Here are several letters on a wide range of topics that got overrun by all of the Amendment One letters we printed.

The Opinion Shop
Welcome to The Opinion Shop, where members of The N&O’s editorial board offer an eclectic array of their individual opinion products and give you an opportunity to offer your own.
Letters to the editor: Women's work and the Jesse Helms Courthouse
Submitted by bwheeler on 05/18/2012 - 16:12Adultery pays: Taking Tillis to task
Submitted by bwheeler on 05/18/2012 - 15:23Lots of letters today about House Speaker Thom Tillis' decision to use taxpayer money to pay two former staffers an extra month of salary after they resigned over improper intimate relationships with lobbyists. You'll see most of these in the paper, too.
6 years later: A lecture on DNA and the Duke lacrosse case
Submitted by bwheeler on 05/17/2012 - 17:02Six years ago, local attorney Brad Bannon was part of the defense team for Dave Evans, one of three players charged in the Duke lacrosse case. Bannon spoke this week to humanities students at Broughton High School about his experiences and quite modestly downplayed his role in getting to the bottom of DNA evidence. The players were accused of brutally raping Crystal Mangum and were later declared innocent by the state Attorney General. If you'd like to read more about Bannon, there's a lengthy story about him on the blog Durham-in-Wonderland. Here, find NONVERBATIM notes of his talk at Broughton.
Amendment One: More letters in the aftermath
Submitted by bwheeler on 05/11/2012 - 15:46Here's another batch of more than 20 letters about the Amendment One vote. Some of these will appear in print on tomorrow's Editorial page.
Amendment One: Anger in the aftermath
Submitted by bwheeler on 05/10/2012 - 16:38And the letters just keep coming. Here are more than 70 responses, from all over the country, to Tuesday's vote to amend North Carolina's constitution to define marriage. Some of these you will see in print:
Amendment One: An avalanche of letters
Submitted by bwheeler on 05/07/2012 - 12:36One more batch of Amendment One letters. The election is tomorrow. Here are nearly 50 more.
Charlotte Observer: A bad week for marriage in N.C.
Submitted by bwheeler on 05/05/2012 - 10:24The Charlotte Observer, our sister McClatchy paper, had this to say about Amendment One this week. Find The N&O's editorial position on Sunday's editorial page.
A bad week for marriage in N.C.
Public infidelities a reminder of amendment’s selective morality
North Carolinians had some bipartisan, high-profile reminders last week that while some among us might see gay unions as a threat to marriage, the institution is already taking a pretty good pummeling from heterosexuals.
First, there was the ongoing, shower-inducing trial of former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, at which we learned that the star witness against the philandering former Democratic candidate for president is a married political aide who also engaged in an adulterous one-night stand.
Later in the week, the (Raleigh) News & Observer told us of Charles Thomas, the chief of staff of Republican N.C. House Speaker Thom Tillis. Thomas, a former one-term lawmaker from Asheville, resigned after being caught carrying on with a lobbyist for the homebuilding industry. The apparent affair might have been deliciously ironic given Tillis’ support for Amendment One, except for the sobering reality that two spouses were surely seeing their families in tatters, thanks to a now-public infidelity.
So tell us again what we’re protecting marriage from on May 8?
In one week, North Carolina will vote on Amendment One, which would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in the state. You’ll read much in the next seven days about the amendment and its potentially harmful impact, legal and otherwise. But it was the past seven days that reminded us again how at least some of those who support the amendment are engaging in selective morality in their effort to get government tangled this deeply in its citizens’ behavior.
You’ve heard those moral arguments, of course – how scripture has harsh words for homosexuality, including labeling it an “abomination.” Let’s set aside the fact that some Biblical scholars disagree on the specifics and intent of the nine passages commonly cited in the condemnation of homosexuality. Wouldn’t infidelity, by scriptural measure, be worse? After all, adultery rises to the level of being addressed by one of the commandments that Moses cradled.
But while some can’t flip to Leviticus fast enough when the topic of same-sex marriage comes up, no one is rushing forth with legislation outlawing infidelity. The simple reason: We don’t want to have government that deeply involved in legislating our behaviors.
Yes, we’re a country based on laws that spring from our values, and those values are rooted historically in the faith of our forefathers. But those laws, for the most part, are protective – they shield us from harmful behavior, not merely behavior with which we disagree.
We have yet to see a compelling argument that a committed same-sex marriage is harmful to anyone, let alone the institution of marriage. What Amendment One does, then, is give us a government mired in regulating sin. That, along with the amendment’s discriminatory intent, should give North Carolinians good reason to pause one week from today.
Find it here.
Amendment One: Nearly 50 more letters
Submitted by bwheeler on 05/04/2012 - 17:31And, no, we aren't hiding the pro-amendment ones.
You can find more letters about Amendment One on tomorrow's Other Opinion page and in Sunday Forum this Sunday. Here are almost four dozen more:
Amendment One: Carrot tops and Bible verses
Submitted by bwheeler on 04/27/2012 - 17:58Another dozen-plus letters about amending the N.C. constitution to define unions. Find others on tomorrow's Other Opinion page and in Sunday Forum.
Amendment One: 'Buggery,' hate groups and justice
Submitted by bwheeler on 04/20/2012 - 17:22Here are more than a dozen more letters, many responding to Peter Sprigg's April 17 letter "Marriage protection," about the proposed amendment to the N.C. Constitution on marriage and civil unions:

