4A the university daily kansan
opinion
tuesday, march 9, 2004
EDITORIAL BOARD
Same-sex marriages being used to gain votes
In response to the debate over same-sex marriage and the sanctity thereof, President Bush said he would support amending the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
Most questions of legality and
OUR VIEW By focusing on same-sex marriages, the Bush administration is looking to divide political parties and gain votes.
morality aside, the interesting angle on this is the political reasoning behind such an
amendment. During an election year, and early in the campaign this action suggests an air of desperation.
Since the end of January, the Bush administration has been faced with dwindling poll numbers, a lackluster State of the Union and Meet the Press performance, continued unrest in Iraq and the likely prospect of having negative job growth in its first term. In order to head off fears of falling behind to the asyet-named Democratic nominee, the president and his chief adviser, Karl Rove, rolled out this amendment to shore up the social-conservative constituency that the Republican Party is so heavily counting on for retaining the White House.
Perhaps the president really does, in his heart, believe that same-sex couples shouldn't be
allowed to marry, or that they should be limited in their rights and benefits. This amendment proposal—a radical suggestion which he says is in response to activist judges and courts in
Massachusetts and lately San Francisco, will play off to some people as bold, but may end up backfiring if the amendment doesn't make it through Congress. And if it gets through Congress, it still has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
The debate over marriage, as with most of the other major issues in this campaign, is full of nuance, and its solution,
Zach Newton for The University Daily Kansas
although likely to be far from perfect, will have to be crafted through compromise and at the state level. The only point proven so far: The president is a divider, not a uniter.
PERSPECTIVE
Acceptance not a frill; religion not an excuse
On Feb. 27, 2004, The Baylor Lariat, the student newspaper of Baylor University, published an editorial supporting San Francisco's decision to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The editorial raised the hackles of Baylor Bears from parents to administrators.
Robert J. Sloan Jr., president of Baylor, said in a statement that the editorial view was out of touch with the university's Christian values. He also said that the statement violated the school's publications policy, which says that no publication can take a stance "attacking the basic tenets of Christian theology or of Christian morality."
COMMENTARY
Jonathan Reeder
opinion@kansan.com
Religion is an attractive scapegoat, but it isn't the true problem. The problem is our inability or unwillingness to accept people or customs different from our own. In this country we have an inability to accept people who are different — an inability made evident by the fact that there is so much resistance to the idea of same-sex marriage.
The debate has brought America's Christian foundation to the fore. A man at the march stated that the institution of marriage was a religious tradition dating back thousands of years. The argument is not original. Some of the loudest opposition to same-sex marriage comes from religious sources. A religious-rights law firm in New York is seeking the removal of Jason West, New Paltz mayor, who performed same-sex marriages, and the firm is asking the state Supreme Court to bar same-sex marriages.
In early February, hundreds of people gathered in Boston to support the proposed Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman." The amendment would overturn the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriages.
TALK TO US
There is not a fact-based argument that these marriages will have a definite negative effect on the United States. But according to one interpretation of U.S. Census information from 2000, there are roughly 600,000 same-sex couples who might benefit from legalization.
As future policy makers and parents, we should take note of the struggle and work in whatever way possible to make same-sex marriage a reality. It is a small step toward achieving equality. We must learn to accept that people have the right to live their lives as they choose.
The same-sex marriage debate is part of the most important civil-rights battle of our generation. It is unfortunate that so many people view the issue as an attack on their religion, because homosexual couples aren't trying to destroy or change anyone's religious beliefs. They are simply seeking the same rights as everybody else. The people working against same-sex marriage are endorsing nothing less than segregation based on sexuality.
The Kansan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni. Kansan reserves the right to edit.
Because it is a private university, Baylor has the right to insist that its values be respected and followed by its students and faculty members. It has the luxury of existing in a microcosm. America cannot allow itself that luxury.
Reeder is an tola senior in journalism
cut to length, or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Meghan Brune or Johanna M. Maske at 864-4924 or e-mail at opinion@kansan.com.
ON POLITICS
Last November, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was against the Massachusetts Constitution to preclude homosexual couples from entering into marriage. San Francisco has allowed same-sex marriage, and couples have been flocking to the city — most notably former talk show host Rosie O'Donnell and her partner.
Protecting tradition not 'hateful'
President Bush has just stated his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit marriage to its traditional status of a legal relationship between one man and one woman. Clearly this topic is the hot social debate of the moment.
The language with which this issue is being discussed is typical of our vitriolic political climate. The unfallingly morally relativistic U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) has denounced Bush for being the "first president [in history] to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution."
The aforementioned O'Donnell had this to say: "I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president."
COMMENTARY
That sounds a little harsh there, Rosie, but the implications of this sort of talk are clear: same-sex marriage is the next major civil-rights issue, following in the tradition of women's suffrage and the
The Kursan reserves the right to cut.
Matt Pirotte
opinion@kansan.com
black civil rights movements.
Who are you discriminating against today?
My biggest problem with same-sex marriage is that it looks like the issue is going to be decided in the courts. We should all be afraid at the frequency with which our legislative process is bypassed.
The term "activist judge" scares me as much as the possibility of an AI Sharpton presidency. If homosexuals want to marry, let them lobby Congress, elect officials and have their case tried before the greatest court of all: American public opinion.
Furthermore, it pains me to see labels like "discriminatory" and "hateful")
How dare you attempt to impose your beliefs on others! Who are you to decide who can marry and who cannot? We all draw our lines in the sand somewhere; we all decide at what point we are going to discriminate.
being applied to people who do not wish to see the traditional scope of marriage altered.
Let us assume that we get a decision handed down by a court that says that legal marriage cannot be denied to consenting individuals based on sex. The problem of discrimination is taken care of, right? Wrong. We have to consider polygamists and those with a penchant for incest. After all, both of these can be fully consensual relationships between two (or more) rational individuals. Why should they not be allowed to marry?
Pirotte is a Joplin, Mo., senior in history.
I am not attempting to make comparative moral judgments about these various sexual activities, I am merely trying to describe the full ramifications of what is going on in Massachusetts and California.
If you are for same-sex marriage but don't think a brother and a sister should be allowed the same freedom or don't think I should be able to take 30 wives, let me be the first to welcome you to the world of hateful discrimination.
Free for All Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
I love calling this number. It's fun.
Getting drunk makes everything ok
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com
Michelle Rombeck
editor
864-4854 or mburhnn@kensan.com
Is it weird that I am only going to get one of my boobs done?
Andrew Vaupel
managing editor
864-4854 or vaupel@kansan.com
-
The girl is sad. The boy kissed her and didn't call her. Why? The boy has a girlfriend and he is a dog. Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.
KANSAN
There was a girl eating peanut butter on
the bus with a plastic knife. That's just weird.
Meghan Brune and Johanna M. Maska opinion editors 864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
the bus with a plastic knife. That's just weird.
He just didn't use his turn signal. Damn.
My roommate just said that he thought that his head was crooked because his hat kept tipping to one side.
To the girl in my 12:30 Calc class: Wow,
that's nice.
My toilet is filled with steaming hot water. That's weird.
图
To whoever told my roommate it would be cool to get drunk and throw up in our toilet that doesn't flush is a big fat liar.
Danielle Bose
business manager
884-4358 or adddirector@kansan.com
Staphanie Graham
retail sales manager
864-4358 or adaales.kansan.com
Makcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
864-7687 or mglibson@kansan.com
Matt Fisher
sales and marketing adviser
884-7666 or mfisher@kansan.com
Editorial Board Members
Kendall Dix® Lynze Ford
Laura Francoviglia® Anna Gregory
Amy Mamhontree® Kelly Hollowell® Teresa Lo
Mindy Osborne® Greg Holmquist® Ryan
Scarrow® Elizabeth Willy® Sara Behanek
Kevin Flaherty® Brandon Gay® Zack Hemenway
Alx Hoffman® Kevin Kimpirith® Amy Kelly
Cameron Koelling© Courtney Kuhlen® Brandi
Matheusen® Travis Metcalf® Mike Norris
Jonathan Reeder® Erin Rifley® Alexa Smith
Karl Zimmerman