“Two years ago the Supreme Court insisted that marriage was a policy decision that properly belonged to the states, but today they have imposed a redefinition of marriage nationwide. This decision undermines the ability of states to set public policy within their borders as voters in North Carolina overwhelmingly did in 2012. I’m also extremely concerned about the threat this ruling poses to the conscience rights of people and organizations who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. I will do everything in my power to defend these rights and protect the sacred institution of marriage.”Knowing the representative's personal history, it makes my skin crawl uncontrollably to see her evoking "the sacred institution of marriage," not to mention her feeding her constituents the steady diet of ignorance she's known for. The Supreme Court decision yesterday did not redefine marriage. It merely made the old definition available to everyone. The only redefinition is going on in the fantastical brains of Foxx's devoted followers.
This is the woman who once upon a time checked a box on a candidate survey indicating that she was in favor of gay adoption. That was then. Her benighted Fifth District of NC needs different nourishment now.
One response to her statement on the High Country Press website deserves reprinting here:
Joseph W Dickson · Following · Top Commenter · Director of Kung-Fu Style Butt Whoopinsat LLoyd's Butt Whoopins and Hair Care CenterOK Rep. Foxx... we get it. You don't believe that the inalienable rights as defined in the U.S. Constitution should apply to everyone. You believe that the beliefs and rights of some should trump the rights of others. As you're an educated woman, I'll assume you're aware of world history. You should know then, that throughout world history, many rulers and countries have made efforts to carve out subsections of the general citizenry they find displeasing. These leaders and countries have then relegated these people to a status where they have fewer rights than those able to access all available rights and liberties. You will not find a single instance of this where the result has not been later seen as a willful violation of human rights. Often it has ended in horrific oppression, suffering, and genocide. Yet, as a representative of the people, elected to fight for that which will bring your constituents freedom, liberty, and prosperity, you advocate for the same oppression history has shown to be so destructive. You argue on behalf of those who would use their beliefs to relegate others to a position unequal to your own. In essence, you do not represent all of your constituents... you only represent those with whom you find yourself in agreement. You publicly advocate to strip some of your very own constituents of those rights and liberties you are sworn to defend and uphold. One day, far in the future, history may well count you alongside other leaders who sought to oppress some for the pleasure of others.