In reference to those who spoke at the last commissioner meeting against the commissioners’ resolution to support the marriage amendment, I make the following comments.
Obviously Mr. Fischer has never attended a county commissioner meeting. The commissioners never allow public comment on a resolution unless they are required to by law and then it is called a “public hearing”. And, to be honest, the commissioners usually have very little discussion before or after public hearings unless their comments are rehearsed and prepared beforehand, similar what many of us who do attend regularly have come to realize: “Their minds are made up before they hear from the public and a public hearing is merely abiding the law.” Public comment is usually scheduled for the end of the meeting, after the commissioners have concluded their business, i.e., you have the opportunity to comment after the fact. To hear from the public after the fact, like amending the agenda, is par for the course. Mr. Fischer should have realized from contemporary news that county commissions were doing this statewide. Myself and other citizens have been urging the commissioners to put the issue on the agenda and to adopt a resolution by email, phone, and in person. It was only a matter of time, and Mr. Fischer should have sent in his own urging not to adopt the resolution. However, the commissioners most likely adopted the resolution out of personal conviction, that it was the right thing to do for the state, and therefore, the County– to support the Family. I would like to personally thank the commissioners for taking a public stand to protect traditional marriage, which is good for society as a whole. Anyone who wants to know more, go to VoteForMarriageNC.com, the Christian Action League, and many other sites which debunk the myths and provide facts on the issue. We didn’t ask for this confrontation; it was forced on us. It has been a long-standing law in the State of NC that same-sex marriages were not recognized. Now, after all these years, there is a movement to challenge our general statutes. There is only one way to protect our current recognition of traditional marriage as our standard and that is through a constitutional amendment by the people. We are defending ourselves against an attack on the family and our State acknowledgement of “Almighty God” as our provider.
To make the union between one man and one woman as the only domestic legal union recognized by the State of NC is not going to stop discrimination. You can’t stop what people think. We have laws in place against bullying, and yet we have youth committing suicide. I know people who are in “same-sex” relationships. This law will not prevent people of the “same-sex” from living together, having sexual relationships or even having a ceremony to show their commitment. However, out of love for them, community, family and children, I will not condone the “action” by voting against the marriage amendment; I will do all that I can do to support traditional marriage, the one God instituted and the only marriage recognized by God. I don’t believe in the distorted, liberal view of “separation of church and state” so that argument does not having any weight on my decision. I believe God is in control of everything and created everything. God has a purpose in everything; if this amendment were to fail, then God has a purpose. However, I have a purpose and that includes not denying God. Our state constitution like those of the other states came out of the US Constitutional convention. If you haven’t read our State constitution, I would urge you to do so. You will notice that ‘separation of church and state” as the liberals describe it doesn’t exist and never has nor was it intended to.
Ms. Jacquot said she thought that local government overstepped its bounds. The law allows them to act in the best interest of the public, and it is obviously the opinion of commissioners Miller, Blust and Gable that the amendment would be in the best interest of Watauga County. When Commissioner Jim Deal acted as the buyer and the seller and encouraged Watauga County to purchase the Spiderman/Winkler property from one of his clients without an appraisal, Commissioner Jim Deal overstepped his bounds. When the county commissioners provided for a tax-deductible contribution on the purchase of the Brookshire property, when the contribution exceeded the difference between the appraised value and the sell price, the commissioners overstepped its bounds. Jim Deal arbitrarily refused to call for a referendum on the high school issue, after agreeing during the campaign, that with the amount of money in question, we would have to call for a referendum. Jim Deal encouraged the bailout of friends from both parties by purchasing properties at inflated values. These are just a few examples of malfeasance that seem to go unchecked and unnoticed by those who are so concerned about government overreaching its boundaries.
Tim Futrelle accuses the board of legislating our personal lives. And, as for government legislating our personal lives, please! They do it all of the time. Even Mr. Futrelle has voted on county ordinances that legislate our personal lives. Pedifiles don’t see anything wrong with loving children and can’t understand why we don’t love them the same way they do; I guess they feel like “an entity” somewhere has “legislated their personal lives.” Does liberal Tim Futrelle feel like zoning laws are legislating personal lives? How about seat belt laws? How about murder, rape, and incest? How about stealing; a lot people think it is perfectly all right to steal from someone else, in fact, they think people who have anything owe it to them? How about ethics laws that would put county commissioners in jail for stealing from the taxpayer trough to give to their friends? How about laws that protect women from sexual discrimination in the workplace? Does Tim Futrelle think if a business owner wants to pay a man more because he eats more, his personal belief, it is ok? What does Mr. Futrelle think about non-elected government agencies dictating what property owners can do with their property? And, how does Mr. Futrelle feel about the attempted cover-up by the Democrat Party regarding the “same-sex” sexual harassment case–is that ok? Does he think that the law protecting the employee was a legislative infringement on the perpetrator’s personal life? Bottom-line, almost every perpetrator of the existing laws thinks the laws are an infringement into his personal life. They hold their acts so dear they generally do it over and over and over again. Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line on what acts are good or bad for society? Who decides that? Does Mr. Futrelle think it is ok for government to dictate to the churches what they can and cannot talk about? Does Mr. Futrelle think that a pastor should not talk about biblical issues, and where a candidate stands on those issues? Does Mr. Futrelle think that church members check their first amendment rights at the entrance of the church? Such threats as these are government overreaching its boundaries and judges legislating from the bench. As Dan Soucek said: “When I was Dan Soucek sitting on the floor of the NC Senate voting on the Defense of Marriage Bill, I was 1 of 50 people allowed by law to vote on giving the people the right to decide; now I am citizen Dan Soucek, 1 of over 6 million voters in the State of NC who will decide. So, who is deciding, government or the people? Since Mr. Futrelle is against the amendment, he is advocating that government legislate our personal lives instead of the people. What about activist judges who overturn longtime traditional laws in favor of outspoken minorities? Isn’t this just what Mr. Futrelle said he didn’t think government should do? We have a name for this–Orwellian double-speak or being just plain hypocritical.