Scott Mooneyham (“Heeding the voter fraud call”, April 9) correctly questions the N.C. GOP leaders on their support of the faulty Kansas based “study” that says many “cross vote” in two states. The “study” was by a right-wing based group out of Kansas, and other states following up have found the conclusions not factual. The entire question of voter fraud is a delusion by GOP legislatures in their quest to suppress the vote of minorities, the poor, etc. who cannot attain the demanded voter ID and thus cannot vote. Having discovered the GOP has difficulty winning national elections because of their issues, the GOP is determined to purge the voter roles so that the voting can be more controlled by the GOP. Voting in the U.S. is woefully low compared to other countries, and more voting should be encouraged, not suppressed, as the GOP is trying to do.
— Pat Bullard
China Grove

I sincerely hope Emma Labovitz’s comparison of election saboteurs to the civil rights struggle and the sit-in in Greensboro was her idea of a joke (April 11 letter to the editor). Surely she knows the difference between fighting injustice and sabotaging someone who disagrees with you to get your own way … although judging by the comparison she made and her reference to Thoreau, I am not sure she clearly understands the meaning of injustice. And who is Emma Labovitz or any of the “courageous” women to say who we can vote for, or that their candidates are any better than ours?
We have a right to elect who we want without interference from a consortium of the misguided. I can assure you, if the shoe were on the other foot liberals would cry out grievously that the perpetrators were criminals, degenerates, Nazis and everything else they could think of. I am not a member of the Tea Party, but if I were to choose to vote for them that is my right. Period.
— David Wilson
Salisbury

Kathryn Lopez’s column in the Salisbury Post (“The Meaning of Marriage,” April 8) objects to some LBGT activists calling supporters of heterosexual-only (“traditional”) marriage bigots, including the case of one individual being “bullied” out of a job. Of course, in many cases, such name-calling and advocacy efforts are unjustifiable. But it can be seen as understandable when one considers that the LGBT community has endured a longer history of bigotry by those who decry homosexuality. This has included being denied employment, threatened with violence and forced to keep their sexual lives a secret, all the while being called stronger terms such as “deviant,” “pervert,” “pedophile” and “abomination.”
Ms. Lopez’ own support of traditional marriage employs a dewy-eyed description that focuses on love, faith and family. She ignores its darker history by not mentioning that, in the past, marriages were often arranged, that brides were often young teens and that wives were the property of their husbands. Wives were not allowed the option of initiating divorce, even if their husbands used physical force as a method of control. The practice of traditional,heterosexual-only marriage has not been entirely noble.
Ms. Lopez is entitled to her religious view of what she thinks marriage should be for her and her own faith tradition. The problem is when her rigid moralistic views are made a part of civil law that institutionalizes discrimination and prejudice. History provides us examples of state-sanctioned bigotry occurring in other forms: the general subjugation of women and the denial of basic rights to those of different religious, ethnic, and racial persuasions.
— Tim Truemper
Salisbury