Re: Amendment 1

Proponents of a controversial constitutional amendment about marriage claim it will not lead to legal challenges to other areas of the law. As an attorney for more than 13 years, I can tell you with certainty that there will be serious legal challenges. Those who want to etch this definition into the bedrock of our Constitution do not understand its ripple effect throughout our legal code. The only people who will benefit from this amendment are the attorneys who will profit from controversies that will arise in benefits, wills, employment, custody and existing domestic violence protective orders.

The constitutional amendment is an invitation to litigation that will divert tax funds to costly litigation. And for what? It is already legally impossible for persons of the same sex to have recognized marriages in our state. Why waste resources to enshrine these words in our Constitution in a way that casts doubt upon other settled areas of law? We should not tinker with our foundational document in a way that calls existing laws into question. It is a waste of time and money, and accomplishes no new legitimate legal change in our law.

Scott Holmes

Re: Carrboro anarchists

In response to Joseph Waters’ letter about the Carrboro anarchists [Letters to the Editor, Feb. 15], I see that he agrees strongly with Karl Marx, who, in The Communist Manifesto, called for “(1) Abolition of private property in land, and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” He went on to call for “(2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.” And went on from there to other communist goals. The Manifesto begins with the words, “A spectre is haunting Europethe spectre of Communism.” That same spectre is now haunting the U.S.A.

J.E. Williams

Re: “Walk of the Immigrants”

Saul Flores at the first TEDxNCSUthe first time he told his story publicly:

David Dean