Amendment One: An avalanche of letters

One more batch of Amendment One letters. The election is tomorrow.  Here are nearly 50 more.

There is a law already. This is a "we'll show you" message for people the legislature wants to punish. Like the message to the "liberals" in the colleges "we will gut your colleges." Like the midnight "we'll show you" message to the teachers. Like the message to preschool education, museums and high schools for the gifted. "We will show you."  "We don't want you and your kind."

These are extremist politicians who don't legislate but focus on "getting even.” We are falling into the backwater hole of the 1950s. This is not where North Carolina was going.

We got off our duffs to remove the extremists from the Wake County school board.

Get in the car again. It is not over. Let us send our own message, a message from the voters - no more extremist, "we'll get you" government.

Thomas Kline
Raleigh

---------------

We always need to be sure that our good is never spoken evil of. I wish I could vote for a simple amendment that protected marriage as between one man and one woman PERIOD! Yet you have made your bill anti-homosexual altogether. I believe homosexuality is unnatural affection and sin in the eyes of God, but I love homosexuals the same as persons who gossip or have anger issues, etc. Sin is sin and we are all sinners.

I believe the amendment over-reaches and over-steps by even denying secular civil unions and becomes condemnatory. It looks like homosexual hate even though I'm sure that wasn't the thinking or intent, but as much as my heart cried to defend marriage as God gave it, I must abstain from supporting the amendment because of this over-reach.

I will not vote against it, either. I just won't vote. If it is defeated I believe that the perceived "hate" in the over-reach is why and I would hope that you try again and just make it a defense of marriage without the barring any and all legal rights "hate."

Rev. Steven Mullenix
Warrenton

---------------------------------------------------------

For what it’s worth, the N.C. Constitution is supposed to be a document that establishes the form of government for the state and the rights of its citizens.

The proposed marriage amendment does neither. It makes no statement on government and it constrains the rights of North Carolina's citizens. This amendment has NO PLACE in the constitution.

P. Nixon Alexander
Zebulon

---------------------------------------------------------

I am a gardener. I am a classical singer.  I am a responsible pet owner. I am an amateur photographer. I feed the birds. I feed the squirrels.  I am an organic gardener. I don’t litter. I am a good neighbor. I am a good employee.  I pay my bills and my taxes. I take care of myself. I have never been on unemployment. I have never taken charity. I shop locally. I drive a fuel efficient vehicle. I work to reduce my carbon footprint and to conserve water. I am informed. I am educated. Most importantly, I am a citizen. I am a voter.

So, with all these things that I am, why do so many people think that it’s OK to discriminate against someone like me?

Amendment One is mean-spirited, divisive and ultimately discriminatory. Discriminatory to someone like me. I can’t help but believe that we all deserve better.

Karen Bender
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

My sample ballot shows Amendment 1 to the N.C. Constitution as having a single sentence.

The "full text" of the amendment adds a second sentence that indicates that the amendment does not prohibit a private party from entering into a contract with another private party. This is probably intended to keep the amendment out of the business arena.

The first issue is whether the second sentence, which is not on the ballot, can be approved by the voters. If not, then all existing and prospective business organizations may be prohibited, e.g., partnerships, limited liability companies, and certain corporations.

Further, even if the second sentence is somehow incorporated into the amendment in the ballot, the reference to contracts limits its applicability. For example, Chapter 59 Article 2 of the NC General Statutes, the "Uniform Partnership Act", has numerous examples of situations in which partnerships are formed outside of contracts.

The amendment will certainly keep the lawyers busy.

Robert Tait
Apex

---------------------------------------------------------

Here I am, a hetero, married father of three, feeling so embittered by the proposed Amendment 1 that I actually wonder if I should keep living in the state if it passes. How much more alienated would I feel were I one of the people this piece of mean-spirited legislation is directly aimed at?

So while I hope for the best, I prepare for the worst, and ask my fellow Tar Heels to stay, and be of good heart, even if the vote goes awry. My family, my friends, my colleagues and most I know equally abhor this effort to take away your dignity. You don't have to prove anything to us. You are North Carolinians - you are us. We will meet this challenge together.

Douglas Nydick
Durham

-----------------------
First, it is the marriage amendment and not Amendment One! Your ads are also filled with many errors and you know it. But it was lies that also made the Supreme Court pass Roe v. Wade! I hope that won’t ever happen again.

Second, if you said it isn’t needed because the law already prevents same-sex marriage then why oppose the amendment? It is needed to stop a judge from changing the status quo. That is what you forced on us!
 
Third, what will God’s wrath be for society going against His law? I am sure that Sodom had children when they were destroyed. Just read the Bible and the older Apostolic Christians and major Christian Churches and others saying it is wrong. We are all one body and thus are concerned and pray for those who do these unnatural acts. Children need a male father and female mother. To give in to same-sex marriage will be to not defend God’s laws.
 
God knows what you check in the voting booth and remember Pascal’s Wager. If you are wrong in what you vote could you affect where you spend eternity? Voting to oppose God’s known law is a serious and critical decision and not something to take lightly. We love you but not the lifestyle since it is sinful. Think of God and how He would want you to act.

Joseph J. Rothengast
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------
Let’s imagine the following scenario, if Jesus were teaching in NC now: A group of devout believers and their leaders approached Jesus saying, Rabbi, on Tuesday will you be voting for or against Amendment 1. Jesus, knowing what was in their hearts, looked at them with love and said, Those who live in love live in God and God in them. A long silence followed. They dared not ask him any other questions but henceforth looked for ways to silence him.

Jeanine Driscoll
Mebane
---------------------------------------------------------

Vote FOR Amendment One. It will help support the integrity of marriage, and to more permanently prohibit the ongoing liberal effort to legitimize homosexual behavior. Apostle Paul clearly positions, 1 Cor.6:9, adulterers, thieves, the greedy and others with homosexuals. We don't condone actively participating thieves, or active  adulterers, or any ongoing individual behavior that works against the Creator's plan as it has been documented. If it is not right behavior,  hen it is not right for marriage to be based on this behavior.

People cannot be stopped from behaving badly, but we can save marriage in North Carolina for one man with one woman as it should be. Thirty of the 50 states of our Union have already taken this step. The Rev. Billy Graham has endorsed One Man-One Woman Marriage. Vote for Amendment One. Vote to preserve marriage.

William Barnhill
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Reading the numerous letters to the editor concerning the so-called marriage amendment, I am struck by how many letter writers profess to KNOW what God thinks. Imagine the breathtaking arrogance! Take a look in the mirror, folks: Like the rest of us, you are one, puny, imperfect human being, an infinitesimal speck in the universe. You do not, indeed cannot, speak for God. Get a little humility – before, who knows, God decides to smite you with a lightening bolt or something as a rebuke for your outrageous impudence.

Mina Cheek Fraser
Pittsboro

--------------------

Black voters favor the amendment 51 to 39 percent – News & Observer, April 25

It took over 100 years to strip the N.C. Constitution of Articles that legalized discrimination. N.C. was still passing laws promoting separate-but-equal for races into the 1960s. The irony is that African-Americans may be the group that tilts the vote to restore discrimination to our Constitution. I guess as long as they're not the target of discrimination, it’s OK.

Douglas Williams
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

The problem with the arguments over the NC marriage amendment is the definition of the word "marriage."  Like many words, the word "marriage" has more than one meaning. My church defines marriage as a religious sacrament that binds a man and a woman together under God forever. The state of North Carolina is not a religion and can only define marriage as a civil contract with terms and conditions of agreement between two people. It is clear to me that when the state addresses "marriage" it refers to the civil contract of "marriage" not the religious sacrament. Thus marriage contracts like all contracts must be free and open to all citizens. Gay people can not be excluded from the benefits of the marriage contract any more than blacks, Jews, the elderly or the Irish.

Many churches and ministers teach that homosexuality is sinful so it is understandable that many citizens do not approve of people who are gay.  But in a free society you can't deny an unpopular group equal protection under the law. Marriage is a legal contract that applies freely to all citizens. The North Carolina marriage amendment is plain and simple discrimination. I will vote no.

Chip Williams
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------
"Just say no" (Our Views, May 6) is beautifully written about a timely topic. Regarding the so called gay marriage amendment, which will be voted on Tuesday, the problem is summarized succinctly by the author,” Constitutional Amendments should be solidly constructed to protect rights and weather the test of time.”

The fact that it is an attempt to unify the Republican Party, by appealing to its conservative church base is appalling. These rights are not for politicians or for churches to meddle in; never have been. Once again the separation of church and state is becoming challenged.

Today, at church, for the third time, we were assaulted with the definition of our rights as Catholics, and our duties to vote for this amendment. How far have we come from feudal times, when the church controlled everything, and even the Kings of England, were subject to its decisions? We are not moving forward but backward. It is time to assert the free will we were born with, and vote with our consciences, free from outside influences.

Norman Singer
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------

The use of the Bible to support Amendment One is akin to leaning on a weak reed. Abraham married Sarah and Hagar, making the case for bigamy. David and Solomon had many wives and concubines, making the case for polygamy.

Jesus didn't marry, nor did Paul, leaving some to wonder about Paul's thorn in the flesh.

The disciples left everything, including Peter's mother-in-law, to follow Jesus. I wonder about their marriages.

Maybe we could use Scripture to inspire us to do something really useful, like loving our neighbor as ourselves.

I'm voting "no.".

William Ferrell
Chapel Hill
---------------------------------------------------------

Come Wednesday, all votes will be counted, and we will learn who we are as a community. I don’t believe Amendment One reflects our values. I ask you to review the proposed amendment and your conscience and vote against on Amendment One.

Amendment One will not change anything in North Carolina, there are already laws that ban civil unions. If passed, it will mostly be a statement of intolerance, that in the name of God and civil law, we hate. Our religion will become our government, our government a religion.

During Sunday services, we gathered in communities of faith, sharing the Good News to understand the Love which Jesus taught. Letters were read from the bishops. Sermons and homilies from preachers and priests proclaiming the sins and abominations of the homosexual, their evidence to persuade congregations to support the Marriage Amendment. Though the word love was discussed.

We listened closely to the preacher’s sermon, as it, in some ways, brings God into our daily lives. When he was done, did he direct: Who among us should cast the first vote? Did you ask yourself how adopting this hateful amendment brings you closer to God or protects your marriage, by denying another?

Consider the one thing we do know, which is love. The possibility the love shared between two gay people may be as legitimate as ours.
With my love, support is mutual, comfort found in hands held gently, just knowing she’s there. Tears of joy, of sorrow, too, shared throughout our life. Wretched I am, when her tears were caused by me. Forgiveness. Morning coffee. Someone who listens into the evening. Similar, I’m sure, to your love, and theirs, too. Love encompasses all human kindness, compassion and affection.

Love, is what Tuesday’s vote is about. Please reject Amendment One.

James Brigham
High Point

---------------------------------------------------------

One of the great things about America is our religious freedom. Thanks to our Constitution, any citizen can practice whatever beliefs they wish without having to bend to the will of an oppressive government.

Apparently some misguided residents of North Carolina wish to change this. Under the guise of “protecting” marriage, these intolerant fundamentalists have championed an amendment aimed at restricting gay marriage based entirely on religious principles. They certainly have a right to their own beliefs, but they do not have the right to force those beliefs on others.

I understand that proponents of the amendment truly believe that their God forbids gay marriage. However, their God is not the God of all North Carolinians. If you do not believe in gay marriage, then by all means don't marry someone of the same gender. Under no circumstances, though, do you have the right to force your religion on others. Please end this narrow-minded bigotry and vote against Amendment One.

Logan Johnson
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------

There is much speculation and disagreement among North Carolinians as to whether the proposed Amendment One measures up to Christian principles or is antithetical to them.

A good approach to this dilemma might be to examine the issue in the context of the golden rule, an idea that is found in the Christian Bible and firmly ensconced in Christian dogma. How would the supporters of Amendment One feel if they were in the minority and heterosexual marriage were banned? Christians are urged to vote accordingly.

Sandy Mitchell
Southport
---------------------------------------------------------

No matter what your feelings are about gay marriage, we should all be very concerned about the fact that the proposed Amendment One fundamentally changes everyone's First Amendment rights, as defined by our US Constitution.  The Constitution stipulates our rights to religious freedom (for everyone, regardless of affiliation) and for separation of church and state. Those supporting the proposed NC constitutional amendment quote the (Christian) Bible as justification for the change. In doing so, they highlight why this proposal violates both freedom for all citizens to believe and practice their own religious views, and our fundamental right to have our democracy separated from any religious tenets.

We should all vote NO on Tuesday to protect our fundamental religious freedoms.

Nancy Mullin
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Amendment One states that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Has anyone asked the writers to define man and woman? There are many naturally occurring conditions where the gender lines are blurred. There are chromosomal, genetic, hormonal, anatomical and neurological conditions that all have to be considered. The Olympic Games require many doctors and scientists to evaluate a person if gender is questioned. Will the state need to hire experts to evaluate the gender of people before they get married if the amendment passes?

Who will intersex people be able to marry? Intersex conditions appear in ~1 of 2000 births (that’s ~5000 people in North Carolina). Will the state have to decide who these people can or cant marry on an individual basis?

What about the couple whose story was presented in the N&O, where a man and woman married then the man got a sex change? Will they be automatically divorced by the state?

Marie Piascik
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve been reading both sides of the Amendment 1 arguments in this forum for the past month, both from the religious right and from the more civic minded.  The one observation that keeps coming to mind is the observation made by Republican Speaker Thom Tillis. This man has some historical perspective.  He realizes that if this amendment passes, it’ll probably be “overturned in 20 years.” The younger generation has no such discrimination against gay citizens.

This gives me hope for the future, when history tells us that the present conservative mindset will look pretty silly. So, if it passes, the people who it discriminates against will have to wait another couple of decades, which is very unfortunate, but at least history tells us that we have good reason to think it’s temporary.

Richard Chartrand
Chapel HIll
---------------------------------------------------------

I have always found myself blessed to have been born, raised and educated in the Catholic tradition. It has a rich history of fighting for social justice and peace.  As I drove home from mass today, the words from the first letter of John have been echoing in my ears. Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. (1 John 4:7-8) I voted against Amendment One. I voted for Love, because God is love.

Newman Aguiar
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

In an interview in 1978, James Baldwin, novelist, playwright and poet, shared, “Everybody’s journey is individual. You don't know with whom you're going to fall in love. No one has a right to make your choice for you, or to penalize you for being in love. In a sense, I think they've put themselves in prison.”

Our states constitution is designed to protect our rights as we live this journey; it is not intended to diminish them. Please vote no May 8 to the North Carolina Marriage Amendment.

Ken Branch
Raleigh

-------------------
I have always thought of the Constitution as a benevolent document that guaranteed my rights as a citizen.  I can freely assemble, I can speak my mind, I can worship as I please, the list is familiar, or else it should be. Now we North Carolinians are contemplating an amendment to make our Constitution a document that restricts our freedom and choice. I urge all people who wish to live their lives as they please, doing harm to no one else, to vote against this amendment.

Gary Pellom
Durham
-------------------

I have just seen the full-page political advertisement quoting Billy Graham as being in favor of Amendment One. It was paid for by the Billy Graham Foundation, whose tax-exempt status should certainly now be examined. Did people really give their hard earned money to this supposed religious foundation for purposes such as this? How many thousands of school lunches for poor children could have been paid for with the money this political ad cost?  
 
I can remember during the infamous anti-homosexual crusade of Anita Bryant in 1977, the Graham actually came across as a voice of reason, not condemning her hate-filled movement, but not supporting it either.
 
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the Grahams, father and son Franklin, have taken yet another right-wing stand.  After all, Billy Graham has been there with the Republicans ever since President Harry Truman denounced him as “a man who just wants to get his picture in the papers.”
 
Graham was the one white voice that could have calmed the waters, helped save the South from so much meanness and violence over civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s.  He did nothing.
 
Marshall Frady’s superb biography of Graham spells out in embarrassing detail how Graham always aligned himself with  the rich and powerful. You have to ask yourself what spending untold thousands of dollars on a mean-spirited political ad has to do with the compassionate teachings of a simple Jewish carpenter, who said not one word about homosexuals.

Perry Deane Young
Chapel Hill

---------------------------------------------------------

In his Point of View essay “The Marriage Amendment of 1875” (May 5), Gene Nichol reminds us that until 1971, when a new charter was adopted, the North Carolina state constitution banned interracial marriages.
In the context of such outdated and prejudicial statutes, it might be recalled that until 1835 the state constitution barred Catholics from holding public office. Article 32 stated: No Person who shall deny the being of God, or the Truth of the Protestant Religion, or the Divine authority of the Old or New Testaments...shall be capable of holding any office...within this State.

The highly respected Catholic, William Gaston, urged his fellow delegates to the constitutional convention that they follow the federal constitution and eliminate all religious tests for public office. He had to accept a compromise: one had to be a Christian to serve in public office.

Even today, Article VI of the Constitution: Suffrage and Eligibility to Office, disqualifies "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." Constitutionally, no agnostic or atheist is eligible to serve in public office in this state.

William Powers
Chapel Hill
---------------------------------------------------------

If you are pro-amendment, most likely you believe homosexuality is a sin, that it will erode traditional marriage and that allowing gays to marry will cause homosexuality to "rub off" on others or even turn your children gay. Maybe the following will help:

1- Despite the way proponents have invoked their Christian beliefs, Christ himself never seemed the least bit concerned about it, considering he was never once quoted on the subject. If you ever get to know someone gay you will realize they did not choose it. God created them that way.

2- Worried about the erosion of traditional marriage? Great! How about an amendment banning divorce and infidelity? Some amendment proponents have even said that marriage is for the purpose of having children. Does this mean the marriages of childless couples are invalid? If you are truly so concerned about an impact on children, why would you support something that is guaranteed to harm them?

3- The ONLY true reason so many people find it hard seeing gay couples in public is because they grew up believing it was taboo and just never had exposure to it. My long deceased grandfathers would have likely cringed to see an inter-racial couple during their lifetimes, while kids today think nothing of seeing a black husband/white wife, etc. Think to yourself whether anything could cause you to become gay yourself. So, what makes you think your child, if he or she were born “straight” is going to somehow become gay if they see same-sex couples? What is there to fear?

To recap: Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality so scratch that excuse; divorce and infidelity are the real enemies of traditional marriage, and just like my eyes don't turn blue when I see a blue-eyed person, no one is going to become gay after exposure to a homosexual. Are you basing your opinion on logic or just what you've grown up believing? Don't we all have imminently more important issues to be concerned with anyway?

Julie Dwyer
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------

I love living here. I grew up in Virginia and still feel the chirp of my home state since we share a state flower and bird. My husband and I chose this area as our home 10 years ago. We vetted many cities and hand picked Raleigh for myriad reasons.

We are happily entrenched in this community. Our sons thrive in public school. My husband works for a large employer in the region and volunteers with our sons at the local food bank. I run a marketing consulting business, shop the local farmers markets, volunteer at my sons school, and serve on the board of SAFEchild. As a family, we donate our time and money to help our community.

For the past several months we have traveled across the United States. As we traverse this continent we proudly tell people North Carolina is home. I have noted that in city after city we get the same response. People comment that our state is beautiful and go on to wonder about age old stereotypes of discrimination and illiteracy. Never mind that some of the richest minds reside in the Triangle and that the brain trust of some major universities call North Carolina home. (Mis)perceptions continue to color our country’s view of us.

Ongoing press about the debacle of Wake County schools and the push to pass Amendment One isn’t helping. There has been so much chatter about being the only Southern state to not pass something like Amendment One. Why not wear that as a badge? We can learn by looking back. We will fail by moving backward

Ilina Ewen
Raleigh

----------------------
The current debate over whether to amend our state constitution raises the issue of what should be required to amend any state's constitution. Because there are often heated arguments about issues that lead to proposed amendments – arguments that are not always well reasoned and fail to take adequate account of the consequences – it seems clear that amending a constitution should require a process that is drawn out over a significant period of time and perhaps demands more than a simple majority vote in order to pass. For example, suppose that any proposed amendment had to be placed on the ballot on two successive election years. That way, more discussion, more weighing of consequences, more gathering of evidence could take place.  This would generally result in wiser decisions.
 
Similarly, because the constitution is our most basic, lasting set of laws, perhaps a simple majority should not be sufficient to change it. After all, it is the most difficult to change subsequently, when "wiser heads" might prevail. Perhaps a 60% majority should be required, or perhaps a 60% majority should be required to pass an amendment in the first year of its proposal and only a 50% majority required in the second year of its proposal.
 
Interestingly, any changes such as I suggest would need to be made by a constitutional amendment. That would be fine; and I would be happy if that amendment had to, itself, meet the time or percentage criteria that it proposes. At least we voters would be less likely to make the very discriminatory, backward-looking change that is now proposed.
 
Robert P. Hawkins, Ph.D.
Cary

------------

I am a North Carolina Christian minister who loves God, people and baseball. God loves marriage; hates divorce; and also loves baseball. He throws into the game of life some straight balls, curve balls and a few knuckle balls with which we deal in society.

Amendment One is a political postulate rather than a religious one. It is an aggressive over-reach on the purported issue of gay marriage using intentionally vague language which can be legally dangerous to at least a half-dozen non-traditional families in our local congregation.

I pray that Christians, North Carolinians and baseball lovers alike will not be duped into voting for this divisive construct floated as Amendment One.

Robert P. Kennel
Holly Springs

---------------------------------------------------------

I have a dear relative who is gay. I also have a friend who struggles with same-sex attraction, but knows that committing to a homosexual lifestyle will not fulfill his deepest longings.

Sexuality is a behavior, not simply an orientation. How can something so ingrained and so difficult to change be a behavior? Because the fact is people can and have changed. And even if someone did all they could and never did change, it still would not make an unhealthy practice a healthy practice. God does not call something "sin" because of some arbitrary decision He decides to make. He calls something sin because that behavior is actually harmful to a person's well-being. Too often we don't believe Him to our detriment.

Homosexual behavior is unhealthy to an individual because, by its own nature, it's a counterfeit. It cannot satisfy the real need that person has. This is what my friend has come to know. And what my dear relative is in the process of learning. That is the reason the majority of homosexuals in "committed, monogamous" relationships allow some room for outside sexual activity. What they are searching for cannot be found in gay sex, monogamous or not.

Ricky DiMartino
Morganton

---------------------------------------------------------

This week my Catholic bishop sent me a strange post-card and urged me to “Vote for Marriage” on Tuesday. I wondered why he wanted the sacrament of marriage debased by putting it into a secular constitutional document and letting a non-Catholic court decide what it means.
I’m not a church attorney (though I was mistaken for one last week at a Durham forum on the amendment that my local parish organized). Putting on my Stephen Colbert church lawyer frock, couldn’t it be argued that the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized is one marriage between one man and one woman? That means no divorce. Wouldn’t adultery violate the N.C. Constitution?

Might the constitutional amendment delegitimize all previous divorces going back through Tar Heel history by way of the doctrine of relation back? I dare not venture into heretical questions about whether the proposed amendment is a sneak attack on the mystical relationship of the Church to our Lord, or the relationship between consecrated nuns and the Church, these not being marriages authorized by the proposed amendment.

I pray the Supreme Court of North Carolina doesn’t have to sort it all out.

Alex Charns
Durham
------------------------------------

I'm deeply respectful of the power for good of religious faith. But I'm totally perplexed by  faith-based support for Amendment 1. Here's why:

First, even if you accept (which I don't) that the Bible forbids homosexuality, the Bible (at least the Old Testament) also says it's OK to own slaves. Thankfully we've found a way to reinterpret that precept; why not this one?

Second, even if you have religious objections to same-sex couples, why should the state or the state constitution have anything to say about that? Some religious people/organizations frown on marriage between two people of different religions – should the state or state constitution have anything to say about what religion your spouse practices? Frown on gay marriage or civil union if you must, but why get the state constitution involved?

And third, it wasn't all that long ago that people in this state argued that marriage between a black person and a white person was a sin and a crime. Is this situation really any different?

I deeply hope that NC citizens who are motivated by religious beliefs  to support Amendment 1 will ask these questions before they vote. And then I hope they'll join me in voting "No" on Amendment 1.

Laura Svetkey
Chapel Hill

---------------------

A constitution serves the purpose of regulating the government. We The People are regulated by laws. When The People want to regulate the behavior of government, we amend the Constitution.

Homosexuality is sexual nonconformity. The government has no business regulating either sexuality or nonconformity. Thomas Jefferson said it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

 Gay marriage neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In fact, it’s already illegal in our State.

The political argument that North Carolina is not equipped to handle gay marriage, I must offer an analogy from my own career. I am a paramedic, and if for some reason I happened to be ill-equipped to handle a particular 911 call, under no circumstances would it be acceptable for me to make a policy of simply banning any 911 call that doesn’t fit my pre-existing protocols.

Only a progressive would believe that the government has the right to tell you what to eat, what to purchase, what car to drive or who you can spend the rest of your life with.

Jim Miller
Kill Devil Hills

---------------------------------------------------------

Same-sex marriage proponents (of whatever sexual orientation) are desperate. Their true intent is to redefine marriage; it is a lie if they deny it. They have sought to convince voters that passing Amendment One would harm children, families, unmarried women and unmarried seniors despite the truth that these relationships are secured with the legal protections of a will, healthcare proxy, civil and criminal laws.  

Activists use the argument that Jesus never spoke of same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage. He didn’t have to; he merely referred to the Word of God as he did at a marriage feast when some Sadducees cornered him with a question about marriage and the resurrection. Jesus replied, You do not know the Scriptures.

On another occasion when asked about divorce Jesus said, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female? For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.

The Old Testament is the Bible that Jesus read. Activists seek to overrule the decree that God sanctified from the beginning. A man cannot be a wife; a female cannot be a husband. Vote FOR the Amendment.
William Gaddis
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Every day I see and hear more and more people trying to convince people who know nothing about Amendment 1 that there way of thinking is the right one and they should vote their way. The thing is that most people who either do not know about it and many other people who have been tricked into an opinion through the media and their comrades have no real sake in this legislation.

The only people who should care are affected by it (i.e. gays and people who can't stand gays getting married), but the majority of people voting are liberals who are pro-gay rights and anti-conservative and conservatives who hate liberals and gays. I am not saying which way to vote – just not to vote based on party lines and propaganda and if after looking at the bill itself, if you are gay or if you really can't stand the thought of gays getting married that much, you should vote.

David Palmieri
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

The state should not tell religion how to define the sacrament of marriage. Conversely, religion should not tell the state how to define the legal meaning of marriage. For the state, marriage is a legal contract between two adults, providing for both rights and responsibilities. The proposed amendment pertains to the legal definition of marriage.

Greg Bottomley
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------

The general flow of North Carolina’s constitutional history has been to extend liberty and to allow greater equality and participation in our society. There are notable exceptions to this general trend such as the stripping of free black voting rights in 1835, mandating segregated schools and banning interracial marriage in 1875, and the efforts to disenfranchise African-Americans in 1900. Each of these exceptions was an attempt to codify a majorities disdain and fear of a minority into law.

As we know, North Carolinians later eliminated these prejudicial components from our constitution and generally acknowledge them to be grievous, regrettable errors that needed to be remedied.

North Carolina faces another of these moments as we consider a constitutional amendment that uses cultural or religious preferences to elevate one segment of our population while limiting the rights and protections of another. I hope that we have learned that enshrining bigotry in our constitution places us on the wrong side of history. I urge all North Carolinians to vote no on Amendment One.

Daniel L. Fountain
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

What to think when the reclusive, 93-year-old Billy Graham decides to weigh in on a matter that encourages bigotry, divisiveness and exclusion?  We recall when a younger, more enlightened Graham warned a white audience about the evils of segregation and said, "We have been proud and thought we were better than any other race, any other people. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to stumble into hell because of our pride."

If only Graham could remember what motivated him at the time. Then, his full-page ad might be about love, tolerance and inclusion, stating, "We have been proud and thought we were better than people with other sexual orientations. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to stumble into hell because of our pride."

While we can feel compassionate toward an old man who remains shackled to antiquated ideas, we can still come together as one and vote against Amendment One.
William Meyer
Durham
 
------------------------------------------

I am a true Tar Heel born and bred in a small Eastern NC town and have lived in the state all of my life.  Amid all of these moral, religious, and legal arguments for and against Amendment One, I keep going back to how I was raised to value and respect my neighbor’s privacy, which is what I would be doing by voting against the amendment.

We might not have liked or even approved of our neighbors, but as long as no one was getting hurt, frankly, we minded our own business.  (If you think that someone is getting hurt in same-sex couple households, check out the positions of professional organizations like AMA, APA and NASW.)

So fellow Tar Heels, you worry about you and yours and I will worry about me and mine and vote no. It’s a free country, after all.

Joy Stewart
Chapel Hill
---------------------------------------------------------

I was stunned by some of the pro-Amendment One letters printed April 29. According to one, only religious folk have self control. Really? So that's why there are no religious figures in the news getting arrested or being found in extramarital relationships (some of which are same-sex, not so surprisingly). There's a certain arrogance I see regularly in right-wing Christians who apparently believe that they alone have morals, ethics or generally good behavior – while at the same time exhibiting what I consider bad behavior: bigotry, hate, fear-mongering, lying in furtherance of political agendas. But I shouldn't be surprised. The writer avows he is proud to be a bigot.

Another thinks that all that need be said is that only liberals and atheists are against Amendment One. I can't imagine a philosophy more shallow than that, but in any case, it's wrong. Half the letters that accompanied his were from ordained ministers or religious congregations. Of course, he probably thinks that they're from the "wrong" group of believers. Enough said.

Tom Sisk
Pittsboro

---------------------------------------------------------

The recent "Keeping Tradition Safe" Other Opinion and "Immoral Rights" letter condemn homosexuality by association with stunted human reproduction, promiscuity, alcoholism, increased abortion rates, polygamy, drug use, bestiality, immorality, bigotry – and the decline and fall of entire civilizations. Guess that about covers it.

My, but Amendment One is certainly bringing some sick puppies out of the closet!

Fred crouch
Warrensville

---------------------------------------------------------

Amendment supporters frequently claim that unmarried couples can simply execute legal documents to protect their families. Don't be fooled! Having practiced law and been in this situation myself, I assure you this claim is very misleading.

Execution of expensive documents such as wills, contracts and powers of attorney, though recommended, can replicate only a few of the hundreds of legal rights and benefits automatically created by a $60 marriage license.  For example, despite having spent thousands of dollars on documents attempting to protect our family from legal and financial risks, if my partner died tomorrow there is no document allowing me to claim social security benefits, no document that could guarantee me uncontestable right to custody of our three children.

Few couples actually execute them due to cost or lack of awareness, and even if they do, the rights created can often be revoked at any time, sometimes unilaterally by one partner leaving the other partner and any affected children unprotected.

Even worse, law professors at every single law school in the state warn that passage of Amendment One could undermine the enforceability of existing documents protecting families and children. That is a risk our state cannot afford to take.

Cathy Rimer-Surles
Durham
---------------------------------------------------------

For the first time in our country's history, we are on the verge of amending our constitution to deny rights. Amendment One will ban civil unions and strip domestic partnership benefits.  It will eliminate health care, prescription drug coverage and other benefits for public employees and children receiving domestic partnership benefits. And it will threaten protections for all unmarried couples in North Carolina. Why would any business move to a state that discriminates against children because their parents aren't married? What are we thinking?

Ann Moss Joyner
Mebane
---------------------------------------------------------

In North Carolina, we are wasting so much time and money on this issue. There are so many other issues in our state that require immediate attention. We are being asked to vote on an amendment that will marginalize a large segment of our population. Amendment One does not just deny gay couples the right to enter into a domestic union, but it also denies rights to all domestic partnerships and to children of these partnerships.

We are Catholic and are outraged that our bishop is telling us to vote for the amendment. We believe that a loving, committed domestic partnership, gay or straight, is just as valuable and a blessing to the community as our marriage of 38 years. Denying those rights does not protect our marriage. This amendment will hurt families. It will hurt our state.

Paul and Marianne Williams
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Consider the results of same-sex marriage (SSM).  SSM advocates have asked the courts to be neutral in judging the preference for marriage. Should the Marriage Protection Amendment fail, there would be suits for SSM and, if advocates won, there would be three forms of marriage at first: male, female and traditional. Once it has been argued that the state has no right to prefer one form of marriage over another and it’s legal to express your subjective desire with autonomy, what could legally prevent man-boy, polygamous or polyandrous marriages or grandma from marrying her grandchild? This could be a legal consequence if marriage is redefined.

Results in states that have allowed SSM (usually by legislative fiat) show some personal and religious freedoms are lost. A N.M photographer was sued because she didn’t want to take pictures of a same-sex couple, a N.Y. Jewish school was forced to provide dormitory quarters for a same-sex couple, and some religious charities have lost their rights. The wife of a Colorado shopowner gave a pamphlet about homosexuality to a gay employee. She was charged under gay rights ordinances, fined and ordered to attend compulsory counseling.

Ideas have consequences.

Rob Kelley
Henderson
---------------------------------------------------------

As parents of two boys, ages 4 and 7, we would like to address this letter to those fellow parents of young children thinking of voting for Amendment One. We want to ask you to do something, something that you probably already do. Go into your children's room during nap time or at night after they go to sleep.  Watch them breathe. Watch their tiny chests rise and fall.  Feel that unbounded gratitude and fierce protectiveness well up inside you.

Then think about their future.  Think about them growing up, going to middle and high school, making friends, falling in love, getting their heart broken, finding that special someone, getting married. How does it make you feel? Proud and hopeful and a little desperate?  Like you would do anything, anything at all for them?

Now, would it change how you feel if your son came home and said he was in love with a boy, or your daughter with a girl?  In the end would it change your heart?  Would you still love and cherish and support your child no matter what?  Or would other people’s opinion matter more?

James and Kristy Crooks
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

I read with dismay about the extra-marital affair of Charles Thomas, chief of staff for Republican Speaker of the House Thom Tillis.  With even more dismay, I read that Tillis "questioned five of his 10 remaining staff members, who had been the subject of rumors related to inappropriate behavior" and yet another staffer resigned for an illicit affair.

Is this the Thom Tillis who leads the House of Representatives in the Great State of North Carolina? The Thom Tillis who has pushed the Republican "family values" Constitutional Amendment that declares, "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”?

Perhaps the Honorable Speaker needs to focus less on trying to legislate the behavior of millions of North Carolinians and look at who is in his inner circle. These are the people advising, researching, recommending and ultimately dictating policy to the rest of us? Hmm.

Michele K. Burris
Chapel Hill
----------------------------
Apparently, having a degree in moral theology does not make one an expert in Logic or reasonable thinking. In Ron Agnelli’s Other Opinion article (April 28) arguing for the so-called marriage amendment, he starts his argument with the false premise that ‘discrimination’ is not the right question.

It is precisely the right question because this amendment limits the definition of marriage. Amendments to constitutions, national or state, are most obviously added to expand rights to citizens not take them away. All or most amendments that did limit rights, have been overturned, as several N&O authors have already pointed out.  For better or for worse, we can still drink alcohol and marry anybody of any race we want to.

One of the more egregious statements Agnelli makes is that “Under the amendment, a homosexual person ‘enjoys’ the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a heterosexual person”. What can he possibly be thinking? If the situation were reversed would he “enjoy” marrying another man, as a matter of law?

Agnelli states: “the fact that marriage and the family is the foundation upon which society is built.” Anyone against this amendment is also someone who cares about many things, not the least of which is the truth of this statement. The idea of marriage as a commitment, one person to another, is one of the foundations of a just society. One we should not limit.

This amendment is about limiting people’s rights. It is about religious extremists forcing their beliefs on a people who live in a country based on a separation of church and state. I will vote against it.

Paul Kauffmann
Durham