The March 6 Point of View “Defending marriage” by Tami Fitzgerald showed how unsubstantial arguments can become when you believe that God is on your side and that most people already agree with you.
Fitzgerald makes three claims that freethinkers must reject out of hand. She says that redefining marriage would be detrimental to our freedoms, that it would alter thousands of other laws and that an anti-gay constitutional amendment is necessary to preserve religious freedom.
She doesn't prove any of these claims. But how could she? How does an oppressed minority threaten our freedoms by engaging in a lawful contract? The only legal impact she offers is that schools will be required (really?) to teach that homosexuality is normal. (Of course, it is normal that homosexuals exist in all societies.)
The crux of Fitzgerald's argument was her call to preserve religious freedom. It's beyond me how repressing homosexuals protects religion. What is clear, however, is that using religious appeals to urge a change in the constitution is itself unconstitutional.
Religionists must lament that the Declaration does not say “all men are created equal —except for those we think we're better than.”
We should reject the irrationality and arrogance of the religionists.
Don Clement
Durham
-----------------------
In view of the fact that the members of NC4Marriage believe that marriage is so greatly in need of a strong defense, I feel confident that members will also support one important addition to the Defense of Marriage Act: the banning of divorce.
It seems only logical to conclude that, if marriage is so desperately in need of protection, and since gay and lesbian marriages would account for a small percentage of the total marriages whereas divorce accounts for the destruction of a much higher percentage of these sacred unions, that the institution of marriage would be so much more effectively strengthened and protected by including a provision in our constitution banning divorce.
Why not? Presumably, the freedoms Tami Fitzpatrick mentioned in her March 6 Point of view piece “Defending marriage” couldn't possibly include the freedom to terminate such a sacrosanct conjugation.
Charles Putterman
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't looking for it; certainly, I did not plan on it. I met this lady moving into the apartment behind me. I swore I would always be single. Nope, not me get married no way. But her brown eyes got me. We talked, went out, etc.. Then one day I asked her if she would spend the rest of her life with me.
Sounds perfectly normal, right? We were both women. Now, how does it sound? For two years we shared ups and downs and even tragedy in our family. No license said we were married, no rights, no tax deductions. In fact, due to a state and federal law, quite the opposite.
So what makes a marriage? Certainly not the piece of paper for us. It is commitment till death and beyond. It is staying through no matter what. It is being able to say "I love you" for life, even in the very worst of moments.
What we ask for isn't the right per se to marry. Because all the paper and laws in the world did not make or would never break what Pam and I shared, even now when death did us part. What we ask for is simply some tax benefits, surviver benefits, basically the rights that go with that piece of paper — a marriage license.
So you want to protect marriage with an amendment or more laws? Go ahead. It does not and will not stop real love. She and I were married. God does love us, and I know where Pam waits for me. Because of my love for Christ, I know where she and I will meet again. All we are asking for is not to have to fight for everyday rights that anybody should have: medical say in each other's treatment; a tax deduction, or rights of survivorship. Or, for couples like me and Pam, the right to state or local social services that would help a widow or widower survive a loss financially.
Since Pam died, I have had to fight and beg to take over accounts without having to pay or repay deposits. I have been scrambling to find work and get off unemployment with out transportation because the car was in her name, and I can't get it financed.
Our state is in a budget crisis, and yet we have legislative representatives spending money to "protect marriage." Take that money and hire people like me to sweep the streets and get off unemployment. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
All the laws and amendments in the world will not take away Mrs. & Mrs Pamela & Juneann Galbraith. What a waste of time and money
Juneann Galbraith
Rocky Mount
