Monday, April 30, 2012

Winston-Salem Journal LTE MO 04/30/12


Wright is qualified
I am baffled as to the reason the Journal could find no candidate out of five Republicans to endorse for N.C. state auditor ("Council of State endorsements," April 16). The Journal declines endorsement based on "reasons of ideology and lack of qualifications." Did the Journal contact any of the candidates concerning ideology or is it a matter of Republican ideology in general?
Having been a CPA for 35 years, I want to point out that my friend, Rudy Wright, presently mayor of Hickory, has 24 years of auditing experience with one of the largest accounting firms in the world and then 17 years as founder/operator of an independent business. The Journal did not contact Rudy Wright concerning his ideology or qualifications.
We need to be careful about prematurely characterizing and cataloging individuals in the political spectrum.
I believe Rudy, having passed the CPA examination in 1970, may be the most qualified candidate to ever run for N.C. state auditor.
BRYSON KISER
Hickory
What it means
What does a "Yes" vote for Amendment One mean? It means that we can choose to believe in God's word and keep our state of North Carolina from becoming another Sodom and Gomorrah.
This is not a Republican verses a Democrat issue. It is a natural plan from God for life and reproduction verses a lie by Satan to distort and deceive. A vote to keep marriage between one man and one woman is a vote to believe in God. Choose God and vote "Yes" for Amendment One.
JERRY BRINKLEY
Lexington
For Bost
In considering the three open seats in the 2012 Forsyth County commissioners race, one choice is very clear: John Bost.
After having been acquainted with John for 18 years professionally, as a neighbor and through civic activities, I know he will bring a multi-faceted set of skills to his seat on the commission. Those include integrity, compassion, budget management, a consensus-building mind-set and a keen eye to smart growth.
Those are just the set of skills we need in our leaders as Forsyth County deals with the economic realities of the early 21st century.
My vote will be for John Bost, and I trust yours will be as well.
BOBBY W. PATTERSON
Clemmons
Colson's visit here
I still remember the talk Charles Colson gave here in Winston-Salem ("Watergate figure Colson dies at 80," April 22). David Burr made the arrangements and the church was packed to hear his words.
Columnist Michael Gerson is correct in saying that Colson was a powerful preacher ("Finding freedom in prison," April 25). The theme of his talk made a big impact upon me which I still carry today.
BOB FAULWETTER
Pfafftown
Cutting college costs
More college graduates than ever are jobless and have mounting student debt, but President Obama is encouraging more student debt — just less expensive debt.
Any student wanting to attend college can do so debt-free — even get paid. The program is called ROTC. One has to be a good student and enter a field of study the government deems critical — and then serve one's country a few years in return for the investment in the student's future.
It probably won't work for humanities, gender studies or ancient literature. However, these are exactly the majors where lots of debt is incurred and no jobs are found. Are we doing students a favor to let them incur debt for a degree with little employment potential?
Other ways to cut the cost of college:
Attend the first two years at a community college — we have excellent ones here, and students have time to mature, discover and appreciate their education.
Work as a resident adviser and receive free room and board.
Troll Fastweb.com for scholarship opportunities — many are available once a student has been proven college material, and professors are more than happy to refer good students for awards.
Lastly, chose a major in STEM: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. There are plenty of jobs in these fields that justify taking on debt to complete such a degree.
Debt requires a return on investment. Not all college degrees will provide that return, and there needs to be truth in student-loan lending.
MARY McCANDLES
Winston-Salem
Why to oppose it
I find it incomprehensible that a certain segment of society claims that too much government is a major problem (remember "we need government off our backs and out of our way"?) yet wants to restrict who can vote (voter ID) and supports a law that requires a woman who wants or needs an abortion to listen to their lecture (they called this a woman's "right to know" while opposing the teaching of evolution). They also want to force all school children to say a pledge to our flag the way they have it written. (One contributor to this forum even implied that those who don't should be beaten.)
Now this same crowd is in favor of the so-called defense of marriage amendment. I can think of a number of reasons to oppose this amendment, but the fact that this unreasoning (and unreasonable?) group is for it is enough.
PAUL D. WHITSON
Advance
Spelling it out
The writer of the letter, "Who really protects families" (April 23), trying to appear clear-headed and practical, writes: "Voting yes to the marriage amendment allows marriage to be defined as between one man and one woman. Nothing discriminatory there. Nothing harming family values."
Now I see why some people support the amendment: They don't understand the English language.
So let's spell it out: Implementing a law that keeps some people from having the same rights as other people is by definition discriminatory. And threatening children's insurance benefits and even their custody status harms family values.
Proponents of this bill insist that it has nothing to do with civil rights even as they deny the civil rights of gay people. They insist it has nothing to do with hate even as they attack gay people. And, obviously, they say it doesn't discriminate even while it discriminates against gay people.
Someone should hand out dictionaries.
I suppose it must be explained to them that allowing same-sex marriage is not the same thing asrequiring or even endorsing same-sex marriage. No one will be required to marry someone of the same sex. Nor will anyone have to stop being married because other people get to.
I swear, I don't know why people get so upset over the idea of equality.
This is how the English language works: Words have meanings. The proponents of the marriage amendment are doing their best to obscure that fact.
SARAH KISER
Winston-Salem
Protecting religious freedom
I urge my fellow North Carolinians to join me in voting against Amendment One.
As numerous legislators and lawyers have pointed out, this legislation threatens to harm all unmarried couples, their children and especially unmarried women seeking legal protection from domestic violence, in addition to constitutionally enacting discrimination against same-sex couples.
Supporters of this amendment claim that it protects religious freedom. It does not. With or without such legislation, no clergy person is obligated to conduct a wedding ceremony that is against their beliefs or judgment. Religious denominations and individuals may refuse the rites of marriage to couples for any reason.
For example, as a member of the clergy, I might think that a couple is unready for marriage, disagree with the couple's attitudes and beliefs or think that the two people are not well suited to one another.
My judgments might be wrong and even arbitrary, but existing law protects my conscience and choice, wise or not.
But religious rites are not the same as legal rights. Advocates of the amendment persistently cite biblical grounds as a reason for denying marital rights to same-sex couples.
Religious scholars and clergy disagree over the interpretations and relevance of those texts. However, even if they all agreed, the state of North Carolina is not a church or a religious body.
The government, which grants rights and privileges to some residents based on marital status while prohibiting others from marrying, should not act as an arm of religious authority or discrimination.
ANDREW VOGEL ETTIN
Pfafftown
A fresh approach
As an active member of the Realtor community and former elected official for the Town of Kernersville, I would like to personally encourage a vote for Glenn Cobb as he pursues House District 74. Times have changed and it is more important than ever to have level-headed, energetic, business-friendly representatives to do our work in Raleigh.
It is time for a fresh approach and for us to get a representative who reflects our values and knows how to get things done. All three candidates are conservative, hence a Republican primary; but only Glenn has the experience and ability to work with varying sides and opinions to actually get something accomplished, not just talk, write or wish about it.
The N.C. Legislature is a tough place and we need someone to get tough in order to bring issues that affect our community to light and to find resolution.
Being divisive no longer works, bickering and bullying is tiring the voting constituency; so vote for a candidate who is positive and has proven, time and time again, his can-do attitude.
Vote Glenn Cobb for House 74.
BROOKE CASHION
Winston-Salem
Time to act
For those who believe that Amendment One is harmful to North Carolina, misuses the constitution to take away rather than ensure the rights of many individuals, or does nothing to protect all families in North Carolina, then the most important action they can take between now and May 8 is to go to the polls and vote "No." And encourage at least five people to do the same.
It's that simple. Staying silent or sitting this one out are no longer options in the face of something that is so divisive, discriminatory and morally wrong.
SYLVIA OBERLE
Winston-Salem
A friend of Elisabeth Motsinger
I call Elisabeth Motsinger a friend. I don't think I could have asked for a better one, because she truly is a caring and genuine person. Elisabeth is running for the U.S. House of Representatives, and I believe it is a job at which she will excel.
She has stood firmly in opposition to Amendment One because she believes that the constitution should only give rights, not take them away.
She has served the community as not only a physician's assistant, but also as a member of the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School Board, and I believe she has served us well.
She believes that all people have inherent worth and deserve dignity and respect. I believe that she will represent the people of the 5th District in a way that will make her constituents proud.
I will be voting against Amendment One and for Elisabeth Motsinger on May 8.
BRANTLEY MARSHALL
Clemmons
A limited and narrow understanding
Reacting to the April 24 letter "It's not about discrimination," I must state first that the letter doesshow hatred and discrimination.
The writer does not seem to understand, still, that God did not write the Bible. He (or She) inspired "visionary" people who had limited and narrow understanding of the needs of the time. It is therefore that women were left out and the writings were saturated with exaggerations and misinterpretations still valid in the minds of many people.
I'm captivated by the fact that the writer seems to believe that only homosexuals engage in oral sex (or sodomy for that matter), and that he piously prays for those who need to change that "different persuasion" because he cares so much for their souls.
The writer should carefully review what Amendment One is all about.
CARLOS E. JIMENEZ
Winston-Salem
Children of God
I am a person of Faith. These things are important to me:
  • The inherent worth and dignity of every human being.
  • The acceptance of each other's individuality and diversity as a source of strength.
  • The responsible search for truth and meaning as a never-ending commitment.
  • A loving, just and caring community in which we can grow spiritually and personally.
I am voting against Amendment One because I believe we are all children of God. A gay relationship has absolutely no bearing on the quality of my marriage or my family.
This amendment uses a minority to excuse the high rate of divorce and dysfunction in families. I suppose we have to blame someone because it is very difficult to recognize and accept responsibility for our own shortcomings and fears.
"Judge not less ye be judged." God forgive us if this amendment passes.
BARBARA EDWARDS
Clemmons
Posted by at 17 comments:

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Winston-Salem Journal LTE SU 04/29/12


No political theater
In one of his recent sermons, the Rev. Ron Baity challenged the conventional wisdom that perversion is irreversible. He reported shaking hands with a young man who had abandoned the homosexual lifestyle.
How many more such conversions could have occurred if Baity had not allowed himself to be sidetracked attaching mottos to the outside of buildings and convincing politicians that their constituents were incapable of doing their own praying?
What matters is what's in men's hearts, not what's on some scrap of paper. Traditional marriage needs no artificial support.
The homosexual onslaught will proceed unabated as long as men like Baity occupy themselves with political theater instead of tending to business.
The marriage amendment is a dangerous diversion. I will be voting against it.
BARNEY W. HILL
Thomasville
Stop the confusion
I was amazed when the term "Amendment One" started appearing on signs and bumper stickers all over. Previously it was called "the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage." That was too long for a bumper sticker.
The problem with "Amendment One" is that it does not exist. The ballot, produced by the N.C. State Board of Elections, does not associate a number with the only amendment under consideration. If there were an Amendment One, there would be an Amendment Two. There is not.
Why are the opponents using these terms? Why are they afraid of the word "marriage" and continue to avoid using it? The word "marriage" has always meant the union of man and woman. It is associated with so many hopes and dreams, much happiness and with children, a bright future. It's hard to criticize and be against "marriage."
We are not voting against anything on May 8. We are voting for the marriage amendment to keep marriage between one man and one woman and not redefined. Marriage has historically been reserved for the male-female union because (if you notice) it is the only union that naturally produces the next generation. It seems like the opponents want to play word games in an effort to confuse the voters. In so doing, people who support traditional marriage are ridiculed and called bigots.
Make sure you are paying attention: Vote for the marriage amendment to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
BEVERLY LUNG
Walkertown
Ramsey is right
Frequently, folks ask me, as a practicing and litigating attorney, for my recommendations in judicial elections. Although most of the candidates this time around would make good District Court judges, I suggest that they vote for Richard "Dick" Ramsey. He has been a hard-working, ethical, fair-minded and innovative courtroom lawyer for several decades.
His high-caliber representation of individuals in all of our state courts constitutes a wealth of experience ideal for a sitting courtroom judge. Often he has used his professional skills to keep overly aggressive district attorneys or powerful institutions from trampling on his clients. He has done his part to maintain our American system of justice.
Ramsey is likely to render fair decisions based upon the evidence and the governing law. Just as importantly, Ramsey can be expected to treat all parties, witnesses, citizens and lawyers with genuine respect. Broad experience, fairness and respect: you can't beat that combination in a judge.
Richard Ramsey would make a great District Court judge.
DAVID B. HOUGH
Winston-Salem
Down a slippery slope
Opponents of the marriage amendment (which upholds the one man, one woman universal standard of marriage) have done a disingenuous yet effective job of attaching heinous and hate-filled labels onto anyone who believes in that institution and dares to say so. Knowing that I will now be called heaven knows what, I must nonetheless say that dismantling the definition of marriage as mankind has always known it will fix nothing. The argument to do so is purely political and should surprise no one.
There are better ways to deal with seeming inequities than to destroy the blueprint of society's relational cornerstone. On the day marriage begins to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it will become meaningless. Unfortunately, this is the stated intention of some, and should that day come to pass, we will have taken the first big step down a slope too slippery for us to claw our way back.
Please vote "Yes" on the N.C. marriage amendment, and realize that our intention is not to devalue anyone but to take a stand for marriage.
RUTH A. MAGERS
Lewisville
The state and marriage
I'm not gay; I'm not married; and I'm not Christian. I don't know what Jesus or Moses or Muhammad or Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster or others whose religious philosophies guide the spirituality of members of our citizenry thought or said about the institution of marriage. Thus, I may be qualified to speak about the proposed amendment to the N.C. constitution regarding gay marriage.
This divisive issue, like so many others, seems to be one in which winning is more important to each side than reaching an inclusive accommodation. All should stop and ask a basic question: What business is it of the state (as opposed to religious institutions) who gets married? Marriage fundamentally is a religious matter. If one religion, or one church within a faith, prohibits gays or lesbians or others from marrying, so be it. Those who are prohibited in one place may find another place, acceptable to them, in which they may marry.
The state should be, and is, interested in legal matters, such as who may inherit, who is responsible for maintaining whom, who may adopt, who may visit in hospitals, who should get tax deductions or be able to file jointly. I have not heard one persuasive argument that gays should not be able to participate equally in these civil matters, and our state and federal laws should accommodate gays in these regards.
The proposed amendment should be defeated, and the state's relationship to marriage should be severed.
GUY M. BLYNN
Winston-Salem
Inherently discriminatory
Contrary to what supporters of Amendment One have said, this issue is not simply about defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This is how the bill reads: "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
A "yes" vote will approve this measure. A "no" vote will strike this measure down. So, what does approval of this measure mean? Domestic partnerships will no longer be recognized. Neither will common-law marriage if it is not supported by an official document from the state. It doesn't matter if you're "one man and one woman"; you must have an official document. This is inherently discriminatory.
Why does it matter if a marriage is recognized by the state? First and foremost, there are at least 13 categories of statutes that require marriage for extension or transfer of legal rights. These include federal benefits for civilian or military service, medical care, burial rights, property transfers to surviving spouses, social security and claims to child custody. For illustrative purposes, if a "significant other" is killed in combat while serving in the military, none of these benefits will transfer unless the state officially recognizes the relationship. It's not just gay couples that will suffer from this arrangement, but they will certainly suffer most. Is this really the way we want to treat our neighbors?
WALTER WIGGINS
Winston-Salem
A direct assault
Thanks to the Winston-Salem City Council for deliberating further on submitting a proposal against Amendment One ("Bond package won't go on ballot," April 24). After reviewing the contents of this proposed amendment, I am convinced that it is a direct assault on our First Amendment rights. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Do we really want the General Assembly of North Carolina acting in lieu of Congress by promoting an idea based on a religious imposition on its citizens? Most of the public appeal of this proposed amendment is directed toward the people of faith. Sadly, that appeal is limited and is based on fear instead of transparency.
As a person of faith, I have chosen a path of life freely based on my conscience, which is supported by the First Amendment. The proposed Amendment One insults my intelligence. I appeal to your readers to read the entire amendment and let their conscience direct them. My conscience has concluded to vote against Amendment One.
FLEMING EL-AMIN
Winston-Salem
Posted by at 10 comments:

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Winston-Salem Journal LTE SA 04/28/12


Experience in governing
We are voting for Elisabeth Motsinger for the 5th Congressional District in the May 8 Democratic Party primary. We have known Elisabeth Motsinger for over 25 years as a fellow parent, as a member of the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County school board and as a church member.
We are voting for her because she has experience in governing, because she listens to what others have to say and because she is fair-minded. We believe that she is well informed, is a problem solver and is not afraid to speak her mind.
Elisabeth Motsinger is genuinely concerned about the well-being of all people and will work hard for the common good. Vote for Elisabeth Motsinger and she will work for all of us.
CAROLINE AND JEFF ERSOFF
Lewisville
The bedrock principles
I am grieved that our country has moved so far from the bedrock principles that have made us great. The notion of redefining marriage to allow two men or two women to be legally married is foreign both to our history and our nature. This is not a civil-rights issue, but an issue of losing our way.
The health of the family is an indicator of the health of the society. Families are indeed broken in our country, but redefining marriage is not the way to strengthen families. I am voting for the marriage amendment not because I am a homophobe, but because I believe it is the correct definition of marriage and it is what is best for our country.
Call me a bigot, intolerant or whatever label you choose, but I stand firm on the concept that marriage is ordained by God as the union between a man and a woman. I will be voting "for" on May 8 but with a very heavy heart. We are reaping what we have sown.
SUZANNE REED
Winston-Salem
The law isn't enough
Amendment One is nothing more than writing bigotry and oppression into the North Carolina constitution to control yet another segment of the population. It is currently illegal for gay and lesbian citizens to marry, but the law isn't enough for the righteous fundamentalists and their preachers.
They know that the law can and will be overturned and they also know there is no reason it shouldn't be. Marriage in church by a minister isn't necessary; an individual's marriage must be done in accordance to state and federal laws.
God and the church do not make a wedding legal. I didn't need and still don't need church approval for my wedding in 2005.
They say they are protecting marriage — from what? Is it from gay and lesbian couples who will show them up on how to stay married, to actually work out their problems and raise well-adjusted children, children who are caring, understanding and open to others who are different? Are they afraid that their world of controlling through oppression by fear is coming to an end, that their beliefs are being questioned?
Remember separate but equal, segregation, Jim Crow, when it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry? These practices kept people in such unbelievable and unbearable fear, kept them in their place, and it was wrong. This amendment is wrong and should be seen for what it is, oppressive, bigoted and unnecessary in a civilized society.
KELVIN R. WANNAMAKER
Winston-Salem
We can be a beacon
North Carolina has a chance to stand alone as the unequaled state from the old South to reject constitutional tinkering that limits the right of our fellows to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by opposing Amendment One.
Our country hasn't amended our constitution toward such an aim. We have a chance to be kind and simply decent. It's my most fervent hope and prayer that we will rise to become the beacon of leadership during dark times by rejecting Amendment One.
GUY NEAL WILLIAMS
Winston-Salem
The welfare of children
In the April 20 letter "The basic building block," stating support for Amendment One, the writer said that evidence shows that "children do best when raised by their married mother and father in a low-conflict marriage." She concluded by saying that "children need both a mom and a dad."
According to this logic, has she encouraged her legislators to introduce a constitutional amendment banning divorce? With the current divorce rate standing at 50 percent, why are people not more concerned with the effects of divorce on the welfare of children rather than the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples?
I am familiar with several families with same-sex parents, and in every case, these parents provide the low-conflict, loving environment in which their children are thriving emotionally.
The devastating outcomes that the writer says will result from children who are not raised by a mother and a father (suicide, teenage pregnancy, academic difficulties, emotional problems, etc.) are much more likely to occur in families with divorced parents, but I have not heard of an amendment to ban divorce.
The logic is not there for this argument; please vote against Amendment One to demonstrate North Carolina's commitment to the civil rights of our citizens.
LOUISE COOPER
Todd
Repeating talking points
"We're not discriminating," the proponents of Amendment One say. "We just want to formally define marriage." But as they define marriage in such a way that it leaves out gay people, they do discriminate.
None of their arguments hold water. "One man, one woman," is not the eternal definition of marriage; it's not even the biblical definition of marriage. Nor is marriage solely a Christian concept; every civilization has had some form of marriage.
The Leviticus "abomination" argument is an example of selective, bigoted hypocrisy, when the verses surrounding it are ignored, as they are. Every assertion that marriage is a wonderful institution that benefits society is an argument for gay marriage, not against it.
They've already heard these responses, but they keep repeating the same talking points as if the responses mean nothing.
Why? Because this is all they've got.
I've never known a fundamentalist or a bigot who changed his or her mind when presented with reason. These letters aren't going to change anyone's mind.
But I hope that voters who realize the harm this amendment will cause will step up to the plate and come out on or before May 8 to vote it down. It is truly evil.
ANGELA M. MYERS
Winston-Salem
The only moral thing
I voted early, on April 20, and cast my vote unquestionably against Amendment One.
All it took was a little empathy, rational thinking and the philosophical concept of Occam's razor.
I imagined myself in other folk's shoes and sensed that their individual liberties are as important as mine. I rationally realized that extended others the same liberties that I have doesn't take anything away from anyone else. I also recalled that the simplest solution is usually the best one and there's no need to complicate things by appealing to ancient books or authorities, perceived higher or otherwise. It was crystal clear to me that it was the only moral thing to do.
Besides, I was a little afraid to relinquish my thinking to some other person or authority. They could tell me that a bride discovered not to be a virgin on her wedding night must be stoned to death on her daddy's doorstep.
Not to mention, the same unfathomable punishment could be proclaimed for adulterers, people who work on Sundays, rebellious children and a host of other imaginary crimes.
Who would want to do that? I wouldn't want to do that.
LARRY J. SANDERS
Dobson
Cast the first vote
If we, as Christians, do not vote against the amendment to the North Carolina constitution, then in my opinion, we do not believe in the love that Jesus taught us to have for others.
When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, he transcended the boundaries of gender, race, culture and behavior. He also said, in another passage, "In Christ there is no male nor female."
Should we believe that those who were born with different genes from us, who do not have normal feelings for the opposite sex, should be deprived of rights that others receive? I suppose if this handicap is a sin, they must believe other types of handicaps, such as being crippled, deaf or blind, is a sin and those who suffer with them should not have the same rights.
Since we are all sinners, then why are we standing in judgment of someone else's sins? OK, you folks without sin can throw the first stone, Oh, I mean, cast the first vote for the amendment.
NAOMI J. DAVIS
Winston-Salem
Posted by at 37 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)