4A the university daily kansan
opinion
monday, december 1, 2003
talk to us
Michelle Burhenn-Rombeck
editor
864-4854 or mburhenn@kensan.com
884-4854 or mburhenn@kansan.com
Lindsay Henson and Leah Shaffer managing editors 864-4854 or ihanson@kansan.com and lshaffer@kansan.com
Louise Stauffer and Stephen Shupe
opinion editors
864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Amber Agee
business manager
864-4358 or adddirector@kansan.com
Taylor Thode
retail sales manager
864-4358 or adsales.kansan.com
Maicolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
864-7667 or mgibson@kansan.com
Matt Fisher
sales and marketing adviser
864-7666 or mflsfer@kansan.com
Free forAll Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansas editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com
I just witnessed a turkey protesting. I never thought I would see the day.
例
--face-off
Hello. This is God, the voice of the voiceless.
What is the deal with liquor stores being closed on Thanksgiving? Is this what we get for having them open on Sunday? I need to bring wine to a dinner that I am going to. How am I going to do this?
I am at the mall in Oklahoma and I just saw a 7-year-old on a cell. Does a 7-year-old really need a cell phone?
I just drank some Everclear and it tastes like burning.
Hello. I am from Houston, Texas, and I agree with the guy from Dallas that people from Kansas really don't know how to party, and they really don't know it unless they leave the state.
Mommy, are you there? Mommy? Pick up if you are there.
Behold, I am the great displacer.
In the immortal words of Harrison Ford:
"Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes?"
Connor Meigs for The University Daily Kansas
Should America embrace same-sex marriages? Ban runs counter to freedom Union barriers would dissolve
Predictably, reaction to the landmark Massachusetts decision ruling the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional has been mixed. Wild predictions that allowing gay marriage will decimate the morals of society dominate conservative discourse.
Bush's statements about the issue point to a popular, and true, objection: common law definitions exclusively define mixed-gendered marriage. The Massachusetts decision acknowledges this fact, but recognizes that the definition's "history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question."
One of the most dismissible and despicable objections is the notion that marriage is critical to procreation. The devastating question: how would facilitating committed homosexual marriages decrease the homosexual potential of heterosexual marriages? That this country needs special tax status to encourage procreation would be laughable if it wasn't given the credence it has received.
The Massachusetts decision takes this a step further, writing that the "marriage is procreation" argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage... In so doing, the State's action confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect." Perhaps this was the intent all along.
Yet often the divergent legal argument suggests that any kind of marriage is permissible once the courts abandon the historical definition of marriage. The fear is that incestuous or polygamous marriages would suddenly become permissible. But to assume a runaway system is to ignore the system's essential nuances.
Marriage has long been recognized as a basic civil right, as illustrated in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Skinner v. Oklahoma
Face-Off is a project of the Kansan editorial board. Two editorial board members argue opposing sides of a hot-button issue that affects students at the University of Kansas.
This section is designed to help students understand opposing sides of an issue and make informed decisions.
Readers who have a suggestion for a topic that could be used in Face-Off or wish to join the editorial board, please call Louise Stauffer or Stephen Shupe at 8644924. E-mail suggestions to opinion@kansan.com.
and Milford v. Worcester. Courts have consistently ruled that marriage has little meaning if it does not include the ability to marry a person of one's choice.
Hypothetical fears of a runaway judicial future, or of damage to the "fabric" of society are poor excuses to deny such a basic right.
Greg Holmquist for the editorial board.
Nearly everyone on this campus and in this country draws a line in the sand somewhere with respect to issues of sexual morality. A good number of those people had their lines crossed this week by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It is now legal in that state for same-sex couples to marry.
This is not really a gay issue. At its core, this issue centers on the definition of marriage.
Since America's inception, marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. It does not seem inappropriate for America, or any society, to create its own definition of marriage even if that definition is somewhat limited. This decision is bigger than a gay issue. If marriage is going to be redefined here, what is to stop it from being redefined further?
The Massachusetts court said the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex
wish to marry." If this is the case, how can the state deny those same protections, benefits and obligations to polygamists? How can it deny them to a brother and sister who wish to wed each other? Sound like a crazy comparisons? They really are not. Homosexual, polygamous and incestuous relationships can all exist between consenting adults. If we follow the court's logic, why should a woman looking to become her husband's second wife or a man who wishes to marry his sister be denied the "protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage?"
Let's go back to our own individual lines in the sand for a second.
This case is all about where to draw them. If you are going to support the logic of gay marriage and not be in favor of allowing a brother and sister to marry, then you are guilty of the same crime you would accuse an opponent of gay marriage of committing. The nature of this "crime" is essentially to make an "arbitrary" distinction between who can marry and who cannot.
Those in favor of keeping the institution of marriage limited to traditional heterosexual relationships, however, are not making such an "arbitrary" distinction.
They have the benefit of tradition and the logistics of procreation on their side.
Matt Pirotte dissenting.
perspective
Clark promises critical, heavily involved society
Forty years and a week ago, John F. Kennedy was killed. Before he died, Kennedy urged our nation to service: "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."
COMMENTARY
Bush then proceeded to exploit that national tragedy for personal political gain. He drew a spurious connection between the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us and Saddam Hussein, who did not, to garner public support for a war in Iraq. He used our fear of being attacked again as an excuse to erode civil liberties. He painted political opponents as unpatriotic. And he told us, when we asked what we could do for our country, to shop till we drop.
Two years and three months ago, America was attacked by terrorists. In response to the overwhelming longing of the American people to sacrifice for the good of our country in its hour of need, George W. Bush asked us to go shopping.
Rachel Robson opinion@kansan.com
I don't want to go shopping. I wint to be inspired.
Enter Wesley Clark, wounded Vietnam
veteran, retired four-star general and Democratic candidate for the presidency
Clark is about as inspiring as they come. Raised by his struggling mother and stepfather in Arkansas, Clark graduated first in his 1966 West Point class. He won a Rhodes Scholarship, which he used to earn a master's degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University. He then went to Vietnam, where he was wounded four times while leading his troops. He eventually became a general and then Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He retired from the army with 34
"This is why I'm running for president to return America to the core ideals of our democracy: personal liberty, service to country, respect for others, the right to criticize and correct the government," Clark said at a military reporters' convention Oct. 3.
Clark is everything that Bush is not. Clark is a decorated war hero; Bush avoided serious military service by joining the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam, and even then didn't bother to report for duty for an entire year. Clark earned everything he has on his own merits; Bush enjoyed all the privileges that come with being born of a wealthy, influential family. Clark is intellectually curious and interested in world events; Bush has bragged that he doesn't watch any news other than SportsCenter.
years of service and four stars.
Last September, after tens of thousands of Americans wrote letters begging him to run, Clark announced that he'll now try to become America's commander in chief
your needs and policy — insofar as it exists — is notoriously short sighted, denying the well-established phenomenon of global warming and doing little to encourage renewable sources of energy. Clark said we should always consider what our country will look like 100 years from now and make decisions about natural resources accordingly.
More importantly, Clark stands for everything that Bush does not.
And while Bush tells Americans that materialism is the highest form of patriotism, Clark encourages volunteering with a plan for a civilian reserve that could be called upon in the event of a national disaster.
Bush was willing to throw away longstanding alliances for an optional war in Iraq. Clark believes such a unilateralist attitude is dangerous, weakening America in the long run.
Following Sept. 11, 2001, Ari Fleischer Bush's press secretary at the time, said that Americans must "watch what they say, watch what they do." Contrast this with Clark: "There is nothing more American, nothing more patriotic, than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable."
Patriotism requires sacrifice. Clark and I understand that, even if Bush does not. I will be giving up my cherished position as a columnist for The University Daily Kansan next semester so I can devote more time to the Clark campaign.
"Under this administration, service is for those who cannot afford to be served and patriotism is defined as the many sacrificing for the few. I believe differently. I believe that the call to service is the highest calling any American can answer, that your time and talent and energy are the greatest gifts you can give your country. That service to your country is patriotism." Clark said.
2.
Clark is the kind of leader that this country needs, so I will do what I can to help him get elected. Now is the time we should all be considering what we can do for our country.
Robson is a Baldwin City doctoral candidate in pathology. She is president of KUMC for Clark, and editor of http://scientists.forclark.com.
Y