Fatcow Icon
Yes vote on Amendment One is ‘blatant unconstitutional discrimination’
Apr 05, 2012 | 12147 views | 7 7 comments | 18 18 recommendations | email to a friend | print
To the editor,

The Rev. Sonny D. Thomas spends an awful lot of his time thinking and writing about homosexuality. In 2009 he railed against the then pending federal hate crime legislation that would protect gay and lesbian Americans. The centerpiece of his argument was that homosexuality is a matter of “will” and people choose to be homosexual and, therefore, didn’t need protection. That’s hogwash; people are born either straight or gay. At the time, I challenged Thomas to offer proof and write about the thought-process he went through when he weighed the pros and cons of choosing to be straight. He never responded.

Now, in his latest letter, the Rev. Thomas is back cajoling “all professing Christians in Ashe County” to vote “yes” on Amendment One (the so called defining marriage amendment). His rationale is clear, he fears the possibility that same-sex couples might one day be legally entitled to marry in the state of North Carolina.

Of course Thomas’ only focus is on the homosexual aspects of the legislation. If approved, the state’s constitution would be amended to deny marriage between same-sex couples. However, what Thomas failed to tell readers is that civil unions between same-sex couples would also be prohibited and domestic partnerships between couples of the opposite sex would also not be legally recognized. According to 2010 census data, there were 223,000 North Carolina couples in domestic partnerships and only 12 percent of those were same-sex couples.

Why is Thomas so fearful of homosexuality? How does it harm him? What difference does it make if two people who love each other want to get married; even if they are the same sex? I’m a heterosexual man and I have no fear of same-sex couples marrying. Why shouldn’t they have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples? To deny them this right, as Thomas advocates, is blatant unconstitutional discrimination.

Ken Lynn

Fleetwood
Comments
(7)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
justinkeller
|
April 05, 2012
There is no Constitutional right to marriage for anyone, period. Your entire argument is invalidated by your Constitutional ignorance. The Constitution does not mention marriage even once. No one has a constitutional right to marriage. You also mention that one is born either straight or gay, and that the subject of your letter could not prove otherwise...can you prove your position? Science has made various dim-witted attempts to prove that folks are born with a predetermined sexual orientation, but those of us with a true Christian faith derive our belief from a higher power than man-made science. The Bible warns us again homosexuality and all other forms of sexual deviance in the Old Testament, and this warning against all forms of sexual deviance is repeated by Jesus Christ himself in the New Testament. Your argument is flawed, no matter the angle at which it is viewed. I personally believe that the government is far too large and has no business regulated our private lives, so long as the free exercise of our rights doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. That being said, marriage is reserved for those who seek to procreate and start a family...an individual of homosexual orientation can not naturally begin a family and should not be allowed to marry, and to take it a step further, should not be allowed to adopt children. This is my fact-based and faith-based opinion. God bless you sir, and may He open your eyes that obviously been blinded by our increasingly humanist, secular, amoral culture.
jefferson
|
April 06, 2012
Obviously you’ve missed the point. If the amendment passes, as Thomas wants, the NC Constitution will, in fact, specifically define marriage…thereby legalizing constitutional discrimination against any couple that wants to get married that doesn’t fit the definition. THAT, seems anachronistic and ignorant.
Cleohuck
|
April 05, 2012
The good Rev. Seems to have missed something when in theology school. Seems to me he missed the part that says "do unto others.....". He seems to have forgotten the lessons about love and tolerance. Great historical figures from Ghandi to M.L. King utilized non-violent protest to accomplish great change. We could ALL learn a lesson from the past and be more accepting of all lifestyles. I consider Rev. Thomas a BULLY!
shadetree_54
|
April 05, 2012
Alan C...." for last comment"
shadetree_54
|
April 05, 2012
Ken, you clearly seem to think you have all the answers which you clearly have NOT. Lets turn the tables on you ok...Why does it bother you so much that Rev.Thomas is against this? Why do you feel a need to be all in his face about this? You progressives never cease to amaze me. Instead of making your case for this issue you want to attack the Rev. for his views....why is that ? Just state your case and be done with it. I guess if you see a show on television you get all up in the air about it and blame the station instead of simply changing the channel too huh....Have your say but how dare you feel you have a right to take away someone elses say....grrrrrrr
Weather
Sponsored By:

Lottery
Sponsored By:

Stocks
Sponsored By:

Gas Prices
Sponsored By:

Sponsored By:

Featured Businesses
Recipes
Sponsored By: