendment.

Now this type of statement makes noooo sense because you know, there are gays in other ethnic groups (except Iran, snigger) and you know, no modern technology exists to allow normally infertile couples to reproduce. No sirreee.

But this allegation could be totally made up. So people asked her to set the record straight.

See video here. Basically Brunstetter flounders numerous times saying that she doesn't want to be misconstrued/taken out of context, with the interviewer saying no, I want to put you in context, this is your chance to tell it properly etc. Finally she blames heat stroke making her confuse and wants a drink, to which the interviewer offers to get her a drink. But don't worry, she has a drink in her car and needed to go.

Brief transcript of the video here.

Transcript follows:

MICHAEL:

“I had my back to her like this. She said, 'The reason my husband my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.”

UNIDENTIFIED POLL WORKER: “(Mrs. Brunsetter said) … the Caucasian race is diminishing. ?The reason that's a problem is that it was white people that founded this country.”

“She just wants a white majority so the good 'ol US of A can stay white.”

Brunsetter:

We are looking at the history of the United States and it is already law about what marriage is. Between a man and a woman. And we are looking at how American has been a great country. That's why people are coming here. And people who fouinded the United states wrote a Constitution and it has been what has preserved this society. And we were just talking about lots of different things which the gentleman was turning around.

Me:

You didn't tell that one lady that it was to preserve the Caucasian race because they were becoming a minority?

Brunsetter:

No.

Me:

She's lying?

Brunsetter:

No. It's just that same sex marriages are not having children.

Me:

Yeahm but you didn't say anything about Caucasians, white people, preserving them that's why it was written?

Brunsetter:

No I'm afraid they have made it a racial issue when it is not.

Me:

She didn't say it was a racial issue. She said that you had said that opart of the reason it had been sponsored and written was to preserve the white race.

(a moment later) … you didn't say anything about Caucasians?

Brunsetter:

I probably said the word.

Me:

You didn't tell her anything about Caucasians?

Silence.

Me:

I want you to clear it up if you could.

Brunsetter:

Right now I am a little confused myself because there has been confusion here today about this amendment where it is very simple. The opponents are saying things that are not true and there has been a lot of conversation back and forth.

Right now I have some heat stroke going on. Um there has been lots of confusion.

Me:

Did you say anything about Caucasians?

Brunsetter: If I did it wasn't anything race related.

Me:

But it is about identifying a race. No context on Caucasians?

Brunsetter:

There has been so much talk about this point that there is just a lot of confusion.

Me:

You're not going to be able to explain it?

Brunsetter:

Well, it's a little hard.

So when given a chance to clear the air, the best she could come up with, if I said something about Caucasians it wasn't race related. What was she talking about then, the Caucasus mountains? When they can't even outright deny the allegation and try and avoid the question its very suspicious.

[Justforfun000]

She's a racist, bigoted cunt. End of story. Obviously she is also relatively stupid and unable to come up with a clever political cop-out after she got called out on it.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Unfortunately, North Carolina is likely to reinforce its status as a bigoted state.

[B5B7]

There's a billion caucasians in India alone so no danger of not enough caucasians.

[Rahvin]

I never realized that all gay people were caucasian...or that disallowing gay marriage would result in more caicasians having heterosexual sex.

[mr friendly guy]

I never realized that all gay people were caucasian...or that disallowing gay marriage would result in more caicasians having heterosexual sex.

Some people have claimed that legalising gay marriage in countries that have has led to a decrease in heterosexual marriage. The implication would be presumably that these gay people would have been in heterosexual marriages. Its never explained why you would want someone to be in a marriage they don't want to be in, just to make up numbers, but whatever.

[Purple]

I never realized that all gay people were caucasian...or that disallowing gay marriage would result in more caicasians having heterosexual sex.

Some people have claimed that legalising gay marriage in countries that have has led to a decrease in heterosexual marriage. The implication would be presumably that these gay people would have been in heterosexual marriages. Its never explained why you would want someone to be in a marriage they don't want to be in, just to make up numbers, but whatever.

Social pressure for one thing. Used to be that society actively hated, despised and persecuted homosexuals. So homosexuals often found them self forced to enter heterosexual marriages either to maintain a facade of being "normal" or because they honestly believed them self to be abnormal, went into denial etc. Just like with left handers and stuff like that, society simply crushed them into the "socially acceptable" mold. And that's what these people really want to achieve, they just can't say it openly.

[The Spartan]

There's a billion caucasians in India alone so no danger of not enough caucasians.

Of course, this lady and people like her don't consider Indians to be Caucasian...

[SilverWingedSeraph]

There's a billion caucasians in India alone so no danger of not enough caucasians.

Of course, this lady and people like her don't consider Indians to be Caucasian...

That would be because most Indians aren't Caucasian...? They generally have, you know, darker skin tones and more Asian features, where-as Caucasian basically means "white". Most of the 1.2 billion people in India are neither white nor Caucasian. Not that it even matters. This bitch is still crazy racist.

[The Spartan]

Am I misremembering something? Because I recall there being a definition of Caucasian which would include peoples not considered white.

[xerex]

Am I misremembering something? Because I recall there being a definition of Caucasian which would include peoples not considered white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

Conceived as one of the great races, alongside Mongoloid and Negroid, it was taken to consist of a number of "subraces". The Caucasoid peoples were usually divided in three groups on linguistic grounds, termed Aryan (Indo-European), Semitic (Semitic languages) and Hamitic (Berber-Cushitic-Egyptian).


The postulated subraces vary depending on the author, including but not limited to Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpine, Dinaric, East Baltic, Arabid, Turanid, Iranid and Armenoid subraces.

Carleton S. Coon in his 1939 The Races of Europe classified the Dravidians as Caucasoid as well, due to his assessment of what he called their "Caucasoid skull structure" and other physical traits (e.g. noses, eyes, hair). In his The Living Races of Man, Coon stated that "India is the easternmost outpost of the Caucasian racial region"

.....

[The Spartan]

So I was remembering right.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

My mistake, then! I actually did some reading to make sure I wasn't making an ass of myself, but I missed something! But of course, yes, this woman only cares about white people.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Insomuch as there is any validity to the term Caucasian, it includes the population of India because they speak the same Indo-European or if you prefer the older term Indo-Aryan based language as all other Caucasians, and the racial term actually refers to the estimated homeland of the original speakers of proto-Indo-Aryan (PIA) as it was called then. Indian immigrants to the UK were allowed to sit in Parliament during the height of Imperialism, and white women sometimes married Indian princes without censure in the same period (though always of a lower class than the Prince). Euro attitudes toward including or not-including Indians in the definition of whiteness is actually fairly complex of a subject.

[Phantasee]

My favourite example of arbitrariness when it comes to race: Sikh guy tried to get US citizenship, since he's caucasian: Supreme Court says, no, you're not white. Japanese guy tries to get US citizenship, since he's white: Supreme Court says, no, you're not caucasian.

[Simon_Jester]

Uh... I get the feeling there has to be more of a story than that. Especially since there's nothing in the rules regarding US citizenship that says you have to be white, and even back in the Stone Age (so to speak) I don't think that was actually required.

Am I wrong?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Uh... I get the feeling there has to be more of a story than that. Especially since there's nothing in the rules regarding US citizenship that says you have to be white, and even back in the Stone Age (so to speak) I don't think that was actually required.

Am I wrong?

The Constitution provides for anyone born in the United States to be a citizen, but congress can set laws on who can become a citizen who was previously a citizen of another country.

[LadyTevar]

I will point out that "Caucasian" is no longer considered the proper term by the US Gov. on any of its legal documents (including the Census, Birth, and Death records). "White" is now the accepted terminology, with the only legal subsection being "Hispanic".

[Simon_Jester]

Uh... I get the feeling there has to be more of a story than that. Especially since there's nothing in the rules regarding US citizenship that says you have to be white, and even back in the Stone Age (so to speak) I don't think that was actually required.

Am I wrong?

The Constitution provides for anyone born in the United States to be a citizen, but congress can set laws on who can become a citizen who was previously a citizen of another country.

I'm not saying such laws don't or can't exist. I simply have no memory of it ever being true that "nonwhites" or "non-Caucasians" were explicitly forbidden from becoming American citizens.

I'm not saying that never happened either, I just have no specific knowledge and was wondering if someone else here did.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I will point out that "Caucasian" is no longer considered the proper term by the US Gov. on any of its legal documents (including the Census, Birth, and Death records). "White" is now the accepted terminology, with the only legal subsection being "Hispanic".

I know, which is why I mark other or refuse to mark that on all government documents, as I strongly object to replacing a term which embraces people of many different skin colours with one based on that most hateful and trite of ethnic "characteristics".

[xerex]

Uh... I get the feeling there has to be more of a story than that. Especially since there's nothing in the rules regarding US citizenship that says you have to be white, and even back in the Stone Age (so to speak) I don't think that was actually required.

Am I wrong?

The Constitution provides for anyone born in the United States to be a citizen, but congress can set laws on who can become a citizen who was previously a citizen of another country.

I'm not saying such laws don't or can't exist. I simply have no memory of it ever being true that "nonwhites" or "non-Caucasians" were explicitly forbidden from becoming American citizens.

I'm not saying that never happened either, I just have no specific knowledge and was wondering if someone else here did.

http://www.understandingrace.org/histor ... ation.html

The Naturalization Act of 1906 provided the conditions under which immigrants to the U.S. could become naturalized citizens. Under the act, only white persons and persons of African descent or African nativity were eligible.

In 1922, a Japanese businessman named Takao Ozawa filed for U.S. citizenship under the act; he did not challenge the constitutionality of the racial restrictions, but argued that people of Japanese descent should be classified as white. Associate Justice George Sutherland however, ruled that only Caucasians were white, and therefore the Japanese could not be considered white but rather were of an "unassimilable race," not covered by any Naturalization Act.

Sutherland issued a similar ruling three months later in another Supreme Court case. This one, known as United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, concerned another alien seeking U.S. citizenship. The decision classified South Asian Indians as Asian for the first time, and not only affected immigrants seeking naturalization, but allowed previously naturalized Asian Indians to be stripped of their American citizenship, since it could be claimed that they had gained citizenship illegally—a claim often upheld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ingh_Thind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takao_Ozaw ... ted_States

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The basic theory was that since there was only a "white" culture and a "Black" culture in the United States at the time that allowing in anyone else would mean that they could not adapt to American customs and would remain an alien force in American society, as they could not become an American White or an American Black, and were therefore dangerous to the social fabric of the state... Whereas blacks, at least, could be integrated into the existing second-class citizenship status of freed slaves.

[Simon_Jester]

Ah.

I'd forgotten about those acts.

[Broomstick]

I'm not saying that never happened either, I just have no specific knowledge and was wondering if someone else here did.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 forbid even legal Chinese immigrants from becoming US citizens.

The Immigration Act of 1924 explicitly banned immigration, and by extension citizenship, from a number of Asian nations.

Those are the ones that come to mind, there might have been more. Actually, on preview it seems someone else already found one from 1906.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, I remember the late 19th and early 20th century for their spectacularly, flamingly racist immigration policy.

I didn't remember them actually outright forbidding people from those countries from becoming American citizens at all, but I'm not surprised to be reminded of the laws that said so.