To the Atlanta Journal Constitution July 7, 2004

Dear Editors:

I have added paragraphs 3 & 4 to my letter and modified and repositioned the 5th and added a final comment to the last paragraph.

Thanks for the excellent presentation by Ms. Feldhahn on the merits of the proposed Federal Amendment to Protect Marriage (AJC Wed. 7/7/04).

It is worthwhile for an independent minded people to realize that at one time a person who wrote with his left hand was considered sinister. Later people realized that it was actually a “quirk” of nature, and simply to be accepted. The homosexuals among us, numbering about 10% (which is also the likely percentage of left handers) may not merely be considered queer or odd in the sense of being a quirk like left handers, but even as a gift of a benevolent nature. Just think: if we could convince ourselves that morally there is no difference between a left handed person and a homosexual, any more than there is between a left hander and a right hander, then the religious among us would be praising God, as I do, for a nature which provides in a time of extreme overcrowding a benevolent solution which, if promoted, could mitigate the need for war or famine or pestilence or birth drugs or sterilization or abortion or even sexual self control (the weakest means of all), the latter considered in a monogamous relationship, of course.*

[* Self control is traditionally very weak with regard to ready sex. This is not a problem per se except that children result from heterosexual sex. If we had to depend upon self control in order to stem the rising populations, we would have very little reason to hope. By monogamous I am suggesting that homosexuals could be in a union of merely two (like heterosexuals) and would not have to exercise self control sexually (unlike the heterosexuals) since no children can ensue.]

Concerning the question of child rearing, and I agree to its importance with Ms. Feldhahn, in fact its overriding importance. I would suggest the following format:

Unions of two of the same sex can be sanctioned by law and called, for lack of a better word just now, a monastery. A marriage shall be one man and one woman, and there shall be no distinction before the law between a marriage and a monastery. They may be referred to legally as potential families. Now a marriage will be so termed because it is the ideal unit for a family, where both sexes are represented equally as parents. The priority for adoption shall be: a marriage, a monastery, a single individual, an orphan home. Any marriage or monastery or single individual with legal children shall be called a legal family.

[As a rational creature, by the way, I cannot help but think that a marriage protection law really out to include some sort of ban on divorce and some sort of punishment for adultery. But perhaps that would be too religious for us Americans.]

I appeal to those citizens in Georgia who are affected by Christian conscience to accept the following premise in faith: when Paul wrote his letters, there were no homosexuals but merely straights playing games of daring and conquest. Thus what he said is eternally true and beyond dispute. Now in the same way that the left hander is a quirk of nature, God’s nature has produced in the time since Paul a new creature, the homosexual, and for the intention of being finally able to fix the mess that the heterosexual world has made of things (too many babies) in our present time. Thus there is no conflict, in faith, between Paul’s words and the acceptance of all quirks of nature, as long as they are truly quirky. All that is required to accept this affirmation of faith is a belief in miracles, and that is a hallmark of the Christians.