Letters to the editor — Tuesday (4-18-2017)
Published 12:02 am Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Rep. Ford takes courageous position on marriage bill
I want to thank State Rep. Carl Ford, R-China Grove, for taking a courageous position against the progressive minority on the issue of marriage. I’m sure he knew that his support of House Bill 780 would lead to vicious attacks by the bill’s critics and that some of those critics would be in his own party.
Many agree with him — that the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional authority by overruling the state of North Carolina on an issue that the federal court has no business involving itself. A state’s decision to support traditional marriage does not violate the U.S. Constitution or national law, at least not a reasonable interpretation.
Does a state law defending traditional marriage unjustly infringe on the rights or privileges of anyone, or fail to treat everyone equally under the law? If the law states that marriage requires two people, each of the opposite sex, everyone still has the same opportunity to enter into that relationship. They just have to do it with one person of the opposite sex. Defending traditional marriage no more infringes on the rights of the homosexual community than it does on those who would prefer to marry more than one person or marry a sibling (for the sake of this argument, assume a medical condition ensures they can’t conceive a child).
Marriage has been characterized as a fundamental right but, clearly, even those types of rights have restrictions. When the Supreme Court defined marriage as anything other than the union of one man and one woman, it created an arbitrary definition. On what basis can it now further limit redefinition of marriage?
Traditional marriage is the fundamental institution of a civil society. It should be respected and protected.
I thank those who try to do so and encourage those that don’t to reconsider the government’s role in marriage. Ask yourself, “What is marriage and why does the government care?” The answers to those questions lead to the conclusion the definition of marriage should be one man and one woman.
— Larry Jones