4A
Friday, September 13, 1996
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Defense of marriage act is hypocritical, wrong
The U. S. Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act on Tuesday, officially declaring marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and freeing states from their obligation to recognize any other type of marriage performed in other states.
This law may violate a constitutional requirement in which states recognize legal contracts made in other states. The bill is hypocritical, discriminatory and wrong. Committed unions formed between two women or two men with the same intentions as heterosexual couples love and mutual support - deserve the same benefits and respect.
respect. Homosexual couples truly need many of the rights that are part of marriage, including the right to authorize emergency medical procedures and the right to adopt the partner's children.
Many gays and lesbians are rejected by and estranged from their parents and siblings simply for being honest about who they are. For them, the committed unions they form are the only family on which they have to depend.
The freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples does not tread upon anyone's religious beliefs against homosexuality. Allowing homosexual marriage would not force churches to condone unions or perform ceremonies that violate their beliefs.
In the United States, where we have separation of church and state, marriage is viewed by law as a secular entity; a set of rights that is bestowed upon a couple regardless of their religious doctrines or beliefs, or for that matter, their races, ages, blood types or political affiliations. The same blind eye should be turned toward gender.
Many of the loudest voices against homosexuality, in general, have long used biased claims of promiscuity in their denunciations. For those same voices to deny gays and lesbians the freedom to form stable, legally binding contracts of marriage is nothing if not hypocritical.
Homosexuals, if granted rights to marry, would probably cherish this freedom all the more for having been denied it for so long. The real threats to marriage in our society have nothing to do with lesbians and gay men seeking acknowledgment of their loving unions. Judging from the national divorce rate, marriage needs protection more from a lack of commitment and personal responsibility than from homosexual unions.
BRENT SUTTER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Planning could have averted Fraser Hall project conflict
The decision by the University's office of Design and Construction Management to move jackhammer work on the Fraser Hall steps to evenings and weekends came too late. Students' education should not have been hampered by construction noise in the first place.
B. A. Green Construction Co. was hired to repair the crumbling steps on the east side of Fraser Hall. Construction began Sept. 2 and is expected to continue until at least Thanksgiving.
Professors and students complained about noise from the construction last week, and the department decided to stop jackhammering during school days, and night classes were moved to other locations.
The department had initially tried to do its noisiest work during the two-week window between the end of summer classes and the beginning of this semester, but it was prevented from scheduling the work then because of the lengthy state contract process, said Jim Modig, director of design and construction.
The project had been designed and was ready for bidding in April, Modig said. The State Purchasing Department had a large number of projects for bidding in April, May and June so the bids for the project weren't considered until May 29. A contract was awarded to the construction company the next day. The state would not release money for the project until the beginning of the new fiscal year, July 1.
While repairing the steps is a necessary project and is not the fault of Design and Construction Management that the project was held up, officials should have planned better for the disruption. It would have saved students and teachers a headache.
NICOLE KENNEDY FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
AMANDA TRAUGHBER
Editor
CRAIG LANG
Managing editor
MATT HOOD
Associate managing editor for design
KIMBERLY CRABTREE
CHARITY JEFFRIES
News editors
DARCI L McLAIN
SARA ROSE
Public relations directors
KAREN GERSCH
Business manager
HEALY SMART
Retail sales manager
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
Campus ... Susanna Llof6
Jane Strait
Amy McVey
Editorial ... John Collier
Nicole Kennedy
Features ... Adam Winst
Bill Petulla
Associates sports .. Carlyn Foster
On-line editor .. David L. Teakus
Photo .. Rich Devinid
Graphics .. Andy Rohrbach
Special sections .. Amy McVey
Wife .. Debbie Staine
Business Staff
campus mgr ... Mark Odkmek
Regional mgr ... Denna Haupt
Assistent Retail mgr ... Denat Centeno
National mgr ... Margo Tilson
Production mgr ... Dan Koppe
Marketing director ... Lisa Quobbeman
Marketing manager ... Dessmond Lavelle
Classified mgr ... Shelly Wachter
It's inhumane what teenagers these days have to go through. Metal detectors in schools and spontaneous inspections for drugs infringe on their precious right to privacy.
Robert Tapley/KANSAN
Mall rats need to grow up; new curfew is not a threat
Their freedom is further compromised by meddling parents who insist on caring for the children they raise. How authoritarian! And now, the last blow to democracy for America's teenagers has fallen: They can't hang out at the mall Friday and Saturday nights without their parents.
dued parent The New York Times reported that the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minn., no longer will allow people under 16 to hang out at the mall without parental supervision. Human rights advocates across the nation are up in arms about this travesty of justice.
Oh, please. We're talking about a mall, for crying out loud. How vital to teenage life can this possibly be? Is the ACLU saying that if kids can't hang out at the mall without their parents, the very future of liberty is in peril? Can you say that with a straight face?
"It infringes on the rights of young people," said Chris Hansen of the American Civil Liberties Union. The framers of the Constitution must be turning over in their graves.
About 2,000 teenagers congregate at the Mall of America every weekend night. Mall spokeswoman Teresa A. McFarland said the children disturb other shoppers with chases, practical jokes, and even fist fights. These hardly are culturally stimulating activities, and they can't possibly contribute to the community. What's wrong with cutting back on these disruptions?
STAFF
COLUMNIST
uvity of political correctness and the babble of rights. They don't know what it really means to have their own freedom at risk, so they think it is at risk whenever someone says no.
The whole scenario just points out a well-known, but not widely admitted, fact about teenagers in this country: They can pick the most ridiculous issues to protest. The generation has grown up in the hypersensi
With the increasing influence and accessibility of organizations like the ACLU and the cleverly misnamed Children's Defense Fund, it has become easier for teenagers to inflate issues like the Mall of America's curfew into nationwide civil rights protests.
We wonder why the generation gap seems wider now than ever. Why can't parents understand their children? Why won't children listen? It's mainly because of problems like this. Society drives a wedge between children and parents, encouraging teenagers to complain about, rebel against and even sue their own parents for such
Our culture today trains young people to wall "First Amendment" whenever they don't get their way. As a result, they forget how to defend their freedom when it really matters.
unfathomable crimes as making them clean their room or not allowing them to stay out until 3 a.m.
When did America decide that 14-year-olds were mature enough to remove themselves from the family's umbrella? Not that every family works perfectly, but inciting division in the family doesn't help it function.
"who wants to go shopping with their parents?" asked the Times article, as if the question were rhetorical. The article included quotes from children who complained that the mall "took away the best shopping days." And here I always thought the movie *Chueless* was based on fiction, not reality.
How many 14-year-olds are going to the mall to shop? Maybe a few yuppie children, whose parents gave them their own credit cards. But in the vast majority of cases, the mall is a social place, like a bar or a movie theater. We don't consider it a right to be able to go to a movie theater. If you misbehave, you have to leave. That's called responsibility.
n.y.
Teenagers used to be able to find more worthwhile things to do than malling. Our generation used to involve ourselves in our communities and our schools.
These kids in Bloomington are complaining because they can't partake in one of the most ridiculously frivolous and unnecessary activities of teenage life. And if they die from not being able to go to the mall, or worse, from having to take their parents along, let them sue me.
Andy Rohback is an Andover sophomore in journalism and political science.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Fine Arts editorial had the facts wrong
Sarah Preston's editorial (9/10/96) urging private support for student theater companies, although well-intentioned, contains several factual errors that deserve correction.
First of all, the Lied Center is part of the School of Fine Arts, and its outstanding public series are among the performing arts programs of the school. In addition to the various series (the larger productions cited in the editorial), the center is also the venue for a significant number of student
performances. This year, the students and faculty in the department of music and dance will be utilizing the center for 70 rehearsals and 40 public performances.
Although several degree programs are offered jointly by University Theatre and the School of Fine Arts, the University Theatre is not part of the school but is the performing "arm" of the department of theater and film in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Contrary to the editorial's suggestion that University Theatre is just beginning to "gain recognition for their productions," it has been recognized as one of the
country's outstanding theater programs, winning a number of national awards for student productions.
All together, the programs of the Lied Center, the department of music and dance, University Theatre and the English Alternative Theater offer an unusually large number of opportunities for student performers, as well as a wealth of cultural opportunity to students, faculty and the broader public. They all deserve greater financial support.
Peter G. Thompson Dean, School of Fine Arts
Not supporting same-sex unions is not a result of homophobic view
Congress erected a much-needed barrier against the gay rights movement when it voted Tuesday to give states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act 85-14; the House, 342-67. The bill was passed to prevent the possibility that the Supreme Court of Hawaii would recognize same-sex unions later this year.
Gay rights activist Michaelangelo
Signorile said in the December-January 1994 issue of *Out* magazine that one aim of the movement was to "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to...radically alter an archaic institution."
Under current law, marriages performed in one state must be recognized in every state. So a homosexual couple married in Hawaii could move to any state and receive government benefits formerly reserved for heterosexual marriages. The Defense of Marriage Act would give states the option to deny those privileges to homosexual couples. President Clinton has said he would sign the bill.
Gay rights advocates responded in typical knee-jerk fashion, calling the move a bigoted, intolerant ploy by homophobic, gay-bashing, religious political extremists. Yet, a USA Today poll shows nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose same-sex unions. Truth isn't defined by majority opinion, but 70 percent of Americans certainly aren't wackos.
The strategy that gay rights advocates have employed to advance their political agenda is to label their opponents as homophobes: ogrelike creatures who dream of beating up gay people during their spare time.
Yet by dismissing any opposition to their political agenda as irrational, gay-rights advocates are guilty of the same self-righteous indignation they deplore in the so-called radical religious right. Calling anyone who opposes the gay-rights political agenda a homophobe is like calling anyone who wouldn't vote for Jesse Jackson a racist.
It's true that genuine homophobia exists in our state, but the number of ardent Fred Phelps supporters who believe that "God hates fags" could fit in a space the size of his Topeka compound. The truth is that any sane person who claims to follow the teachings of Jesus considers the guy who holds the John 3:16 sign during football games to be a more astute Bible scholar than Phelps. At least the sign-holder understands the point about God loving the whole world, including homosexuals.
Nevertheless, the central question in the controversy surrounding same-sex marriages is: Should our society treat homosexuality as a morally acceptable lifestyle? This is a question that warrants further discussion.
Gay-rights advocates say that anyone who answers no to this question is a homophobe. This tactic on the part of gay-rights advocates shows that they are more interested in silencing their political opponents through intimidation and name-calling than they are in answering the question through free inquiry and debate.
John Hart is a Shawnee graduate student in Journalism.
THE AVENGING VARMINT
By Lili Barrientos