Wife Of NC Amendment One Supporter: Husband Wrote Bill To Preserve ‘Caucasian Race’
7:11 pm - 05/02/2012
The wife of a sponsor of North Carolina’s Amendment One, a proposed change to the state’s constitution that would ensure legal recognition only for marriage between a man and a woman, reportedly offered an eyebrow-raising explanation for her husband’s support of the measure.
Jodie Brunstetter, the wife of state Sen. Peter Brunstetter (R), has found herself embroiled in controversy after suggesting that her husband’s role in writing the bill — which passed the Republican-controlled general assembly last fall — was racially motivated.
According to the alternative Yes! Weekly, which picked up the remarks from freelance journalist and activist Chad Nance, Jodie Brunstetter told a poll worker in Winston-Salem, N.C. Monday that the reason her husband “wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.”
Nance had been volunteering for a group opposed to Amendment One while also serving as a campaign manager for Matt Newton, a U.S. House candidate in North Carolina’s 12th Congressional district. After a dispute with the candidate over his decision to make Jodie Brunstetter’s remarks public, Nance resigned from Newton’s campaign.
Nance ultimately approached Jodie Brunstetter for clarification and he chronicled the exchange on video. Throughout the conversation, she offers often-convoluted responses to Nance’s questions and even admits to invoking race in her original remarks, although she insists that they were taken out of context. Yes!
Weekly has obtained and published the transcript:
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 America 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.
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:
Yeam 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 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?
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.
North Carolina will vote on Amendment One on May 8, with polls showing that it is likely to pass. State Sen. Peter Brunstetter did not respond to TPM’s request for comment.
Source
Jodie Brunstetter, the wife of state Sen. Peter Brunstetter (R), has found herself embroiled in controversy after suggesting that her husband’s role in writing the bill — which passed the Republican-controlled general assembly last fall — was racially motivated.
According to the alternative Yes! Weekly, which picked up the remarks from freelance journalist and activist Chad Nance, Jodie Brunstetter told a poll worker in Winston-Salem, N.C. Monday that the reason her husband “wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.”
Nance had been volunteering for a group opposed to Amendment One while also serving as a campaign manager for Matt Newton, a U.S. House candidate in North Carolina’s 12th Congressional district. After a dispute with the candidate over his decision to make Jodie Brunstetter’s remarks public, Nance resigned from Newton’s campaign.
Nance ultimately approached Jodie Brunstetter for clarification and he chronicled the exchange on video. Throughout the conversation, she offers often-convoluted responses to Nance’s questions and even admits to invoking race in her original remarks, although she insists that they were taken out of context. Yes!
Weekly has obtained and published the transcript:
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 America 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.
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:
Yeam 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 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?
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.
North Carolina will vote on Amendment One on May 8, with polls showing that it is likely to pass. State Sen. Peter Brunstetter did not respond to TPM’s request for comment.
Source
Well, except for all the ones that are. Artificial insemination and surrogacy, how do they work? (Lesbians, what are they?)
And I'm sorry, but the "I may have said the word, but it was totally at random! I was confused!" doesn't really help her case any.
Brunsetter: If I did it wasn’t anything race related.
Heaven forbid! The human race will clearly die out because of this obvious travesty!
Stop being shitheels, honestly, it's getting beyond tired.
A child could even be taken away from a parent who has taken care of them their entire life if something happens to the other parent, would take away domestic violence protections for all unmarried people and could lead to the convictions of their abusers being overturned.
It would automatically strip health benefits from unmarried people who receive coverage through their partners, including people with severe pre-existing conditions.
It would interfere with the right of unmarried couples to visit one another in the hospital and to make emergency medical and financial decisions if one partner is incapacitated. It would also invalidate certain trusts, wills and end-of-life directives. Any seniors wanting to keep these legal protections would be forced to marry, which could cause them to lose their pension, health care and Social Security benefits.
People need to get their heads on right and learn the full extent of what is covered when they put their support behind something.
I see no reason to doubt this logic, because I know that when the amendment banning gay marriage passed in my own state, I immediately stopped being gay, found a man, and made babies!
Edited at 2012-05-03 01:13 am (UTC)
Why? Republicans tell me being a minority in america is awesome.
Edited at 2012-05-03 02:54 am (UTC)
Can I invoke Godwin's Law now? What about Vichy? Is there a law about comparing things to Vichy France?
Because, you can say the word and it's not race-related.
????
In those moments, I just say "caucasian" to deflect the awkwardness. Works like a charm and makes me sound like a nice individual who everyone wants to talk to.