Straight, proud, and unapologetic

May 9, 2013 13 Comments

Ada FisherOkay now I’m confessing to a poorly kept secret — I am a heterosexual black female who loves men and has achieved some modicum of success.  So, now will President Obama, Bill Clinton and others give me a call for coming out and openly expressing my sexual preference?

Though I haven’t been asked and no sensible inquiring minds particularly want to know, suddenly everyone wants to tell that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or of some other sexual preference.  Who truly cares?

My scientific brain has always appreciated that there are some who may come into the world with much sexual ambiguity such as the more than 10,000 hermaphrodites born annually.  Whether homosexuality is genetic, a choice, or a trend is still debated in some scientific circles.                                                                                  

The thing which is most unsettling is the desire to overturn social policy based on so little outcome data but instituted simply because these are things people may want to do–from gay marriage, to their adoption of children, or making babies through often inconceivable measures with unclear legal ramifications.  Is this not what is also being done on the legalization move for marijuana?  This attitude follows the no-harm, no-foul logic.  

There have been few reliable longitudinal studies to determine the negatives for others such as children who are brought into these situations.  Appreciating that gays who adopt usually get older kids, hard to place infants, and those usually last picked, their willingness to engage in parenthood is often applauded.  None the less are we looking at the evolution of childhood thinking and future choices which will be impacted by this move?

My psychological side of this brain is disturbed by the further negative impact of changing gender roles in undermining already fragile black families.  With Lyndon Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” came the requirement that families not live as a unit with a man in the house if they were to receive public assistance.  This has had a disproportionately negative effect on black families.  With prison populations hitting black males hard, another segment of consorts is thereby again removed.  The infiltration of drugs and that alternative, misogynist “gangsta” culture, which degrades women and uses them as pawns, further distances black men from black women.  And now, the secret as well as black men in the closet are coming out, or remaining on the down-low, which may be perceived as another blow to viable relationships with these men, at the expense of black women.  So where are the companions to be found for black women looking for a good straight man?

I have learned to accept that there are people in the world who don’t share my values, including some in my own family; but on this issue, I’m still sticking with the Torah and commandments handed down by God.

Dr. Ada M. Fisher is a physician, licensed teacher in secondary education—Mathematics and Science, former School Board Member and as well as the NC Republican National Committee Woman. Her book, Common Sense Conservative Prescriptions Solutions for What Ails Us, Book I may be ordered through any bookstore or purchased on line through Amazon.com or thecreatespaceStore.com or on Kindle. Contact her at P. O. Box 777; Salisbury, NC 28145; DrFisher@GETADOCTORINTHEHOUSE.com

Filed under Columns Tagged with , , ,

Are polls more important than principles?

March 30, 2013 4 Comments

DavenportIn the realm of politics, few things are more contemptible than shifting one’s position on an issue based upon polling results and cultural trends. Where are the men and women of principle and conviction?

With precious few exceptions, neither a Democrat nor a Republican can be relied upon to fall on his sword (if necessary) in obedience to fundamental beliefs. An honorable man, it seems to me, would rather lose a reelection bid than abort the principles he is duty-bound to defend. And what about the politician’s constituents? They voted for him because he was a self-proclaimed defender of A, B, and C, but once in office, he flip-flopped and advocated in favor of X, Y, and Z.

Of course, one could take the cynical view and conclude that politics is simply not an appropriate arena for men and women of conviction; that the nature of the “game” requires that its participants abandon their core beliefs every time polling data changes, or every time the “leadership” of a party changes its official position. I am not convinced of this, but I understand the cynics’ position.

I am in Orange Park, FL at the moment, where the dominant daily paper is The Times-Union, which is published in Jacksonville. Friday’s edition featured an AP article about gay marriage, and about how elected officials are “scurrying” to climb aboard the bandwagon (in favor, of course).

“Taken together,” the article states, “their proclamations reflected a profound change in the American political calculus: For the first time, elected officials from traditionally conservative states are starting to feel it’s safer to back gay marriage than risk being the last to join the cause.”

Calculus? Must an elected official engage in political calculation before he determines his position on an issue? The safety and risk to which the author refers presumes that one’s reelection is the ultimate end. It most certainly is not. Principle and conviction—dedication to the ideas one believes are in society’s best interest—are the ultimate ends.

Another excerpt from the AP: “As support among party leaders builds, rank-and-file Democrats appear wary of being perceived as hold-outs in what both parties are increasingly describing as a civil rights issue.” But isn’t it better to be a hold-out than a sell-out? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton flip-flop on gay marriage every ten minutes, depending on their perception of “public opinion,” but I’m not sure that’s a behavior to boast about. And, incidentally, gay marriage is a civil rights issue in the same sense that smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are civil rights issues. Voluntary behavioral choices—particularly those that defy centuries of human experience—do not constitute civil rights.

Here is former NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman, in praise of the flip-flopping mass of elected officials: “They’re reflecting what they’re seeing in the polls—except the most extreme of the Republican base.” Suppose the polls suddenly indicated support for polygamy. Would all virtuous officials be obligated to change their positions accordingly? Suppose the polls suddenly indicated support for pedophilia. Would all virtuous officials be obligated to change their positions accordingly? Based upon Miss Whitman’s logic, yes, they would.

Memo to Miss Whitman: Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn about polls. Count me among “the extreme.”

Charles Davenport Jr.

Filed under Editorials Tagged with , , ,

NC residents face 61% premium increase because of Obamacare

March 23, 2013 31 Comments

Dr. Joe GuarinoThe staff of three congressional committees recently published a report projecting how much health insurance premiums will increase nationwide because of Obamacare.  They found that, for the individual health insurance market, North Carolina residents will experience a 61% increase in premiums:

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/18/obamacare-projected-premium-increases-by-state/

Does anyone recall the days when our illustrious president promised that insurance premiums were going to decrease?  Some of us knew from the outset that the claims peddled by Obama and his fellow Democrats were fictions– unless, of course, health care is rationed severely, or reimbursements are dramatically reduced.

Otherwise, it was always implausible that Obamacare would reduce premiums when coverages are mandated to be expanded; when pre-existing conditions must be covered; and when differences in premiums based on gender and age must be blunted.

North Carolina residents are getting precisely what they deserve.  Recall that they elected Kay Hagan to the Senate, and even supported Obama for president, during the 2008 election season.  In fact, every person who supported Hagan and Obama richly deserves responsibility for these premium increases.  (Of course, many of these Obama/Hagan supporters would be entirely satisfied to see the utter collapse of the private health care system.)

Obamacare faces some serious challenges as it is implemented over the next couple of years.  But some Republicans are doing all they can to smooth its path.  Some GOP-led states are now trying to negotiate a private system for Medicaid under Obamacare. And even though we have heard many promises to defund Obamacare, twenty Senate Republicans just allowed a continuing resolution to pass that funds Obamacare.

Winston-Salem Church Eschews Traditional Marriage

Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem impudently issued a statement that it would no longer perform heterosexual marriages– at least, not until gay marriage is made legal in the state of North Carolina.  The statement asserts, “Our denomination struggles to overcome the sin of reserving these sacramental privileges for straight people only.”

Got that?  According to this church, reserving marriage for heterosexual couples is a sin.

But they were not only issuing an ultimatum of sorts to the entire state of North Carolina.  They were also directing the statement to leaders of their own denomination.

Of course, this church demonstrates self-destructive behavior from the standpoint of its own posterity.  Without heterosexual marriage, the church is less likely to produce the future generations needed to sustain it through the generations.  Oh, I know, supporters will claim they can rely upon other means of having kids and attracting younger members.  That would be a fairly nihilistic position, however.

The conference bishop incredibly said he felt the church did not violate any denominational doctrine or policy.  And the liberal mainline church thus becomes a parody of itself.

McCrory Budget a Mixed Bag

The new Republican governor released a budget this week that increases overall spending by 2 percent, puts 5,000 more kids into pre-K programs, and adds 1,800 teachers.  Yes, the picture is muddled because there are other cuts and increases.

It is nominally a “responsible” budget.  But the big problem is that North Carolina needs to reinvent itself completely in the face of a devastated statewide economy– and a national political environment that has descended, perhaps irrevocably, into socialism.  North Carolina needs to carve out a niche as a bastion of capitalism and entrepreneurialism and free markets and limited government.

McCrory’s budget does not make that kind of transformational change.  This is extremely unfortunate, because the first year for a new chief executive usually provides the greatest opportunity to make a difference.  This budget unfortunately is a missed opportunity.

Let’s hope that the General Assembly asserts some leadership once again.  We need to be wary, however, of House Speaker Thom Tillis, who is reportedly interested in running for US Senate.  It is feared that Tillis– whose inclinations can be moderate– might try to move toward the middle in order to position himself to run for the US Senate.  That sets up a potential conflict between a McCrory/Tillis combination and the more conservative North Carolina Senate.

Conservatives need to call out McCrory and Tillis as the most important legislation works its way through the legislature– especially if they begin to waffle.  Yes, some political hits were taken at the hands of the media/left complex because of some of the legislation that has already passed and been signed into law. 

But some very important legislating remains.  It is hoped that a premature surrender is not in the works.

Dr. Joe Guarino is a Guardian columnist.

Filed under Editorials Tagged with , ,

Journalists perceive a threat to Obama

August 23, 2012 3 Comments

“Journalists” at the AP and elsewhere sense that Barack Obama is in trouble. Monday’s News & Record featured an article illustrative of the trend (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hbpDUzWq0qWm9fivNOvOg8avm9aA?docId=d21698124d8440688066dd349d2fdbfc). The political leanings of the author, Stephen Ohlemacher, are glaringly obvious, as are his intentions to cover for the Democrat party and Barack Obama.

Ohlemacher’s opening paragraph informs us that we should not look for many “bold pronouncements” when the parties craft their platforms in the next couple of weeks. He adds, off-handedly, that the Democrats have decided to endorse gay marriage, which he considers a ho-hum, business-as-usual development.

Never mind same-sex marriage. According to Ohlemacher, the big story, the potential “challenge” for Mitt Romney, is that supporters of Rep. Ron Paul might demand, and accomplish, a plank in the GOP platform that calls for an audit of the Fed.

Read more of this post

Filed under Editorials Tagged with , , , ,

Dine with kindred spirits at Chick-fil-A

July 20, 2012 9 Comments

Today’s News & Record features an interesting AP article about Chick-fil-A’s public opposition to gay marriage. (Leftist bloggers tend to throw temper tantrums when we do not provide links—an amusing spectacle, of course, but we toss them a bone now and then. Here is the link:  http://www.news-record.com/content/2012/07/20/article/chick_fil_a_surprises_some_with_gay_marriage_talk). The first sentence of the article is striking because it is so uncharacteristically honest. It reads as follows: “Gay rights activists were surprised Thursday that the president of the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A has taken a public position against same-sex marriage.”

Imagine that: Speaking out in favor of traditional marriage—or anything reminiscent of old-fashioned behavioral norms–has become so uncommon that leftists are “surprised” when a rogue citizen dares defy the enlightened status quo on “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “tolerance.” Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy evidently did not receive the memo stating that the First Amendment applies only to those who march in lockstep with the activist Left.

Mr. Cathy’s remarks are so brazenly defiant of liberal speech-code etiquette, they must be repeated and savored here. Chick-fil-A, Cathy said, is “guilty as charged” for defending marriage and the family unit as biblically defined. This from the aforementioned AP article: “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” In only a couple of brief sentences, Cathy managed to poke a rhetorical stick in the eyes of gay marriage activists, secularists, and atheists. This is an uncommon demonstration of backbone and unapologetic devotion to principle.

Here we have a disturbing commentary on the nature of our times: Defending a tradition centuries in the making generates astonishment among “journalists” and left-wing activists; meanwhile, no one was “surprised” when, prior to the Amendment One vote in May, Bob Page of Replacements Ltd. spoke out, loudly and repeatedly, in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, most “journalists” openly applauded Page’s “commitment to diversity, tolerance, and inclusion.”

Among Mr. Page’s assertions was the claim that passage of the amendment would harm North Carolina’s business environment. Quite the contrary. As a consequence of the activism of Page and his employees, Replacements Limited has reportedly lost many of its customers. The irony is delicious, but not quite as toothsome as a Chick-fil-A sandwich.

Charles Davenport Jr. is the editor of The Greensboro Guardian.

Filed under Editorials Tagged with , , ,

The Misuse and Abuse of “Discrimination”

May 7, 2012 2 Comments

In the News & Record of Saturday, April 28, Rabbi Fred Gutman and Reverend Julie Peeples claimed to “respect the religious opposition of some to same-sex marriage.” If this is so, then why did they compare defenders of traditional marriage to Nazis? “It is worth noting,” they write, “that the slippery slope toward the death of 6 million Jews” began with the same type of “discrimination” demonstrated by traditionalists, who abide by centuries of human experience and wisdom in regard to the institution of marriage.

Presumably, the Rabbi and the Reverend are authorities on the Scriptures. According to their logic and their interpretation of the Scriptures, any discrimination is wrong. Let’s replace the word “homosexual” with “polygamist”: Using their logic, polygamy is acceptable. If not, then we are discriminating against a particular group of people — just as Gutman and Peeples claim Christians are “discriminating” against homosexuals.

Their interpretation of Scripture mandates acceptance of any and all lifestyles. If that is the case, we open the door for any deviant form of relationship. Are Gutman and Peeples going to play God for all of us and organize civilization based on their own version of morality? Will they reward every relationship, no matter how deviant, with the same rights and privileges we bestow upon traditional marriage?

Apparently, we no longer require the assistance of divine providence or the Holy Spirit. Two people of superior intellect and virtue (Gutman and Peeples) have established for all of us a new moral code.

The institution of marriage, set in stone for centuries and fortified by the wisdom of our ancestors, will not be toppled by arrogant, modern radicals.

Addison Riddleberger

Filed under Columns Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Norms, natural law, and gay marriage

April 26, 2012 3 Comments

Editor’s note: The artilce below was originally published as a News & Record column on October 16.

For the record, it should be noted that a majority of the Republican-controlled legislature did not vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; rather, the majority voted to allow us—the voters—to decide the question. Yet, since mid-September, the assembly’s action has been denounced in these pages as mean-spirited, stupid, bigoted, un-American, benighted, ugly, discriminatory, reprehensible, extreme, and of course, homophobic.

Rhetorical questions arise: Why has there been no outcry from those among us who blather on and on about diplomacy, coalition-building, unity, and consensus? Why have there been so few, if any, condemnations of such “harsh” and “divisive” language? Where are the self-proclaimed champions of “democracy” who, in other contexts, insist on a vote of the people? Alas, the questions are rhetorical because the answers are obvious.

Read more of this post

Filed under Editorials Tagged with , , , , ,

The legalities of Amendment One

April 26, 2012 27 Comments

As the debate over Amendment One heats up, the deliberate misinformation and scare tactics regarding the amendment are becoming more widespread. Sadly, the public is being fed sound bites, not substance in many instances by the deployment of certain myths regarding the legal effect of the Amendment on other areas of the law.

This seems purposely designed to avoid a real debate on the core issue of the Amendment, which is whether citizens in North Carolina want to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples or establish civil unions.

Passage of the Amendment would prohibit the legislature- and more importantly, the courts from ever establishing such legal relationships.  North Carolina currently does not allow either, so passage of the Amendment would not change existing law. However, it would change the ability of a court to nullify existing prohibitions against same-sex marriage as was done in California.

Read more of this post

Filed under Opinions Tagged with , , , ,

Marriage=One man, one woman

April 4, 2012 Leave a comment

Washington, April 4, 2012 –North Carolina is the only remaining southern state that has not explicitly defined marriage in its constitution as a union between one man and one woman. Voters there will get the chance to vote on the definition of marriage in their May 8 primary. President Barack Obama and NC Governor Beverly Perdue have both spoken out against the amendment.

The vote is important for two reasons. It places this decision in the hands of the citizens of the state versus judges. It creates the opportunity to reaffirm the important role of traditional marriage in raising healthy children and maintaining a free society.

Marriage has not historically been treated as a constitutional “right,” yet government in America have played a role in regulating and encouraging it since colonial days. This is because marriage creates the households that produce and protect children, business, charity and every other aspect of civil society. This contribution to maintaining society is why government can legitimately seek to strengthen the traditional institution of marriage.

The Family Research Council suggests that the federal government can strengthen marriage through pro-family tax policy (eliminate the “marriage penalty”), abstinence-until-marriage programs, and welfare reform.

According to Nancy F. Cott’s report submitted in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, “marriage laws have changed over time often in the face of strong resistance by courts and legislatures.” Examples of where marriage laws have changed include polygamous marriage, marriage to close blood relatives, marriage of adults to minors, binding husband and wife identities (coverture), racial barriers and proving fault in divorce.

Changes to laws regarding marriage have centered on the preventing infringement upon natural rights or health. The removal of past restrictions are in line with recognition of individual natural rights i.e. black and white men are inherently the same, men and women both have a right to property, protection of children and their health, etc.

Does acceptance of same sex marriage naturally follow in the evolution of marriage?

Homosexuality is not a natural right. There is no comparison between the legal ability of a black man to marry an Asian woman and a man to marry another man. Lifestyle freedom of choice is enshrined in this country and no one should be persecuted for legal choices made between consenting adults.

However, changing the definition of marriage to include variations on coupling other than one man and one woman contradicts natural law, i.e. no other union can produce children, which are the primary ingredient to a continuation of society. Any role of the state in marriage must be explicitly aimed at protecting and perpetuating society.

To blur the lines between what is statistically and experientially known to be good for society and what is a lifestyle choice is an unwise step.

Are the rights of Lesbian and Gay Americans being violated?

Some argue for same sex marriage to be recognized by the state because of rights. All Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th Amendment. Private contractual arrangements, such as wills, durable power of attorney, health care proxies, and life insurance policies are available to everyone.

Laws protecting people against domestic and other forms of violence are not suspended for unmarried homosexual partners. No state with constitutionally defined heterosexual marriage has ever ruled that marital status has any impact on domestic violence laws. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that their marriage protection amendment would not affect the application of the state domestic violence laws.

Morality is inextricable from prosperity and self-government.

In penning the Northwest Ordinance, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “religion, morality and knowledge” are “necessary to good government.”

George Washington in his Farewell Address stated, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

George Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights wrote, “That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

None of us is perfect, but as a society, we must set standards for the good of the whole. A vote yes for marriage between one man and one woman is not a vote against the rights or well-being of our gay friends and relatives. It is an affirmation for the society we all enjoy and hope to preserve for our children, born and unborn.

Constitutional amendments keep judges from defining marriage.

If not defined by constitution, same-sex couples married in other states where these unions are recognized can move to states without a constitutional statement and sue to have their “marriage” recognized. These types of lawsuits have been filed across the country and prompted many states to act such as Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wyoming, New Mexico, Nebraska, Missouri, Indiana, and Rhode Island. In the lawsuits, same-sex couples demanded that the definition of marriage for everyone be permanently changed.

Same-sex marriage is also argued for in protection of adopted children into those partnerships. According to the Williams Institute, a gay think tank at UCLA, only 22% of same-sex couples are raising children. Because the number of same-sex couples is so small, and because so few of them are raising children, only 0.12 percent of U.S. households constitute same-sex couples raising children.

Some believe that marriage should be handled exclusively by the church and that everything pertaining to agreements between adults should be under the purview of contract law. Such a break may make for easier debate, yet marriage plays such an inextricable role in creating and holding society together, it may be impossible to separate its definition from the governance of society.

Carla Garrison follows current events with one eye on history and the other on the future. As a follower of Christ, her goal is to encourage people to know the truth and use it as a call to personal action. Read more at Truth be Told.

Filed under Columns Tagged with , , ,

Tim Dunkin Responds to Roch Smith

March 8, 2012 4 Comments

Editor’s note: The following is Tim Dunkin’s response to Roch Smith’s “Pro-Con” article on gay marriage.

It was with great interest that I read Roch Smith’s effort at defending so-called gay marriage and opposition to the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment in North Carolina.  While I understand the purpose for the particular arguments he made to buttress his position, and while his arguments may superficially seem to run in the grand tradition of ever-increasing liberty for more and more Americans, we must nevertheless accept that ultimately, his arguments are not nearly as persuasive as those already persuaded to support homosexual marriage might imagine them to be.  His arguments are not really for the extension of liberty to an oppressed class, but the extension of special rights to one particular group over others on the basis of that one group’s personal predilections.

Mr. Smith goes to great lengths to argue that extending the institution of marriage to include unions between two members of the same gender is necessary for equality and liberty.  He argues – taking a phrase from my own writings against gay marriage – that homosexuals should not be restricted from participation in a social institution that brings with it stability and prosperity.  He points to “over a thousand rights and responsibilities” that are conferred by traditional marriage.   He ultimately concludes that to refuse to extend state recognition (and approval) to homosexual unions calling themselves marriages, our state “establishes an insurmountable barrier to equal participation in stable society for gay and lesbian people.”

Read more of this post

Filed under Columns Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers

%d bloggers like this: