Many wives
In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist. He had two wives.
Esau had three. Jacob had two. Ashur, Gideon and Elkanah had two or more. King David, whom the Bible says was "a man after God's own heart," had many, and his son, Solomon, had 700 wives of royal birth. Unless he was just bragging.
Rehoboam had 18 wives, Abijah had 14. Abraham married his sister. Just thought I'd throw that in.
Jehoram, Jehoiada, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
Some men in the Bible acquired their wives by marrying their deceased brothers' wives. Some won wives by raping them. They were then required to pay for them, though.
Now, what's all this business about "biblical marriage"? "One man, one woman"?
Hypocrites.
JANE FREEMONT GIBSON
Winston-Salem
No propaganda
I'm writing to strongly encourage residents of Winston-Salem to research and craft an informed opinion of the breadth and depth of Amendment One before heading to the polls on May 8.
I'm letting facts guide me as I vote against the proposed amendment. I will not allow propaganda to whittle the effects of this amendment to one issue. No matter my stance on that issue (or the readers'), consider the impact on North Carolina's children, seniors and women.
This is more than just a same-sex-marriage issue, and voters need to realize that. Understand that there are freedoms and rights that are currently recognized by citizens of our state that would be wiped away with this amendment.
Vote "No" on May 8.
JOHN CHAMPLIN
Winston-Salem
Importance of the amendment
From time immemorial, marriage has been defined by most societies as the joining of one man and one woman, based on the eternal law of nature that exists between man and woman. Most world religions have held traditional marriage to be between one man and woman long before governmental marriages existed, and most Christians believe in traditional marriage as a God-given sacrament.
The marriage-protection amendment places an already existing law into the state constitution to reinforce and protect traditional marriage from further attack, particularly by a politically oriented judicial system. In several states, judges have used the existence of civil unions or domestic partnerships as a means to redefine marriage.
Other facts about the marriage-protection amendment: Contrary to what opponents imply, nothing in the amendment prohibits same-sex couples from any rights or benefits, and it does not change the law on domestic violence. The amendment has nothing to do with existing child-custody laws or legal arrangements, trusts, wills or end-of-life directives. Research shows that states with a marriage-protection amendment in their constitution are among the top-performing states, economically.
Finally, Americans in 30 states have already carefully considered the importance of adding marriage-protection amendments to their constitutions and have successfully gone through the democratic process. All 30 now have that protection. Vote for the amendment.
GEORGE FRANCK
Winston-Salem
It is discrimination
The co-founders of Equality Winston-Salem are grateful for all who have helped convey the message about the problems with Amendment One, which include:
- Increase of domestic violence on women and loss of protection;
Loss of benefits for straight couples not in marriage, and their children;
- Awareness that gay marriage is already forbidden in our state law.
An argument from proponents is that "activist judges" will overturn the law. Is there really a judge in this divided state willing to tackle this? It would have already been attempted if that was a threat. Gay marriage will happen when it is federally mandated and overrides our amendments or laws.
Another argument is "we don't discriminate, ... we just believe marriage is between a man and a woman." Just by being born, heterosexuals are given 1,400 marital rights that GLBT citizens donot get (tax-free inheritance and open hospital visitation are important ones). It is indeed discriminating to deny two benevolent, same-sex taxpayers these 1,400 rights.
The time will come when we look on today with the same disgust with which we observe the racist viewpoints against interracial marriage and the racism of the Jim Crow laws before that. Does anyone really want to join this list of shame? A vote against is your chance to do the right thing for all. Regardless of the vote, Equality Winston-Salem will sponsor another PRIDE Festival this Oct. 13, and we will continue to increase visibility and fight for the rights of thousands in our county.
DIRK ROBERTSON
CO-FOUNDER, EQUALITY WINSTON-SALEM
Lewisville
Christian values
I keep reading opinions about why we should double-secret ban gay marriage with an amendment that quotes Scripture and state God's will and Jesus' thoughts. While I disagree, I will acquiesce that the Bible/God/Jesus all condemn homosexuality.
Now the good news: Our laws are not based on the Bible or any book of worship.
What about the Christian values that built this country?
Is it legal to have multiple gods? Yes.
Is it legal to create an image of the biblical God? Yes.
Is it legal to use God's name in vain? Yes.
Is it legal to forget the Sabbath and not care? Yes.
Is it legal to not honor your parents? Yes.
Is it legal to murder? No.
Is it legal to commit adultery? Yes (per national laws/Constitution).
Is it legal to steal? No.
Is it legal to bear false witness? Yes (except under oath).
Is it legal to covet your neighbor's house? Yes.
And for good measure, is it legal to not love your neighbor? Yes.
U.S. law is based at best on only 30 percent of God's commandments. So until people start asking for the other 70 percent to be federal crimes, they should quit using the Bible to promote their personal bigotry.
JUSTIN SAWYER
Winston-Salem
Issue must be decided locally
I'm glad the Winston-Salem City Council is talking about Amendment One because they/we do have a dog in this fight. It's called health-care benefits. If Amendment One passes, Winston-Salem would not be able to provide domestic-partner benefits for its employees, which would be a huge economic blow to our competitiveness down the road. Increasingly, employers throughout our country are providing these benefits in order to remain competitive and to also gain control over their employee health-care costs.
Winston-Salem is the fourth-largest city in North Carolina and a major employer in Forsyth County. As such, our city is constantly re-evaluating its ability to craft a benefit package that optimizes the tricky combination of competitiveness and cost effectiveness. Good employees as well as budget people pay attention to these things.
Currently Winston-Salem doesn't offer these benefits, but I'm sure city leaders have been talking about it. I would be disappointed if we were not able to provide domestic-partner benefits as we deem fit. After all, this is an issue that must be decided locally, based on our facts, not by the consequences of trying to reaffirm the "appropriate" definition of a word that is already legally defined in North Carolina.
Thank goodness our city council understands our real connection to Amendment One and are saying, not so fast. Amendment One is fraught with unintended consequences if passed. That's not good for us now or in our future.
GLYNIS JORDAN
Winston-Salem
A chance to vote
My thanks to the writer of the April 21 letter "Against Motsinger." I feel certain he will get his chance to vote against Elisabeth Motsinger for 5th District representative on Nov. 6 once she wins the Democratic primary.
She will do so because, as he noted:
"she has a progressive agenda"
- "she is for gay rights"
- "she is against the Pledge of Allegiance," if people are forced by the government to mouth it instead of choosing to say it for love of this country; and
"she probably supports Obama."
Our democracy works best when people with differing viewpoints work together to find solutions for the reasons "our country is in the shape it is in." I hope he will help us all move forward. Together.
JOHN K. MOTSINGER SR.
TREASURER, ELISABETH MOTSINGER FOR CONGRESS
Winston-Salem
The writer is the husband of Elisabeth Motsinger. — the editor.
Moral sanctions
I would like to question the writer of the letter "Morality and Amendment One" (April 26), in which he is certain that the Bible always sets the moral sanctions for our society:
Has he had a haircut lately? (Forbidden.)
Does he eat shrimp or crab? (Forbidden.)
Does he wear a suit in which wool and polyester are mixed? (Forbidden.)
Would he stone his wife to death if she had an affair with another man? (Demanded.)
Does he deal with a bank that charges interest? (Forbidden.)
Can he find a word of prohibition of what we now call the "gay lifestyle" in the biblical record in the gospels of the teaching of our Lord Christ? (No.)
JOHN R. SHANNON
Elkin
Self-evident
We, the people of North Carolina, should find these truths to be self-evident:
- The proposed Amendment One contains the term "domestic legal union."
- This term is not defined in North Carolina law (according to the Constitutional Amendment Publication Committee).
- If the amendment passes, the courts must decide the meaning of this term.
- Millions of dollars of taxpayer money will be used for this litigation.
- North Carolina already has a law that prohibits same-sex marriage.
- During these hard economic times, the North Carolina General Assembly wants voters to support an amendment that will drain taxpayer money to define a new term for a law that already exists.
- Amendment One should be defeated.
LINDA WINIKOFF
Winston-Salem
Effective legislators
There was no surprise when I read in the Journal ("Forsyth Republicans gain in survey of effectiveness," April 11) that state Sen. Pete Brunstetter and state Rep. Dale Folwell were ranked among the most effective legislators in the past session. What was a pleasant surprise was my automatic reaction. In a flash I remembered Esquire magazine's humorous mockery, the Dubious Achievement Awards. How must it feel to be ranked an effective legislator in a time when the most regressive, ideologically based, divisive legislation in memory was passed?
Given the understandable limits of a letter to the editor, I can mention only the most egregious legislation. "Amendment One" is the first to come to mind. This unnecessary piece of legislation was sponsored in the Senate by Brunstetter and supported in the House by Folwell. It is unnecessary because there is already a statute that prohibits same-sex marriage. It does, however, embed discrimination against our taxpaying citizens into our state's defining legal document. That is inherently wrong.
Then there is the infamous "Voter ID" that was vetoed by Gov. Bev Perdue. The expressed purpose of the legislation was to protect us from voter fraud that does not exist. The real purpose, of course, was voter suppression.
The GOP budget resulted in thousands of teachers, assistant teachers and other school employees joining the ranks of the unemployed.
"A Woman's Right to Know" legislation subjected women to the greatest government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship we have ever known.
But where are the jobs?
CHARLES FRANCIS WILSON
Winston-Salem
LTE# 1 Many wives vs. LTE#3 Importance of the amendment.
ReplyDeleteMatter and anti-matter meeting.
Let me take a wild guess Mr. Wilson. Your wife's name is Anne Wilson, and she wrote a letter in yesterday.
ReplyDeleteIt's always the same bunch of radical, left-wing, liberals that write in.
Let me let you people in on a little something. Most people don't have time to read the LTEs, because they are too busy working their asses off, trying to make a living. I just happen to have a little free time.
Good news for all the forum liberals that don't like hearing the truth about 'certain' topics. I'll be out of pocket for a few days soon. No me llores! Trust me, I'll be having fun.
Who among you can find the ABC Islands on a map?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5qJYxS8Pg4
Hope you have a great trip, Bucky.
DeleteChatty Cathy proves that she is an “insider” by quoting tourist brochures. As one who has spent a lot of time all over Kokomo, let me give you a capsule review of each of the ABCs:
ReplyDeleteAruba – Miami Beach South (not at all the same as South Beach, Miami)…way too many USA tourists.
Bonaire – Good SCUBA and nothing else
Curacao – Cosmopolitan, but really just an extension of Venezuela, with a Dutch bite.
If I’m going to the Caribbean, it’s going to be Martinique for fun or sailing the Grenadines for relaxation.
BTW, unless you’re one of those dreadful people who are into the mindless jargon of business (laid off, reach out, touch base, 24/7, etc, the white equivalent of ebonics), “out of pocket” doesn’t mean out of town, it means you’re out of money or paying cash.
If you want to go to the real ABC Islands, you have to go north to Alaska – Admiralty, Baranof and Chichagof – mostly federally protected wilderness not for the faint of heart. You won’t see any tourists there wearing Bermuda shorts and black socks, because the big Alaska brown bears eat them as soon as they show up.
Let’s hope that Chatty Cathy falls for some handsome buck down in ABC land south and decides to stay.
I think Sir George Martin has a place (with a recording studio of course) in Martinique. It would be fun to hang out a few days down there with George and his son Giles if they're in town. Of course, there's also a volcano if I recall correctly that was quite active a few years back.
DeleteYep, Mt. Pelee erupted in 1902 and pretty much wiped out the town of St. Pierre, pop. 30,000. The only survivor in the center city was a prisoner who was in a poorly ventilated cell in the basement of the local jail.
DeleteOf course, the volcano also created the beautiful "black sand" beaches on the northwest coast. My favorite is the one at Le Corbet.
I had the good luck to visit Martinique a few years ago. The French was much easier to understand than the Parisian variety, and the people were nicer.
DeleteCome to think of it, Parisians are a lot like New Yorkers.
I have a private theory about empire. The French wanted to be the big boys on the block, but they could never quite compete with their British and Spanish neighbors.
DeleteI think there is a simple explanation. The British and the Spanish followed the money. The French, more sensibly, followed the women.
I doubt if one could find any area of the world that has more beautiful women per square mile than Martinique and the rest of the former French West Indies, Tahiti and Viet Nam.
My ancestors may have been mostly Scottish/Irish/English, but I'm sure there's a healthy dollop of French blood in there somewhere.
Good afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1, 3: Interesting that Mr. Franck states marriage has been defined as one man and one woman "[f]rom time immemorial" as a "God-given sacrament" when Ms. Gibson notes the numerous instances of polygamy found in the Bible. The woman part of the equation is also subject to debate as the vast majority of the "women" who married up to ~100 years age were typically 13 or 14 y.o. girls who had little say so in the matter.
LTE 2, 4, 6: The amendment states that the only recognized union will be a marriage between a man and woman which means all unions between non-married couples (gay or straight) will not be recognized. That does throw all laws and agreements between those parties up in the air until the courts will be able to sort out the mess. I do agree that we will see same sex marriage in the same light as mixed race marriage within a relatively short time frame.
LTE 5: As a secular state, all of those theological arguments should be irrelevant anyway. If a secular reason to pass the amendment does not exist, it should be tossed.
LTE 7: I'll take this as an endorsement. It is true that one can only select candidates from your party in the primary, so the "Against Motsinger" letter was quite silly if it came from an R.
LTE 8: It is a bit ironic that a party put in charge for the first time in a hundred years to reduce govt influence and generate more jobs did nothing for jobs (in fact may have damaged the employability of future job holders with what they did to education) and put govt smack in the middle of personal decisions where it has absolutely no business. Worst legislative term I can ever remember.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“From time immemorial, marriage has been defined by most societies as the joining of one man and one woman, based on the eternal law of nature that exists between man and woman.”
ReplyDeleteSee Ms. Gibson’s LTE above. Also note that on February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them. Even Martin Luther, the great reformer, signed off on a bigamous marriage.
In fact, among the 1,231 societies known to have existed, 186 were monogamous, 453 had occasional polygamy, 588 had more frequent polygamy, and 4 had polyandry (a wife taking multiple husbands).
“In several states, judges have used the existence of civil unions or domestic partnerships as a means to redefine marriage.”
There has been one case in one state. The amendment does not make the law judge proof…any aspect of any state constitution that conflicts with the US Constitution can be overturned by a Federal District judge.
“Finally, Americans in 30 states have already carefully considered the importance of adding marriage-protection amendments to their constitutions and have successfully gone through the democratic process. All 30 now have that protection.”
The correct number of states is 24, but 30 sounds better, so why not just keep on lying?
“Contrary to what opponents imply, nothing in the amendment prohibits same-sex couples from any rights or benefits, and it does not change the law on domestic violence. The amendment has nothing to do with existing child-custody laws or legal arrangements, trusts, wills or end-of-life directives.”
Every word a lie.
“Research shows that states with a marriage-protection amendment in their constitution are among the top-performing states, economically.”
Actually, just the opposite. Of the 24 states, only 8 are among the top 50% state economies, while 11 are among the 15 worst state economies. The only club that NC is joining through this amendment is the club of ignorance and bigotry.
You have to admire the persistent ignorance of these cretins. I guess that Dr. Goebbels was right…if you repeat something often enough, at least the lowest common denominator will believe it. From the mouth of the bigot preacher to the ears of his fool congregant.
The one thing that we can be sure of is that tomorrow there will be another letter just like this one from some steadfast parrot.
Between 2000, the first year of early voting and 2008, Republicans dominated early voting in NC. That changed in 2008, when Barack Obama's presidential campaign turned out a record early vote and made Obama the first Democratic presidential winner in NC since the Ku Klux Klan became Republicans.
ReplyDeleteThis year, the early voter turnout, despite running a week less time than in 2008 due to the Republican controlled legislature doing everything it can to steal the election by trying to cut down the number of voters overall, will exceed the 2008 record.
As of today, Friday, May 4, 2012, 362,143 North Carolinians have voted, exceeding the 2008 vote by about 90,000. Who does this help?
So far, the breakdown by party is 45.9% Democratic, 33.8% Republican and 20.3% unaffiliated. That lines up roughly with the percentages of registered voters
But the issue that most North Carolinians are following most closely is the so-called marriage amendment to the state constitution. What do early voting numbers tell us about that situation?
Polling has consistently shown that support for the amendment is highest in rural areas and among less educated and older voters, particularly among men. So there has been a push, aided by acceleration of the already significant Obama general election organizing efforts, to get out the vote among city dwellers , women and the younger, better educated voters.
We saw some early results last year in Charlotte, where the Democratic candidate for Mayor pulled off an upset and defeated the incumbent Republican candidate, and in Raleigh, where another Democratic mayor was elected along with a complete restructuring of the Wake County school board, which like our own local board, was well on its way to resegregating the schools.
Here's what is happening right now:
1. Early voting turnout has hit record levels in the cities. And when we look at which cities are leading the charge, we can see a clear trend. We would expect the order to be Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Durham, Fayetteville in keeping with actual population.
Instead, Durham is #1 with nearly 20,000 voters, far out of proportion to #2 Charlotte and #3 Raleigh. And Chapel Hill and Asheville, the most enlightened cities in the state, have recorded nearly 30% more votes than their much larger and very conservative sister Winston-Salem.
2. Turnout by sex is 55.4% women, 44.6% men. Since men, understandably, are far more homophobic than women, that is a good sign.
3. Perhaps the most important numbers are these…that almost 15,000 college age people have voted statewide. That is more than triple the usual number for a primary election, indicating that the campus get out the vote campaign is succeeding wildly.
The anti-bigot campaign got a late start, but has shown steady progress in educating even the uneducatable. We will see how this all works out Tuesday night.
Even if the despicable amendment passes, its own sponsors have admitted that it won't last 20 years. I wonder what it feels like being the last Neanderthals desperately trying to hold back the flood of modern civilization.