The wife of a prominent North Carolina state senator and supporter of Amendment 1 — a proposed ballot initiative that would outlaw same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships in the state — claimed earlier this week that her husband advocated for the measure to protect the “Caucasian” race.

Jodie Brunstetter, the wife of North Carolina state Sen. Peter Brunstetter, made the remarks “outside the early voting site at the Forsyth County Government Center in downtown Winston-Salem” while speaking to voters, Chad Nance, a Winston-Salem freelance journalist, reports. Nance heard about Jodie’s comments from an African-American poll worker who allegedly overheard Brunstetter say, “The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.”

Asked to clarify her statement, Brunstetter reluctantly confirmed that she did in fact use the phrase “Caucasian”:

BRUNSTETTER: [P]eople 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? That’s what an old lady down the block told us.

BRUNSTETTER: No, no.

NANCE: You didn’t say that? She’s lying?

BRUNSTETTER: No. It’s just that same sex marriages are not having children. [...]

NANCE: You didn’t say anything about Caucasians?

BRUNSTETTER: I probably said the word.

NANCE: In reference to….? You didn’t tell her anything about Caucasians? …

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 so there has been a lot of conversation going back and forth…. Right now I have some heat stroke going on. I’m not quite sure now. Because there has been lots of confusion.

NANCE: So you did or did not say anything about Caucasians?

BRUNSTETTER: If I did it wasn’t anything race related.

Watch it:

Responding to his wife’s comments, Sen. Brunstetter told ThinkProgress, “I know my wife does not think like that,” but admitted that “She got very flustered (she is not a political person) and then someone came up to her and started shooting questions at her. She noticed later that there was someone video taping without her knowledge.”

“My wife is one of the sweetest, most genuine people you will ever meet,” he added. “Her convictions on the marriage amendment are spiritual in nature, not racial. The individual in question had been quite abusive and intimidating. The Amendment is not racially motivated, is quite simple and straightforward and, in fact, is widely supported in many areas of the African American community.”

Jodie told the Winston-Salem Journal, “I seriously don’t remember.” “There was quite a bit of conversation … the reasons for the amendment is for there to be marriage between a man and a woman and it does not matter what race.”

Amendment 1, which goes to a vote on May 8, has already divided the African American community between leaders who argue that the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior and those who maintain that religious interpretations should not influence civil laws. The comments by Mrs. Brunstetter will likely interject more racial division into the debate.

For ThinkProgress’ full coverage of Amendment 1, click here.

Jeremy Hooper points out that almost all of the top donors supporting North Carolina’s discriminatory Amendment One, which limits what relationships the state can recognize, are from radically conservative religiously-affiliated groups. It’s true that opponents of the measure have raised twice as much money, but it’s telling that they have raised four times as much money from individual donors. Over 70 percent of Vote FOR Marriage NC’s campaign fundraising has comes from Religious Right institutional support. By contrast, about 62 percent of Protect All NC Families’ fundraising has come from individual donors.

Joe Jervis notes that Phil Drake, the third’s most generous donor, owns a conservative Christian radio station and bookstore. AMDG Medical is not a religious organization, but it is known to have Catholic ties in its other giving. And the National Organization for Marriage is religious in everything but name, run almost entirely by Catholic Right figures with daily blog posts defending against “attacks” on Christianity. The American Family Association makes no effort to downplay its radically conservative, anti-LGBT religious mission.

Add to this context the fact that all of Vote FOR Marriage NC’s ads have included references to “Biblical” marriage, and it’s clear that the entire Amendment One campaign is about writing far-right religious dogma into North Carolina’s constitution. Watch two of the campaign’s recent ads:

JoeMyGod brings us this video of a North Carolina man shooting a “Vote Against On Amendment 1 On May 8″ sign in his neighbor’s yard urging residents to oppose amending the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. The user has apparently attempted to take down the video, but YouTube users have preserved it:

Joe reports that he has “spoken to the Kannopolis, North Carolina police department and they are looking into what will be classified a crime if the shotgun was fired onto property that includes a home or business.”

The heated campaign has created anger and resentment on both sides, with opponents and supporters of Amendment 1 vandalizing signs, although this shooting takes these actions to another level.

North Carolina Rep. Jim Crawford (D) was one of 10 Democrats who voted in favor of placing Amendment One on the May 8 ballot, a measure that would ban not only same-sex marriage, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships. He sponsored an almost identical amendment in 2009, and co-sponsored a similar amendment in 2010. Now, though, he says he opposes the measure because “it goes too far” and claims he never favored the version that passed:

CRAWFORD: When this legislation was introduced, it did not have the contract problems that the bill has now, and I told Elaine the other day that I would vote against this bill because it does go too far. I think it’s only right that these folks [same-sex couples] can have a contract or an agreement so that they can look after each other in the hospitals, have insurance, and the other benefits. The legislation that has my name on it — it got changed considerably, and I would not support that legislation and I would definitely vote against it.

Watch him change his position in response to a recent confrontation with a lesbian constituent:

Given that Crawford voted for the amendment in its final form, he bears responsibility for all the changes that were made to it. His past support for banning same-sex marriage suggests his sudden flip-flop has little to do with an actual change of heart. Due to redistricting, Crawford faces a Democratic primary against fellow incumbent Rep. Winkie Wilkins (D), who voted against Amendment One. This is little more than political pandering from a well-documented opponent of LGBT equality.