Friday, April 27, 2012

Amendment 1 Drawing Voters, Vandalism

Story in GoBlueRidge.Net (click here)...


It seems like it is always the signs of the Republican candidates and those of  the supporters of the Conservative issues that get vandalized or removed.  Of course, when accused, the "other side" can be counted on to come out and claim that the same thing is happening to them. However, I rarely see the signs of the liberals vandalized.

One of our most basic rights is the right to voice our political views- I would think that everyone would treasure that right and respect the rights of other people to do the same.

Let's hope that they catch AND PROSECUTE those who would steal or damage political signs.

22 comments:

NewGuy said...

I suppose it is similar in many ways to the issue in this prior post ....


http://wataugarepubs.blogspot.com/2012/04/students-who-support-free-speech-want.html

Anonymous said...

People violating your "basic right" to post signs that are advocating taking away their "basic rights".

Oh the irony!

Anonymous said...

The "basic right" to political speech is a well established freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment.

Which amendment says that you have the right to change the definition of marriage which has been in place since before the founding of the country?

matt said...

Anonymous,
Correct me if I am wrong. But isn't Amendment 1 the one to change the definition of marriage?

Voting no to amendment 1 is to vote for no change to the definition of marriage.

What gives YOU the right to change the definition of marriage? Because that is what Amendment 1 is doing.

By the way...that first post was mine at 1138...forgot to login, I guess.

Anonymous said...

A YES vote on the constitutional amendment is a vote to maintain the current definition and make it part of the state constitution.


A Yes vote says
""Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State...."

NewGuy said...

The anonymous at 3:12 is correct.

Voting "yes" on the amendment assures that "marriage" will remain between a man and a woman and that the state will not recognize anything else as "marriage".

Vote YES to preserve traditional marriage.

The polls are showing strong support among the voters for passing this amendment. It is probably the anti-amendment people who are trying to create confusion by suggesting that a "yes" vote is a vote to change the definition of marriage. It is not. It is to PRESERVE the traditional definition by incorporating it into the state constitution. This will make it more difficult for a judge to "redefine" it in accordance with his own ideas of what it should be. It will also prohibit future state legislators from changing it without a vote of the people.

matt said...

"Constitutional changes
If approved, the proposed measure would amend Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by adding a new section::
Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Strange...so how again is a no vote a vote to "change the definition of marriage which has been in place since before the founding of the country"? When this bill changes what is currently law now?

Deborah Greene said...

Tough Love
Opponents claim the Marriage Amendment will affect existing law while hiding that the amendment is simply protection of existing law, protection from those who want to leave existing law vulnerable to legislative and judicial activism. Opponents fear putting the decision in the hands of the people. Why do they trust government and judicial activists more than us? They’re a “faction” desiring to force the beliefs of a minority on the majority? Opponents play victim while we who want to protect the sanctity of marriage, our children and families are the real victims.
CURRENT Law since 1995: § 51‑1.2. Marriages between persons of the same gender not valid. Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.
Opponents say they’re concerned about the ambiguous language of the amendment. Following is the State’s official explanation of the amendment (NC State Board of Elections’ website):
"Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

This faction will use any tactic to deceive to destroy family. They claim this amendment is anti-gay/discriminatory? Why didn’t they find the current law to be anti-gay/ discriminatory? Opponents hide facts; the current law and proposed amendment does not recognize polygamy as well. Victimizing gays is just a convenient wedge, another of their many deceptive maneuvers.

Opponents play the victim to Christians claiming support for the amendment is hate and bigotry. Is God a God of hate? Is God a bigot? Of course not; and, Christians who stand on God’s word are not bigots. Opponents claim we need to vote against the amendment out of love for one another. Voting against the marriage amendment says we’re not concerned with the sanctity of God’s institution of marriage and is sanctioning the destruction of His institution. Do we lead others away from God’s plan out of love or do we lead them to God’s plan out of love? The latter, it is called tough love.

I have to take signs up at 5pm every night and put them back out at 8am at the one-stop voting places because of vandalism and stealing. I have someone come into my yard and take 2 signs. I have someone come into our pasture and take one off of a tree. I have put 2 signs out at the intersection of 194 and Howards Creek to last only 2 days. I have put 2 on 194 in same location with the last one still standing. I have put 4 signs at the 105/321 intersection at Wells Fargo Bank to have 2 vandalized and 1 stolen. I had to take replacement signs to 4 churches. I had 12 signs stolen off of 421. I got a call Sunday morning that at 1:30am a car went through a neighborhood with the occupants waking the neighbors with hollering; all of the signs were removed from that neighborhood. I have personally paid $475 for signs and a colleague of mine has paid $175 for signs.

This ongoing attack on the family comes from a faction of society who promotes “do whatever feels good”. It is this faction who will harm our children. Protect our children, our families, God’s institution of marriage and God’s plan; vote for the marriage amendment out of love for God and his commandment to love one another as He loves us.

Deborah Greene said...

At everyone of 3 church services I attended this Sunday, Marriage Sunday, the pastors made it clear that the opponents of the Marriage Amendment call it Amendment 1, the Gay Marriage Amendment or the Anti-gay Marriage Amendment and refuse to call it by its proper name, the Marriage Amendment. A video clip by Tami Fitzgerald was played at the beginning of one church service and again she pointed out how the opponents to the Marriage Amendment refused to call it by its proper name. The Watauga Conservative blog has done the same thing on more than one occasion and continues to do so even after it has been brought to their attention.

Inquiring Mind said...

I understand that the Republican Party only purchased 25 signs. They passed a resolution to support the amendment. Can they not afford more signs? What a slap in the face to Dan Soucek! Is there any Republican Party leadership in Watauga County? Maybe a new Republican Party is in order; it was discussed about 8 years ago. How about the Watauga County Conservative Republican Party?

"A republic if you can hold onto it." Benjamin Franklin

NewGuy said...

Dan Soucek:


"I am a primary sponsor of Amendment One. I am leading on this,”

matt said...

Thanks Dan. Remember when you ran on limited government? Yeah, me too....I helped out in your campaign then ...Who did I vote for again? duped again by a "limited government conservative".

Go make your mark and control those gays from harming your family! Enact a few more laws to Force that limited government into a few more million homes.

guy faulkes said...

Matt, as a gay couple can do anything with a contract not called a marriage that is done by calling the contract a marriage (a contract is what a marriage is), how do you consider anything is being forced on anyone?

As far as I can see, the only thing the amendment does is define the term marriage. It changes nothing legally or morally.

It is a non issue, except for those that wish to make one where none exists.

Anonymous said...

Looks to me like Soucek has made this supposed non-issue and issue, what with his leading on it and everything.

guy faulkes said...

The only issue he made was a definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with homosexual contracts. Therefore the discussion is out of context when these contracts are what is being presented as being denied.

NewGuy said...

"Amendment One clarifies the definition of marriage in the state of North Carolina"

Virginia Foxx

matt said...

If I am out of context then I apologize. I think the question still needs to be asked. why a "limited government conservative" thinks it is his job to create laws to define words for us, and back a law that puts restrictions on the freedoms that gay people currently have.

I think we should define marriage to make sure 2 prior felons don't get married. That could be harmful for families! I think we should restrict 2 people of the same religion from getting married too, so their children aren't brainwashed and are protected...Would these two definitions be supported by "limited government politicians" too?
I think we both agree the two examples above are bad....so why is amendment 1 so much better?

Guy, if they made a law that defined marriage in some way that restricted you from getting married...say because of your hair color, I believe that that would be an example of government forcing something upon you. That is how I see this.

Sarkazein said...

Matt wrote- "I think we should define marriage to make sure 2 prior felons don't get married. That could be harmful for families! I think we should restrict 2 people of the same religion from getting married too, so their children aren't brainwashed and are protected...Would these two definitions be supported by "limited government politicians" too?
I think we both agree the two examples above are bad....so why is amendment 1 so much better? "

I hope you didn't borrow money for that education. You might want to call a TV lawyer and get up a class action law suit against the university.

Sarkazein said...

Proof that college loans should be forgiven and the colleges forced to pay back the $1 Trillion Dollars.

guy faulkes said...

Matt, can I have a person contract that does the same thing as a marriage contract under your hypothetical situation? If so I do not have much of a problem with it because I am not harmed. I also do not have much of a problem if gays want a marriage contract because, again, I am not harmed. However it would offend many people.

Words are defined by the government all the time in order to keep people from being offended. For instance the N word in a racial altercation turns it into a hate crime. Is this a good or bad thing in your opinion?

My opinion is that a crime is a crime so the term hate crime is superfluous as is the issue of the definition of marriage. The same thing is being accomplished in either case.

I will vote for the amendment simply because of the personal attacks that have been made by those against the amendment that only defines the word marriage. There is nothing racist or bigoted in the amendment.

matt said...

Guy, I don't see why a personal contract that does the same thing could not exist. It seems strange to me, is everyone here okay with gays living together, enjoying the tax benefits of being together etc etc...but just calling themselves contractual partners instead of married? Is it really just that they call themselves married that all this arises?

I agree with you about the hate crime definition. And I do think your example of government regulating the n word is bad.
Clarify your point of view for me...you think the need to define marriage is pointless (superfluous)? But you are just voting against it because of people who support it, is that correct?

guy faulkes said...

Matt

First of all, I find the N word offensive. Apparently Robert Bryd did not. My point is that what offends some people does not offend others. A hate crime is meaningless because it was already a crime.

I suppose if one groups' sensibilities can be protected as are mine with the N word, then those that find the marriage contract should be only between a man and a woman are entitled to equal protection. In both cases, those that would agree with Byrd or do not think the marriage contract should be between a man and a woman are offended. Practically speaking, so what? Nothing changes how the individual thinks.

I am voting for the amendment because I was called a racist and a bigot over an issue I do not even consider an issue. This is not because of the people that are against the issue, but because of the actions of some of them. This includes lying about the amendment.

All it does is provide a definition concerning one kind of contract. It does not change existing law.

I cannot answer your question as to how other on this blog think. I speak only for myself.