The basic building block
Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is uniquely for the common good and serves as the basic building block of a civilized and productive society. Marriage benefits men and women, their children, our economy and the state as a whole. It is not just a private contract; it is a social institution of great public importance.
Do not be blinded; while we currently have laws in place defining the marriage contract, a law or statute can be easily overturned by a state court. We have witnessed this happening in both Iowa and Connecticut. We know that a state law does not offer protection from an activist court. No state court can overturn a provision embedded in the state constitution.
By protecting marriage in our state constitution, as 30 other states have already done, we will ensure that we the people, not legislators or activist judges, permanently secure the definition of marriage in our state.
Social science gives evidence that children do best when raised by their married mother and father in a low-conflict marriage. They experience less poverty, commit far fewer suicides and far fewer crimes. They are half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, develop better academically and socially, and are healthier physically and emotionally when they become adults. In short, children need both a mom and a dad.
Cast your vote for traditional marriage. Our children and the children of the future are counting on us!
ANNE CARTY
Winston-Salem
A serious negative impact
We are writing to add our support for voting on May 8 against the proposed Amendment One. In addition to the inequity and discrimination regarding same-sex marriage, the amendment also has the potential to have a serious negative impact on domestic-violence protection for unmarried couples, child custody and visitation, end-of-life directives and domestic-partnership benefits for public employees.
People who vote for this amendment may not intend to discriminate, however, the impact of such a vote is discriminatory.
Vote for fairness: Vote against Amendment One on May 8!
ELLEN AND MICHAEL BETTMANN
Winston-Salem
On voter ID
I disagree with the April 14 letter "False indignation." Just because the writer disagrees with the April 7 letter "Require voter ID" doesn't mean that writer was disingenuous; he is most likely very sincerely concerned that voter fraud could occur and he wants to protect the vote (though considering this issue along with Amendment One, it does seem more and more like "protect" is conservative code for "keep others from having").
I think there are valid concerns on both sides. But to me, the deciding factor is that the people with whom voter-ID laws originated were very clearly and admittedly interested in keeping valid voters from voting. It's there in black and white from ALEC founder Paul Weyrich, who said, "I don't want everybody to vote. … As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
So while ALEC associates can make their supporters think that the threat of voter fraud is prevalent, the truth is that it is a drummed-up fear.
Those who fear voter fraud aren't disingenuous — they're just gullible. But gullibility has won more than one election.
BEVERLY M. BURTON
Winston-Salem
What they had to say
It occurred to me that the people in the group "Vote for Marriage NC" must have good reasons for supporting Amendment One. So I watched their seven-minute video on YouTube to see what they actually had to say.
Within the first 30 seconds, Mark Harris told two lies: that "virtually every faith community and society since the dawn of mankind" supported his view, and that "our state's marriage laws are currently under attack."
There are plenty of faith communities that oppose this group's views. And our state's marriage laws are not currently under attack. No legislation has been introduced to change the laws. Nobody was discussing changing the laws. These people picked the fight, then tried to play the victim. "Your Honor, it all started when he hit me back."
There were more lies, but I only have 250 words.
The speakers in this video were trying to look and sound like sincere, well-meaning people, but their smug grins revealed their insincerity. They weren't being honest. I finally figured out why.
Even though they never used the word "homosexuality," that's what they're really against. They can't outlaw that — they lost that battle — and they can't stone homosexuals, so they'll fight a war of increments to try to keep gay people from being accepted as normal, everyday human beings, worthy of equality and respect. Which they are.
These Amendment One supporters are liars, and I oppose them. All North Carolinians should.
BOBBY FIELDS
Winston-Salem
The main problem in government
In response to your April 12 editorial "Too many government foul-ups":
After working for the state for over 30 years, I can tell you why very simply in one word: politics. Regardless of the political party in power legislatively and regardless of the political affiliation of the governor, the main problem is politics.
The governor appoints those who have given the most in campaign donations to the highest possible positions, and most of the time those people are not qualified for the positions they are given. Legislatively, the party in the majority is trying to flex its muscles over the party in the minority.
All of this has gone on since the creation of legislatures and governors. The name of the game is power and one-upping the party in the minority. The general public has not always known what goes on in state government because the state tries to hide what really goes on.
It has only been since the news media has begun to put in print the excesses and the corruption that the general public is aware of what is really going on. This applies to both parties equally and will not change until or unless those in power begin to care more about the good of the state and less about the power they might have and the profits they can put in their pockets from deals under the table and in backrooms.
All of the above applies equally to our federal government.
DIANA WARD
Boone
Sum It Up
The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Do you plan to participate in Early Voting, which starts Thursday?
No, I like to wait for the actual election. Traditional.
WILLIAM SAMS
Yes, I will be there on the first day, ready to cast my vote against the shameful discrimination that Amendment One proposes for North Carolina.
JANE FREEMONT GIBSON
All one has to do is read the Bible to understand that the laws, customs, and definitions of marriage have all changed over time.
ReplyDeleteThe old testament if full of definition changes. An even after Christianity came about, there have often been changes in the definition of marriage. Marriage was not based on free consent until 866 and a decree by Pope Nicholas I. Theologians increasingly found a religious significance in marriage and eventually even included it among the sacraments. Unfortunately, at the same time the church created two new problems: It abolished divorce by declaring marriage to be insoluble (except by death) and greatly increased the number of marriage prohibitions. Now there were three basic impediments to marriage: "consanguinity", "affinity", and "spiritual affinity". That sure changed the definition.
In the first Christian centuries marriage had been a strictly private arrangement. As late as the 10th century, the essential part of the wedding itself took place outside the church door. It was not until the 12th century that a priest became part of the wedding ceremony, and not until the 13th century that he actually took charge of the proceedings.
The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing... that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Restoration abolished this law and reverted to the old system, but the Puritans brought their concept of marriage to America where it survived.
The Catholic church, in response to the Protestant challenge, took its stand in the Council of Trent and, in 1563, confirmed its previous doctrines. Indeed, it now demanded that all marriages take place before a priest and two witnesses. So even Christians had different definitions of marriage.
Another contested issue was that of divorce. In opposition to Catholic doctrine, the Protestant Reformers did not believe that marriage was insoluble, but favored divorce under special circumstances. The Puritan John Milton in his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce (1643) even advocated self-divorce without the involvement of either church or government. For him, marriage rested entirely on the full compatibility of both partners. Where mutual love was lacking, marriage was a sham and had to be dissolved. However, this philosophy was too far ahead of its time. The English Parliament began to grant some divorces, but the procedure was so cumbersome and expensive that few couples could take advantage of it.
Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages.
That's a nice little dissertation on 'marriage' Bobby, but I'm not sure that helps your position on gay marriage much.
DeleteIt's rather obvious that you are not sure about a lot of things.
Delete;-D)
DeleteI thought you weren't Mexican?
DeleteBy the way, I contacted John Nash, and he help me break your highly sophisticated code.
It just never stops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr
Mr. Fields,
ReplyDeleteA lot of times the minister or preacher et al of a given church doesn't hold the same views on same sex marriage as the rest of the congregants.
When a minister deviates from the Bible, and it's general philosophy, he or she tends to disrupt the general order of the church. As result, attendence goes down and people's interest wane.
Having a gay or lesbian minister also presents its own set of problems. Some people do not want to get married by such a minister because he or she does not represent traditional marriage.
There are a whole plethora of radical, left-wing ministers throughout the U.S. that do not represent the best interest of the country, nor the people they represent. I'll name just a few: Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Warren Jeffs.
There are obviously quite a few ministers of questionable character right here in Winston Salem, so I wouldn't rely on these people as your examples of what is the right thing to do in this matter.
One only has to look at this video to see that some ministers and congregants go astray of the general teachings of the Bible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc
"One only has to look at this video to see that some ministers and congregants go astray of the general teachings of the Bible."
ReplyDeleteHa, ha...last laugh at night, first in the morning.
Wouldn't you love to see a list of "the general teachings of the Bible" compiled by this buffoon?
The truth hurts, doesn't it nitwit.
DeleteReasons that I keep hearing over and over again for voting to re-define marriage are steadfast: that "traditional" marriage is between a man and a woman, that many other states have done it, that there are "activist" courts and politicians out there so beware, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
ReplyDeleteLets break it down: "Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman": Who says? I can already hear the bibles thumping away but let me tell you it's easier to re-write the bible than it is the amend the state constitution. Okay, now I'm hearing gasps and loud villages shouting "heresy". My bad. Let's move on.
"Many other states have done it.": If other states slipped into the Atlantic Ocean, would we have to do it? Okay, maybe that's not a good one so let's look at out state lottery. Our "activist" politicians slipped us a good one while we were all sleeping one night and enabled us to have a game of chance to fund education, all because "other states around us were doing it". How's it working for us?
"Activist courts": W-H-A-T activist courts???? WHATABUNCHAHOOEY!!!! The only activist courts I'm hearing are the ones that are trying to push this poorly written amendment!
Reinforcing what LaSombra has said:
Delete"More importantly, though, North Carolina differs both demographically and in its political philosophy from the rest of the South. Democrats controlled at least one chamber of the state legislature for over a century until 2010, blocking constitutional marriage bans when they arose. Desegregation in North Carolina took place without the violence endured by other Southern states; Barack Obama won the state’s 15 electoral votes in 2008.
In other words: out of all the Southern states, North Carolina seems the most natural choice to reflect the growing support for marriage equality across the U.S. by bucking the tradition set by its neighbors and defeating a marriage ban."
In other words, do we want to be lumped in with the yahoo states, or do we want to stand up on our hind legs like grownups and make our own path in the world, a path to a higher level of civilization?
Barack Obama is projected to lose North Carolina in 2012 according to most polls.
DeleteFor somebody that obviously rarely crosses a county line, much less a state border, I'm not sure how you can think you can speak to national issues with any credibility.
This is like playing ping pong with an armless man.
DeleteArmless Ping Pong Player
DeleteThanks Bobby, at least when I play with you, I know you're thinking, and 'armed'.
DeleteGirl with no hands wins national penmanship award
Deleteat least now we know this is all a game with you and not real.
DeleteI'm glad you finally admitted it.
DeleteI recall when growing up that proferring "everyone else does it" was considered the worst excuse to give. Now, "everyone else does it" is considered to be one of the strongest arguments of the proponents of Amendment One?
Deletedotnet....I think it goes a 'little' beyond that.
DeleteAgain, most people know what their heinies are to be used for. I'll just leave it at that.
"Barack Obama is projected to lose North Carolina in 2012 according to most polls."
DeleteMore hilarity..."most polls"?
There are only two polls of NC voters recent enough to have any meaning, the 4/10 Rasmussen and the 4/4-4/7 PPP.
The Rasmussen has it 46-44 Romney. The PPP has it 49-44 Obama.
Rasmussen tends to lean Republican and has been widely criticized for its sloppy, on the cheap methodology. PPP does a lot of work for Democratic agencies, so has been criticized as leaning that way, but as even the Wall Street Journal pointed out last year, PPP has, since its beginning in 2001, been the most accurate of all the polling companies.
When one says most, that has to include more than two. Somebody needs a refresher course in English.
Nate Silver cited a 2010 Ras poll that had Dan Inouye leading by 11 points...he ended up winning by 50.
DeleteI take Ras polls with a Lot's wife sized grain of salt.
Excuse me...leading by 13 and won by 53.
DeleteI remember that. Hawaiian nightclub comics lived off that one for a few weeks.
DeleteAll polling companies have a big miss now and then...not that big, but say 10-15 points off. PPP has had a couple, but each time they have publicly apologized on their website and done serious analysis to make sure that that particular mistake doesn't happen again.
The one that is struggling right now is our oldest, Gallup. In the last few years their numbers have been off more often than on...nobody can figure out what the problem is, but they better fix it pretty soon or they will become as irrelevant as Rasmussen.
I might add that a Rasmussen subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, does most of the polls attributed to Fox News.
Delete'Nough said?
Good afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: Marriage is all of those things mentioned in the first paragraph, but I have yet to hear how same-sex marriage would change anything. Procreation and economics ceased to be the sole reasons for marriage in the last century and has been replaced by love and companionship. Social science has shown that children also thrive under the care of a loving homosexual couple with a 2 parent household being the key ingredient. Divorce is the real enemy of marriage and what marriages should be protected from. The proposed amendment does nothing to address divorce, so it could hardly be considered as any kind of "marriage protection", nor would it do anything to "save our children". Couples will still get divorced leaving children in a single-parent home.
LTE 2: "Vote for fairness" - really, how fair is it that everyone, gay or straight gets to decide whether < 10% of the people get a chance to marry the person they love? Seems to me only gay people should be allowed to vote since they are the only ones affected.
LTE 3: It's interesting to me that it has been two R presidents, Reagan and GWB, who have either granted out right amnesty or have promoted finding a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens. Since Latinos have become the largest minority group as well the fastest growing demographic and have mostly aligned with the D's, the R's have changed their tune and have decided that voter ID's are necessary to keep "dem illegals" from voting. I believe Ms. Burton's last paragraph is on the money.
LTE 4: For most of civilization, marriage has been about property/economics and procreation, not love or passion. Men in days gone by who wanted love or passion went to prostitutes. Women who wanted love or passion became prostitutes. There have been numerous variations of marriage over the centuries. The concept of one adult male to one adult female is a product of the 20th century when affluence finally allowed children to remain at home until the age of 18. Allowing same-sex marriage is really about enhancing rather than diminishing marriage by opening it up to all couples of legal age who wish to marry.
LTE 5: One of the best LTE's I've seen this year. It is indeed all about power and has nothing to do with the best interest of the state.
Sum it up: Not sure, but I will definitely be voting sometime in the primaries.
There has been a 70% increase in food stamp recipients since 2007.
ReplyDeleteHas Obama become the 'Food Stamp President'? You be the judge.
Four more years of this administration's absurdity? I think not.
Bucky, in all honesty, you are very thought provoking and I have actually learned a lot fact checking your posts. You can be very engaging in conversation too, but then something happens and you slip off and make certain unseemly comments. I really would hate to see you go because you lack self discipline.
ReplyDeleteThanks Bobby. You'll be one of the few that hates to see me go. By the above, I guess you are insinuating that you and Stab plan to throw me off the forum. If you all think that's necessary, so be it.
DeleteI enjoy your quick wit. Your rebuttals are much more effective in a debate than Rush's non-connective, wordy rants.
One thing to remember-if all you want is one side of political spectrum, why have this forum?
You can play this song by Jason Aldean when I'm gone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycfo-xT2_Wk
I can't throw anyone off and I doubt if Stab will either as long as self discipline is observed. And I know you understand what I mean.
DeleteIt would be great to have more conservative opinions in this forum. I would certainly welcome that and I am sure others would too. I invited Deb Phillips to join and I think Stab even invited Harvey Pulliam to join.
DeleteStab has asked on many occasions to observe a certain decorum. This is his forum and I really don't understand why you don't respect him.
Delete"Bucky, in all honesty, you are very thought provoking..."
DeleteNot exactly the phrase I would have chosen.
More like "thought defying".
Another phrase that I would never use in Bucky's case is "fact checking". There are no facts to check, just ridiculous parroted or made up nonsense.
And you've got to love the self-serving, self-pitying tone of "You'll be one of the few that hates to see me go."
Sounds like Tricky Dick's "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." Whine, whimper, moan...boo hoo.
By a more than two-to-one margin, American voters favor the 2010 Arizona immigration law
ReplyDeleteIndependents favor the law by a 40 percentage-point margin (67-27 percent).
FoxNews
Hang on. The border lawlessness that Obama refuses to address may come to an end when Romney is elected. No more 'stealing' of our social service benefits by illegal immigrants may be in our future.
Well good ole George Zimmerman was caught in a lie today at his bond hearing. He took the stand to apologize to the parents saying: I didn't know how old he was, I thought he was my age, and I didn't know if he had a gun or not. Problem is in the 911 call, when asked about the age, he said in his late teens. So were you lying then or are you lying now, George?
ReplyDelete"I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am and I did not know if he was armed or not"
DeleteGeorge Zimmerman
Bobbby....Bobby.....
Yes, I corrected that on the Readers forum, but just now got back here. Zimmerman is in his late 20'S so late teens is 10 years, or 33% less, which is more than a little bit.
DeleteBobby....if I didn't know better, I'd think you are one of those liberal zealots that want Zimmerman to be found guilty regardless of the facts.
DeleteAren't you glad you know better.
DeleteHey Bobby...what happened to the 100lb difference is weight contention? I've haven't heard that for a while. Has the liberal media given up on that fabrication?
DeleteThe facts are pretty effing simple. George Zimmerman had no business running a vigilante patrol of the neighborhood, especially packing a gun.
DeleteThe police dispatcher told him not to continue following Martin. They also told him not to get out of his car. He had been told all of that more than once before, but he ignored the very good advice and went out to be Mr. Tough Guy Cop Wannabe John Wayne. I know people just like him...losers all.
He shot and killed somebody, and now he's feeling sorry...not for killing somebody...he, like you, is feeling sorry for his poor sorry assed self...read the BS on his website.
As to your graphic description of his head being banged on a sidewalk, there was no sidewalk near enough to the so-called struggle for anyone to have their head banged on.
Just keep on posting your ignorant crap, fool. You know nothing about anything and manage to prove it several times every day. Good to know that you enjoy being stupid and miserable.
Your post just shows your ignorance of the law, and your emotional, liberal interpretation of the supposed facts.
Delete1) A citizen is under no legal obligation to follow a police dispatcher's order 'if' Zimmerman did follow Martin as you allege. 2) A photograph I've seen of the scene of the attack by Martin on Zimmerman shows a sidewalk present.
I think everybody knows you are so emotional that you could never accurately express any facts in an accurate, representative manner. In that vein, I am so glad that you take the time to so frequently make a fool out of yourself in this forum, because it makes my job easier demonstrating your obvious buffoonery.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience--Mark Twain
ReplyDelete;-D)
DeleteThat's why I'm so thankful that all of the liberals in here are rocket scientists.
DeleteThanks, Wordly,
DeleteYou would think that I would know better by now...one forgets the persistence of ignorance...a matter of pride for the true believer fools.