Posted on 08/13/2004 8:19:54 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Robinson's aggressiveness divides, becomes issue
Did you check out the briefs on the issues. Use the pull down menu in the index.
http://www.stateaction.org/index.cfm
Our founding fathers gave us the ballot box, the soapbox, the jury box, and the cartridge box so that we might guarantee our freedoms and protect ourselves from tyranny. I am a member of the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and Grass Roots North Carolina. I oppose any existing law or prospective legislation that encroaches upon every American's individual right to bear arms.
Because of my strong record of working to protect the rights of gun owners in my two terms as a Winston-Salem city councilman, my campaign for Congress is receiving overwhelming support from defenders of the 2nd Amendment.
In the past, I have been endorsed by both the NRA and Grass Roots North Carolina. In this race, I have already received personal donations from Joe Waldron, the Executive Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and from Larry Pratt, the President of Gun Owners of America.
With the trial lawyers suing gun manufacturers for everything under the sun, and with naïve local government do-gooders trying to register (or ban) everything from B.B. guns to paint ball markers, the 2nd amendment could sure use a new friend in Congress. A member of the NRA, GOA, and GRNC myself, I will be the best buddy the 2nd Amendment has had in Congress since Congressman Davie Crockett of Tennessee in the 1800’s!
---------------------
BTW - He's walked the walk on this before. I found out actually in a local Winston-Salem City Council article on FR before his run for congress.
This is one of the "domestic issues" Virginia studied:
Civil Marriage Equality
State and federal laws routinely discriminate against same-sex couples.
The U.S. General Accounting Office has listed more than 1,000 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples but denied to same-sex couples.1 States have similar laws that protect married partners but not same-sex partners, including:
The right to visit a sick spouse in the hospital.
The right to make decisions during a medical emergency.
The right to leave work to care for an ill spouse.
The right to access pensions, workers’ compensation, and survivor benefits.
The right to sue for wrongful death of a spouse.
The right to inherit without a will.
There is a fast-growing movement toward civil marriage and civil union equality. In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that state law must allow same-sex couples to marry. The state constitution guarantees “the right to marry the person of one’s choice” regardless of gender, the Court decided. In June 2003, an Ontario appeals court ruled that the Canadian constitution requires civil marriage equality for same-sex couples, which led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada. In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples in that state, which led to the legalization of same-sex civil unions. More than ten nations, including Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, already allow same-sex couples to marry or enter into federally recognized domestic partnerships.
Civil marriage would build on America’s tradition of moving civil rights forward and erasing the inequities of the past. This is not the first time in our country that a group of people has been denied the freedom to marry. African American slaves were not permitted to marry. There was a time when Asian Americans were not permitted to marry in some Western states. And it was not until 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Jim Crow state laws that made interracial marriage illegal. Clearly, Americans have the capacity to move beyond discrimination.
Civil marriage, and to a lesser extent civil unions, protect couples. A state civil union law grants same-sex couples the rights of married couples, but only within that state. Civil marriages would likely be recognized across state lines under the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause.
Civil marriage promotes stable, long-lasting relationships between same-sex partners. Civil marriage is not just about benefits. Marriage also imposes responsibilities on the partners for each other’s welfare and the welfare of their dependents. The state has the same interest in promoting family stability for same-sex couples as it has in promoting traditional marriage between men and women. Married couples are viewed and treated differently than single individuals by the state, by friends, family and the rest of society, and by each other. Setting aside the issue of discrimination, it is illogical for government to promote marriage for some but not for all.
Civil marriage strengthens families and safeguards children. Children are more secure if they are raised in homes with two loving parents who have a legal relationship with them and can share the responsibility of parenthood. According to conservative estimates from the 2000 census, there are more than 1 million children being raised by same- sex couples in the United States.2 Without the ability to establish a legal relationship to both parents, children of same-sex couples are left without important protections, such as survivor benefits. These children should not be penalized just because their parents are gay.
No religious institution would be required to perform a ceremony. Just as no religious institution can be required by the government to marry an interfaith couple, no religious institution could be told to marry a same- sex couple. Right now, Reform Judaism, Unitarianism, and many United Church of Christ congregations and Quaker meetings do sanction same- sex unions. When the government refuses to honor marriages blessed by these religious groups, it consequently refuses to honor their religious freedom.
Public support for civil marriage and civil unions is growing. An August 2003 poll jointly conducted by the Democratic polling firm Hart Research and the Republican firm American Viewpoint found that, by a margin of 50 to 47 percent, Americans support granting civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples as long as religious institutions do not have to recognize or perform these marriages. In a September 2003 Gallup poll, only 35% of Americans said that same-sex couples “should not be allowed all the same legal rights as married couples in every state” when given three choices: support, opposition or “it doesn’t matter.” The concept of same-sex marriage has steadily gained support in recent years, and that support is likely to increase. In 1996, only 27 percent supported same-sex marriage, compared to 50 percent today. When polls are broken down by age group, the younger the respondent, the stronger the support for same-sex marriage.
States have a mixed record on providing benefits to domestic partners. In 2003, California enacted a law that provides registered domestic partners almost all of the state-conferred rights and responsibilities of spouses. In Hawaii, same-sex couples are able to formalize their relationships under the state’s reciprocal beneficiary statute, which entitles registered same-sex couples to many rights available to married spouses, including those associated with survivorship, inheritance, property ownership, and insurance. Ten states (CA, CT, IA, ME, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA) and the District of Columbia offer domestic partner benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, as do several dozen cities and counties. Nonetheless, 37 states have passed laws that explicitly prohibit the recognition of marriage between same-sex couples. The 13 which have not passed such laws are CT, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, RI, VT, WI and WY.
Federal law against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
In 1996, Congress passed an anti-gay marriage bill called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Legal scholars argue that DOMA flagrantly violates the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution. The issue has never been resolved in court.
This policy summary relies in large part on information from Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Virginia Foxx Background: is a Senator in the North Carolina State Senate 1995-present; A.B., in English, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; M.A.C.T., in Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Ed.D., in Curriculum and Teaching/Higher Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; served on the Watauga County Board of Education 1976-88; President of Maryland Community College; plant nursery owner.
Vernon Robinson Background: Background: B.S., in middle eastern affairs, U.S. Air Force Academy; M.B.A., University of Missouri; Winston-Salem City Councilman; business Professor at the Winston-Salem campus of the University of North Carolina; Chairman of two non-profits that give vouchers so needy children can attend private religious Schools; Missile Combat Crew Commander and Intelligence Officer in the Air Force U.S. Air Force.
I'm having the same gut wrenching feeling. Oh, no! I wish we had found this last week, while there was still time to let people know.
He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High,
abides under the shadow of the Almighty,
He shall say to the Lord,
"You are my refuge and my stronghold,
my God in whom I put my trust."
Thanks for the ping.
BUMP!!!
NRA has just endorsed Vernon Robinson!!!! Foxx was claiming she had their endorsement and the NRA just sent their endorsement saying that they in fact HAVE NOT endorsed Foxx!!!!
Woooooo--hooooooooo!
She was doing the same with Grassroots America and they didn't endorse her either.
I can think of no more damning evidence of Virginia's liberalism than the fact that she is a habitual liar.
I voted for Robinson this morning.
Here's my very un-scientific take on why Robinson will beat Foxx:
All the polls taken during the primary showed Robinson in third place behind Broyhill and Foxx. On election night, Robinson came in 1st, with Broyhill in third. Why the switcheroo? I think it's because many voters wouldn't admit to liking and voting for Robinson since he's often over the top and holds non-PC viewpoints. It's similar to the "Jesse Helms" syndrome - in which Jesse would always handily beat his opponents although many people wouldn't admit to voting for him.
This is the lady that attempted to pass a resolution banning Christmas and the mention of Jesus.
Sigh...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.