When we think of same-sex marriage, we don’t usually think of it as a racial issue. We think of it as an equality issue. But in North Carolina apparently, it’s a racial issue as recently admitted by Jodie Brunstetter.
Jodie Brunstetter is the wife of Republican Senator Peter Brunstetter, the man who authored Amendment 1 in North Carolina, which if approved by the people, would ban same-sex marriage via the state Constitution. On Tuesday during early voting at the Forsyth County Government Center in downtown Winston-Salem, Chad Nance, a freelance journalist, reports that Jodie Brunstetter allegedly told a group of opponents of the Amendment that banning same-sex marriage is about protecting the Caucasian race and making sure that white people reproduce to keep the balance of power tipped in their favor.
An African-American poll worker known only as ‘Michael’ first reported the incident to Nance and others also came forward to tell what they heard. According to Nance, “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.”
Nance then sought to clear the matter up with Brunstetter, giving her chance to explain. Brunstetter confirmed that she said ‘Caucasians,’ but she couldn’t explain why she said it after being pressed. She claims her statements were taken out of context.
Here’s the transcript via Yes! Weekly Blog. Note: Nance intends to release a video of this conversation soon.
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.”
BRUNSTETTER: ”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 founded 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.”
NANCE: ”You didn’t tell that one lady that it was to preserve the Caucasian race because they were becoming a minority?”
NANCE: “She’s lying?”
BRUNSTETTER: ”No. It’s just that same sex marriages are not having children.”
NANCE: “Yeah, but you didn’t say anything about Caucasians, white people, preserving them that’s why it was written?”
BRUNSTETTER: ”No I’m afraid they have made it a racial issue when it is not.”
NANCE: ”She didn’t say it was a racial issue. She said that you had said that part 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?”
BRUNSTETTER: ”I probably said the word.”
NANCE: “You didn’t tell her anything about Caucasians?”
NANCE: ”I want you to clear it up if you could.”
BRUNSTETTER: “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.”
NANCE: “Did you say anything about Caucasians?”
BRUNSTETTER: “If I did it wasn’t anything race related.”
NANCE: “But it is about identifying a race. No context on Caucasians?”
BRUNSTETTER: “There has been so much talk about this point that there is just a lot of confusion.”
NANCE: “You’re not going to be able to explain it?”
BRUNSTETTER: ”Well, it’s a little hard.”
So first, Brunstetter denies she said what she’s being accused of saying, blaming the poll workers for taking her words out of context. Then she admits to using the word ‘Caucasian’ which is in fact a racial term. Caucasians ARE white people. Then Brunstetter tries to explain away her saying the word by claiming she has heat stroke. Isn’t that convenient? When that doesn’t fly, she tries again, badly, to talk he way out of the situation by claiming confusion and that she didn’t say it in a racial way and that giving an actual explanation is hard. Wow, really? It’s hard to explain why the word ‘Caucasian’ was used in remarks to opponents of the anti-same sex marriage amendment?
Here’s the video:
I’ve heard many Republican politicians and candidates talk about why same-sex marriage needs to be banned. Never once did any of those politicians use the word ‘Caucasian’ in their explanations. If Brunstetter’s remark wasn’t racial, why not explain why she used the word in the first place. It’s not like she was asked to explain remarks she made a week ago, she was asked about remarks she made just a few minutes before. It should be easy to recall why such a peculiar word was used about why same-sex marriage needs to be banned. But Jodie Brunstetter either can’t explain or she won’t. If she did indeed say that banning same-sex marriage is about protecting the white race, it makes Amendment 1 a racial as well as an equality issue. If you are a Republican, this hurts your crusade because most African-Americans tend to oppose. By making this same-sex marriage ban a white power issue, it could cause African-Americans to vote against Amendment 1. If Jodie Brunstetter just spilled the beans about why Republicans are pursuing the banning of same-sex marriage, the GOP is in deep trouble.