On May 8, 2012, we will have the opportunity to vote for or against Amendment One regarding marriage.
In the article “Two Sides Harden on Marriage Amendment” (March 20), Jane Postlethwaite stated that the amendment, “takes away rights.” In a letter printed the same day, Chas Griffin posed the following: “North Carolina already has a law banning same-sex marriage, so why are some of you folks so determined to amend the constitution?”
If there already is a law, how would this amendment take away any rights? Would it not just solidify those laws?
Voting down the amendment will not overturn those laws banning same-sex marriage.
Also, a column by Bernard H. Cochran was printed on March 21. Although I disagree with some of what he wrote, he does make the valid point that there are things that the Bible forbids which we do not have laws against. However, this does not mean that we shouldn’t make laws forbidding what the Bible forbids.
Finally, let’s remember that before the amendment came to be on the ballot, it had to pass the General Assembly. It passed the House by a vote of 75 to 42 (64 percent) and the Senate by a vote of 30 to 16 (65 percent).
So, when you go to vote on May 8, you should consider if you want to vote for the amendment, which upholds what is already law, or vote against it, voicing your opposition to our current law.
What are your thoughts?
Also, I don't understand the argument that if this passes, then it will be even harder to overturn the laws against homosexual marriage. Do we want to overturn laws? What's the point in having laws to just overturn them later? To me, that's like a committee bringing a motion to the floor and then after favorable discussion, having someone make a sub-motion to amend the original motion in a way that negates it.
ReplyDeleteWell, Pastor, I don't get how some say that one is born gay and quote Psychological Groups. Aren't those the same groups that for years treated homosexuality as an abnormal mental illness?
ReplyDeleteMy brother, James E. Cooper, emailed me the following comments:
ReplyDeleteAnon: The DMV-IV no longer classifies homosexuals as deviants. They also no longer recommend locking up autistic people or bloodletting.
Bill: On overturning laws: Since the originators of laws are not infallible, they can't foresee every circumstance and write it into the law. When alcohol was illegal, they didn't foresee the crime levels and the rise of the mob, so it was eventually overturned. Same with many other repeals.
James, you are right about the overturning of laws. So I concede on that point. However, I still stand by the original letter to the editor.
ReplyDelete