Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Watauga's Republican Commissioners Reaffirm Their Allegiance to the Religious Right

This morning at the meeting of the Watauga County Commission, the Republican majority -- Nathan Miller, David Blust, and Vince Gable -- refused to rescind their resolution in support of Amendment 1 that was passed without public notice and without public comment at their April 3rd meeting.

That was after they heard from ten speakers who respectfully suggested that they had seriously overstepped their bounds as County Commissioners in passing the resolution in support of Amendment 1. Democratic Commissioner Jim Deal made the motion to rescind the resolution and spoke about his own strong views as a Christian, to make the point that he, nor anyone else elected to public office, should be willing to impose their personal religious views on the general populace.

But separation of church and state is clearly not what commissioners Miller, Blust, and Gable are all about. What they're all about in this instance (and ironically, given their supposed philosophy of small government) is governmental overreach.

They believe the prejudices of the majority will carry the day and confirm them in power. That remains to be seen.

Footnote: Mr. Gable would not meet the gaze of many of the speakers this morning. His cell phone rang twice during the public comment, and he struggled to silence it. He also appeared to be receiving texts from someone inside the room.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jim Deal is much more interested in imposing his financial views that benefit himself and his clients on everyone. He doesn't mind forcing, without a referendum, without a vote of the people, an outrageously expensive high school, which still has not been officially declared finished, and other dubious property deals down our throats.

And I thought Mr. Deal said a few weeks ago that he also believed that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

What a gross hypocrite Mr. Deal is!

Anonymous said...

There's a big difference in believing what the definition of marriage should be from a "Church" point of view, verses writing a religious viewpoint/ ideology into our constitution. Ask yourself this question. How would you be voting if a different religious ideology was being put on the ballot that forced you to go against your particular set of beliefs? You would not like for the government to tell you how to practice your beliefs now would you.

Richard Tidyman said...

I wish I could have been there to see the reactions of all in the room. I affirm what those 10 people tried to do, and am disappointed that those elected to represent us are more interested in mixing their religion into government, knowing the harm and hardship it will cause to families, business and wasting of tax dollars.

Anonymous said...

This batch of county commissioners is a joke. They can't manage their own lunch, much less government. And now, after belly aching about open government all during the last campaign, they pass this resolution without one single piece of input from the public. What a joke.

Happily Married said...

Anon 10:14 You sound a lot like DG which would explain why you still do not get it. JD does believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. The difference between the two of you is that he respects everybody's right to their own beliefs and does not wish to force his personal beliefs on others. That does not make him a hypocrite but a person of integrity and honor - unlike you.

Anonymous said...

Happily Married - No one is forcing anything on anyone.

What is being proposed is perfectly constitutional and is what most other states have already done.

And Jim Deal is only angry, because he is no longer in the Chair's seat, and he can't set the resolutions to suit his agenda.

Unlike Mr. Deal's modus operandi of several years, this Amendment is up to the people's approval or not. Mr. Deal has been deceptive from the beginning, did an about face and denied any choice for the people, and then was primarily responsible for placing this county in unprecedented debt, which will be on our backs for many, many years.

And Mr. Williamson, I hope you will post this.

brotherdoc said...

Is there any hope some or all of this bunch of clowns will be unseated in November? I hope the Dems come up with some good candidates, so far I'm not informed about the races.

Opinionated said...

Here's the deal on the Amendment - if we actually wanted to "protect marriage", we'd toughen the penalties for adultery, strengthen domestic violence and child welfare protections, and require marital therapy for troubled marriages. But that's not the purpose of this amendment. This amendment is designed to scapegoat a minority....and a whole raft of unintended consequences go along with the badly-written thing.

Anonymous said...

Let's just all agree to disagree. Those who support this Amendment believe that God has commanded they force their religious views onto everyone else. Nothing is going to change their minds on this. They're on a religious crusade. As for Deal and the debt, we went into debt for a new high school, and I for one am glad we did. Besides, the debt is perfectly manageable, and the interest rate is excellent. There are those in this county who believe we shouldn't progress on any level at all. They don't believe in fixing highways and bridges, in building new schools, or in greenways that benefit all the people. They don't believe in any government at all unless they can use it to further what they perceive to be God's commandment. They want to return us to feudalism.

Not Really said...

"Is there any hope some or all of this bunch of clowns will be unseated in November?"

I certainly hope so. I think a big reason they got voted in in the first place is that a lot of left-leaning voters stayed home in 2010. I can understand the disaffection that helped motivate that, but unfortunately we're seeing hugely negative results both on the local and the state level.

Lesson learned: it is important to get out and vote even if you're feeling discouraged about politics in general, because all politicians are not the same and elections really do matter.

Anonymous said...

The amendment does not force anything on anyone. It is a definition of a type of contract that could be replaced by other types of contracts that do the same thing.

You have to wonder why Deal decided not to run. Maybe he saw the writing on the wall.

Anonymous said...

And some want that 'progress' at the sky-is-the-limit prices, with all the corruption, lies, and favoritism towards special interests that inevitably comes with it, and without a vote of the people.

And you call that 'progress'?

Anonymous said...

I believe we are witnessing the unraveling of Deborah Greene.

Tex said...

I support this amendment and I don't believe God has commanded me one way or the other.

Marriage has had the same definition for as long as anyone can remember. Laws have been written using the existing definition. If you want to change the laws to allow additional benefits for gays and lesbians, I would support that - but I don't think changing the definition of marriage is the best way to accomplish that.

Let's change the definition of "alcohol" too. We could have it include carbonated beverages and any drink with sugar in it. Then we could arrest people who had an open bottle of Mtn Dew in their car! They would all be healthier without that stuff and we could generate revenue with the fines we could collect.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

"No one is forcing anything on anyone." Amendment one will force a biblical based religious doctrine on everyone in NC. How do you justify your statement? I spoke to my God and he says it is fine for homosexuals to be married. You are forcing your God's word on everyone. My God also says it is OK for heterosexual people to get married. So your views will not be impacted. The amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. Just because other states have done it is irrelevant - NC is better than that. Other states also did not allow for mixed race marriages (much like NC). Was that OK for us to join the bigoted masses then? Is it OK now?

Maire said...

"Marriage has had the same definition for as long as anyone can remember." Except for in the Old Testament where marriage is defined as one many with many wives. And maybe a few slave/concubines, too. No cheeseburgers, though; that would have been sinful.

Anonymous said...

Happily Married: Again, no one is forcing anything on anyone. The amemdment just protects what is already in place and has been in place for centuries. It is you and your like-minded allies, who want to force society to accept your version of what a legal marriage is.

And you want to somehow correlate another totally different situation as analogous to this debate, which is not a logical argument. You want to label anyone who does not agree with your argument as bigoted. You want to resort to name-calling.

Tell me, Happily Married. Where do you draw the line? What are your standards?

Happily Married said...

Anon, my standards are equal treatment for everyone - regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc. I call people bigots only when the definition fits. Look up the definition. I want society to accept legal marriage as being equal for everyone - that is absolutely true. But I also firmly believe that your beliefs are very valid and you should be able to live by them. I am not asking you to change. If you believe heterosexual marriage is the only way then please only have a heterosexual marriage and the law, if the amendment fails or even if homosexual marriage is legalized, would provide for that. That is why you are a bigot by definition and I am not. I think your beliefs are great as long as you don't try to force them by law on someone else. The existing laws already do that and the amendment reinforces it. The existing laws are discriminatory in the same way my previous argument showcases dicrimination. I would just as readily defend you and your beliefs if someone were to try to force their beliefs on you. Homosexauls being allowed to marry does not force anything on you - it does nothing to you. This amendment helps no one. It only hurts real people. You want to protect an idea over real people? Now please tell me why it is OK for you to force your beliefs on others.

bettywhite said...

Tex said:
"If you want to change the laws to allow additional benefits for gays and lesbians, I would support that"

That's just it, Tex. This amendment would not only ban gay marriage, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships that give some of the same rights to gay people. There could never BE any law that gives additional benefits to gay couples. If the citizens in 5 years decide that civil unions should be offered, it would be unconstitutional if this amendment passes.

Anonagain said...

OK, all you folks who are voting for the amendment and who don't want to be called bigots: what's your objection to civil unions? They're not marriage; they're not religious; no one is forced to recognize one or "sanctify" one in a church. Give us the reason that you're opposed to civil unions as well.

Anonymous said...

The amendment does n ot ban individual contacts. It defines marriage.

Anonymous said...

I have heard nobody oppose individual contracts, which are not effected by the amendment..

Brushfire said...

Just because something has been around for a long doesn't make it good. Smallpox was around for a long time, and we did a great thing by getting rid of it. Slavery was also justified by tradition and the bible. We really need to use logic and reason when it comes to law.

Anonymous said...

My intentions after much consideration are to vote for Amendment One.

Looking at this from a logical viewpoint forces me to ask a question. Why should a company provide benefits to a gay couple or a straight couple living together? It makes absolutely no sense at all. I think this amendment will protect a company from being forced to do such in the future.

Discussion among peers this week have now convinced me to support this amendment. Fear ads by those opposed to this amendment is another reason. The ads in favor of the amendement are not trying to use fear as a tactic.

Truthfully I was undecided until this week, but now I am convinced this amendment is right.

Our Commissioners were not imposing their beliefs on anyone. They were simply taking a stand on what that thought was right. We elected them and must support them.

I did not vote for President Obama or Governor Perdue, but I respect and support them as our leaders.

Opinionated said...

Anon 12:58 - the Amendment DOES affect individual contracts (such as child custody, wills, end of life decisions)...it allows any judge in the state to overturn any such contract if he disapproves of it. In other words, it opens the door for activist judges to interfere in private lives.

Anonagain said...

You all make it sound so easy.. "Gay people can just draw up contracts with each other." Do you realize how difficult, expensive, and time-consuming that is? It involves lawyers and fees and legal jargon and other burdens. If you're straight you can just go to the courthouse and pay for the marriage license and then "poof"... instant rights. Gay people, not so much.

Anonymous said...

Anyone can draw up a contract. You can easily do it yourself.

A man and a woman getting married requires a license.

Which has the most government interference?

Anonymous said...

I am disappointed in Jim Deal for the stand (or lack of) that he took on this amendment.

So many are screaming seperation of church and state when some of the local ministers are using their pulpit to try to defeat this amendment. One is a pastor friend of mine in Charlotte who has become obsessed with defeating this amendment. He has angered many of those people who trusted him when he served in Boone.

The local United Church of Christ has ads every time I open the paper to defeat this amendment and their pastor is one of the first to preach seperation of church and state. Wake up Rev. Shelly Wilson.

We have forgotten what the issues are. No wonder this country and state are in such shape.

Brushfire said...

Society benefits in many many ways when loving couples are supported in a monogamous committment to each other. They are healthier, more productive, more financially stable, and more able to contribute their talents to make our society better. Coversely, people who must live a lie or live alone, create such heartache and burden to others. I know of many gay people who tried to live as heterosexual, because they wanted to be married. It just caused enormous pain to themselves and the families involved. My neighbors, on the hand hand are a gay couple who have been together for 30 years and contribute in many ways to our neighborhood and society. They deseve the same rights and respect that my spouse and I do. We need to support marriage, not prohibit it.

Dem12 said...

Well said, Brushfire.

Anonymous said...

"Just because something has been around for a long doesn't make it good."

Indeed! Abortion is a prime example.

Anonagain said...

Anonymous said... "Anyone can draw up a contract. You can easily do it yourself.A man and a woman getting married requires a license. Which has the most government interference?"

And with that license comes hundreds of automatic rights that are now not going to be available for gay couples. Come on, admit it. You just want to punish gay people by making it as hard as possible for them to obtain the same rights that are automatically granted to married couples. For the umpteenth time, in the eyes of the state marriage has nothing to do with religion or God or Buddha or Jesus or Jehovah. There is NO religious requirement for marriage. It is a civil issue, and as such should be available to ALL people.

Anonymous said...

Gay people can put anything they want into a contract. They lose nothing.

Henery said...

Hey, Anon 7:05, how about if we are equitable about all our rights -- and I know you believe in equality -- and you put everything you want into a contract too? Huh?

Anonagain said...

Anonymous said... "Gay people can put anything they want into a contract. They lose nothing."

You are either living in fantasy-land or you are being deliberately obtuse. Yes, any two people can draw up a contract that spells out how they will act in regard to each other, but you can't give yourself state or federal benefits in a personal contract. Here's a quick example: married people can give each other unlimited amounts of money without it being subject to a gift tax. Gay partners could never give themselves that same right in a personal contract. There is absolutely no way that a "contract" could work the same as a marriage's automatic rights.

Anonymous said...

"married people can give each other unlimited amounts of money without it being subject to a gift tax. "

Not according to my accountant. Married people both own the money. There is no gift involved.

That is why divorces are contested.

Anonagain said...

You missed my point entirely. Gay people could never give themselves that same situation (the money belonging to BOTH of them) in a private contract. The very fact that the married couple is married is why the money belongs to both of them automatically. But of course you already knew that.