Winston-Salem Journal LTE SU 04/29/12

No political theater

In one of his recent sermons, the Rev. Ron Baity challenged the conventional wisdom that perversion is irreversible. He reported shaking hands with a young man who had abandoned the homosexual lifestyle.

How many more such conversions could have occurred if Baity had not allowed himself to be sidetracked attaching mottos to the outside of buildings and convincing politicians that their constituents were incapable of doing their own praying?

What matters is what's in men's hearts, not what's on some scrap of paper. Traditional marriage needs no artificial support.

The homosexual onslaught will proceed unabated as long as men like Baity occupy themselves with political theater instead of tending to business.

The marriage amendment is a dangerous diversion. I will be voting against it.

---

BARNEY W. HILL

Thomasville

Stop the confusion

I was amazed when the term "Amendment One" started appearing on signs and bumper stickers all over. Previously it was called "the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage." That was too long for a bumper sticker.

The problem with "Amendment One" is that it does not exist. The ballot, produced by the N.C. State Board of Elections, does not associate a number with the only amendment under consideration. If there were an Amendment One, there would be an Amendment Two. There is not.

Why are the opponents using these terms? Why are they afraid of the word "marriage" and continue to avoid using it? The word "marriage" has always meant the union of man and woman. It is associated with so many hopes and dreams, much happiness and with children, a bright future. It's hard to criticize and be against "marriage."

We are not voting against anything on May 8. We are voting for the marriage amendment to keep marriage between one man and one woman and not redefined. Marriage has historically been reserved for the male-female union because (if you notice) it is the only union that naturally produces the next generation. It seems like the opponents want to play word games in an effort to confuse the voters. In so doing, people who support traditional marriage are ridiculed and called bigots.

Make sure you are paying attention: Vote for the marriage amendment to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

---

BEVERLY LUNG

Walkertown

Ramsey is right

Frequently, folks ask me, as a practicing and litigating attorney, for my recommendations in judicial elections. Although most of the candidates this time around would make good District Court judges, I suggest that they vote for Richard "Dick" Ramsey. He has been a hard-working, ethical, fair-minded and innovative courtroom lawyer for several decades.

His high-caliber representation of individuals in all of our state courts constitutes a wealth of experience ideal for a sitting courtroom judge. Often he has used his professional skills to keep overly aggressive district attorneys or powerful institutions from trampling on his clients. He has done his part to maintain our American system of justice.

Ramsey is likely to render fair decisions based upon the evidence and the governing law. Just as importantly, Ramsey can be expected to treat all parties, witnesses, citizens and lawyers with genuine respect. Broad experience, fairness and respect: you can't beat that combination in a judge.

Richard Ramsey would make a great District Court judge.

---

DAVID B. HOUGH

Winston-Salem

Down a slippery slope

Opponents of the marriage amendment (which upholds the one man, one woman universal standard of marriage) have done a disingenuous yet effective job of attaching heinous and hate-filled labels onto anyone who believes in that institution and dares to say so. Knowing that I will now be called heaven knows what, I must nonetheless say that dismantling the definition of marriage as mankind has always known it will fix nothing. The argument to do so is purely political and should surprise no one.

There are better ways to deal with seeming inequities than to destroy the blueprint of society's relational cornerstone. On the day marriage begins to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it will become meaningless. Unfortunately, this is the stated intention of some, and should that day come to pass, we will have taken the first big step down a slope too slippery for us to claw our way back.

Please vote "Yes" on the N.C. marriage amendment, and realize that our intention is not to devalue anyone but to take a stand for marriage.

---

RUTH A. MAGERS

Lewisville

The state and marriage

I'm not gay; I'm not married; and I'm not Christian. I don't know what Jesus or Moses or Muhammad or Confucius, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster or others whose religious philosophies guide the spirituality of members of our citizenry thought or said about the institution of marriage. Thus, I may be qualified to speak about the proposed amendment to the N.C. constitution regarding gay marriage.

This divisive issue, like so many others, seems to be one in which winning is more important to each side than reaching an inclusive accommodation. All should stop and ask a basic question: What business is it of the state (as opposed to religious institutions) who gets married? Marriage fundamentally is a religious matter. If one religion, or one church within a faith, prohibits gays or lesbians or others from marrying, so be it. Those who are prohibited in one place may find another place, acceptable to them, in which they may marry.

The state should be, and is, interested in legal matters, such as who may inherit, who is responsible for maintaining whom, who may adopt, who may visit in hospitals, who should get tax deductions or be able to file jointly. I have not heard one persuasive argument that gays should not be able to participate equally in these civil matters, and our state and federal laws should accommodate gays in these regards.

The proposed amendment should be defeated, and the state's relationship to marriage should be severed.

---

GUY M. BLYNN

Winston-Salem

Inherently discriminatory

Contrary to what supporters of Amendment One have said, this issue is not simply about defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This is how the bill reads: "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

A "yes" vote will approve this measure. A "no" vote will strike this measure down. So, what does approval of this measure mean? Domestic partnerships will no longer be recognized. Neither will common-law marriage if it is not supported by an official document from the state. It doesn't matter if you're "one man and one woman"; you must have an official document. This is inherently discriminatory.

Why does it matter if a marriage is recognized by the state? First and foremost, there are at least 13 categories of statutes that require marriage for extension or transfer of legal rights. These include federal benefits for civilian or military service, medical care, burial rights, property transfers to surviving spouses, social security and claims to child custody. For illustrative purposes, if a "significant other" is killed in combat while serving in the military, none of these benefits will transfer unless the state officially recognizes the relationship. It's not just gay couples that will suffer from this arrangement, but they will certainly suffer most. Is this really the way we want to treat our neighbors?

---

WALTER WIGGINS

Winston-Salem

A direct assault

Thanks to the Winston-Salem City Council for deliberating further on submitting a proposal against Amendment One ("Bond package won't go on ballot," April 24). After reviewing the contents of this proposed amendment, I am convinced that it is a direct assault on our First Amendment rights. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Do we really want the General Assembly of North Carolina acting in lieu of Congress by promoting an idea based on a religious imposition on its citizens? Most of the public appeal of this proposed amendment is directed toward the people of faith. Sadly, that appeal is limited and is based on fear instead of transparency.

As a person of faith, I have chosen a path of life freely based on my conscience, which is supported by the First Amendment. The proposed Amendment One insults my intelligence. I appeal to your readers to read the entire amendment and let their conscience direct them. My conscience has concluded to vote against Amendment One.

---

FLEMING EL-AMIN

Winston-Salem