The I
.Ity meir:
from i
eak on
said. '1
m themst
Battalion
O
PINION
Page 7 • Monday, March 8, 1999
tee.
CAFR1
usan Gt
enefiel,
eld man.
Kens
vid Ree:
)efining family values
roposed state amendments prohibiting adoption by homosexual couples discriminatory
he 14th Amendment to
perforH the Constitution is de-
a mor:M signed to guarantee equal
dt to seatment under the law for all
an, ant jtizens of the United States,
eat joi'B'o that end, it states, “No
lie shall make or enforce any
,e P rc iw which shall abridge the
? ^wileges or immunities of citi-
|s of the United States ... nor
|y to any person within its
al Libi:
ntinuiri
Brendan
GUY
■ expa; ir i ;diction the equal protection of the laws.’
3suppc*q Ua i treatment under the law is something vi-
lelp >- r | c
house;
he saii
illor any free society, something currently under
ttack by two bills worming their way through the
■as State Legislature. HB382, sponsored by
■I.Warren Chisum of District 88, forbids homo-
* lials to adopt children and HB415, sponsored
1 |fM^ e P-8°bert Talton of District 144, forbids homo-
JMliials and bisexuals from even serving as foster
Pp|pnts.
• I A^hat kind of society is this if the government is
1 we< ^ to °P enl y discriminate against its citizens?
1 ili \doption has already been severely restricted
■9 :he lengthy and expensive approval process in-
oh ed (to say nothing of the constant threat of a
1^/biological parent changing their mind and legally
JI^Hllenging the adoption). The result of this has
!%ln the imprisonment of thousands of children in
d theelhanages, while people who want children turn
willilertility drugs, surrogate mothers, artificial in-
velop liination and countries with more reasonable
jating dlption laws.
teachitftut instead of being helpful to anyone who is
ms, flially willing to go through all the time, expense
mem I aggravation involved in trying to adopt a
nbeis, the state legislature is now trying to forbid
•th P r -iotentially-qualified parents from adopting chil
li just because of their sexual orientation. This
irtually criminal in its stupidity.
What possible reason can there be for denying
lomosexuals the right to adopt children? The best
• ’\ hi)ig for kids in an orphanage is to be placed with
roup t vin S famil y-
ss of |The sexual orientation of the parents does not
liter. What matters is that they love and support
on children (or is the legislature really going to
teacfry ind claim that it is better for children to be
ad to vards of the state than to be raised by homosexu-
teaclils?) The truth is the state has no legitimate reason
sity. or discriminating against homosexuals. These two
l toge*s are nothing more than ugly bigotry, plan and
i pahfijiple.
inter. •
y said.
nd sign }
Spying racism
/er,
ssor in
lege
BUS!
It does not matter if homosexuality is a
choice or not, either way it is a lifestyle
which does not hurt anyone and therefore
the government should have no right to sin
gle it out for punishment.
At the risk of invoking the old slippery-
slope argument, where is this going to end?
Will homosexuals be banned from working
as public school teachers or youth coun
selors or any other job that would have
them working around children? And what is
going to limit this discrimination just to
gays and bisexuals?
After all, if unpopular sexual practices
can justify virtual disenfranchisement, why
not unpopular religious or political beliefs?
This has to be stopped now, while we still
can. Rule of law is dependent on having
the law applied equally to everyone. When
governments begin to discriminate against
their citizens and apply the law arbitrarily,
they destroy this, turning the law from a
tool of justice into a tool of oppression.
Now a case could possibly be made for
the position that while legally and morally
homosexuals should be able to adopt chil
dren, practically it is not possible because of
how those children would be treated by in
tolerant idiots. But even this argument is
deeply flawed.
The adopted children of interracial cou
ples are just as likely to face harassment
and persecution, but (hopefully) no one
would think of refusing interracial couples
the right to adopt. This country simply can
not afford to allow itself to be held hostage
by bigots.
This is unfair to the children who will
have to face needless persecution, but it
would be even more unfair to them to let
them grow up in a society where people are
bullied into not living their lives as they see
fit, not just by individual idiots but also by
the government.
Homosexuals are just as much citizens
of this country as anybody else. They are
not lunatics, they are not criminals (technically
they are in some states due to archaic blue laws
that would be struck down if they were actually
enforced) and their lifestyles do not hurt any
body.
Therefore they should have the same rights as
everybody else, rights that include the right to
adopt children. When the rights of any of our fel
low citizens are abridged, all Americans lose.
Just remember the words of Pastor Martin
Niemoller, “The Nazis first came for the Commu
nists, and I didn’t object because I wasn’t a Com
munist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t
object because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for
the trade unionists, and I didn’t object because I
wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the
Catholics, and I didn’t object because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me.”
Brendan Guy is a senior political science and
history major.
indiscriminately detrimental to race relations
1 faaft^ he recent
events in
is Jasper are a
"to use finite reminder
inue Rt racism exists in
K country. As are
itruck tany of the views
was nd teachings of
oh ofmis Farrakhan.
aught ■Racism, like many
Ber social ills, will
Zach
HALL
rr Y-o
bably never completely end, but so-
y is making great strides toward di-
ishing racial intolerance,
owever, if society hopes to end
ism America must not only prose-
ite and repudiate crimes such as those
iasper, but it must also stop using
at is referred to as the “race card.”
A person is said to use the “race
d” when he or she is being prosecut-
for a crime and claims that he or she
jeing prosecuted only because he or
she is a minority.
One may be familiar with this term as
it was applied to the O.J. Simpson trial.
Defense attorneys claimed that Simpson
was the target of racial discrimination by
the Los Angeles Police Department, specif
ically because of Mark Fuhrman’s use of
racial slurs. As a result, much of the prose
cutions evidence against Simpson was
deemed inadmissible.
In a more recent case, Florita Bell
Griffin, a Bryan resident, has been un
der investigation by the FBI, Texas
Rangers and a federal grand jury for al
legedly participating in a theft and
bribery scheme.
Griffin, a board member of the Texas
Department of Housing and Community
Affairs, is claiming the investigation is
driven by racism and sexism.
Though no indictments have been
handed down, Griffin has not revealed
why she feels the investigations is moti
vated by racism and sexism.
Does she honestly believe that three
state and federal agencies would allow
an investigation to continue if it was
driven only by racism and sexism? It is
more likely that Griffin got caught with
her hands in the cookie jar and saw that
her only way out was by claiming
racism.
Society cannot expect to overcome
racism when obvious criminals are ar
guing that they are not guilty but rather
the victims of racism. This is especially
perplexing when celebrities and others
jump on the “race bandwagon”, as was
the case in the O.J. Simpson trial and
Gary Graham murder case.
Few people doubted that O.J. was
guilty of murder, yet some were more
concerned with the perception that the
Los Angeles Police Department was tar
geting O.J. because he was black than
they were with the fact that he might
have brutally murdered two people.
In the Graham case, celebrities such
“ff society hopes to one
day eradicate racism, it
must not tolerate 'false
racism/”
as Danny Glover and Kenny Rogers
have jumped on Graham’s defense
bandwagon and fought against his
death sentence despite the fact a jury
found him guilty and 36 subsequent ju
dicial reviews have determined that he
does not need a new trial.
If society hopes to one day eradicate
racism, it must not tolerate false racism
as well. Those who cry “racist wolf”
should be looked upon as harshly as
those who are guilty of racism.
Their exploitation of the judicial, po
litical, societal or any other systems by
using the “race card” is only counter
productive to the goal of ending racism.
If Florita Bell Griffin is guilty of theft
and bribery, she should face up to her
actions and accept her punishment.
Her claims of racial discrimination
will not only disrupt the pursuit of jus
tice, but may also damage the reputa
tions and careers of innocent people if
her claims are not true.
If America truly wants to become a
color blind society and end racism, it
must not tolerate those who use the
“race card” for their own personal gain
or to get themselves out of trouble, just
as it does not tolerate those who use
race to discriminate against others.
Zach Hall is a senior philosophy major.
Creationism uses
faulty arguments
In response to Christina Bar-
rows’ Mar. 3 opinion column.
I feel that it is advisable to
set a few things straight regard
ing Christina Barrows’ argument
against evolutionism.
First and foremost, it is im
portant to clear up the meaning
of the word theory. Evolution is
deemed by scientific community
as theory.
In the scientific world, howev
er, that word, theory, means
fact, not just possibility. Hy
potheses can only be consid
ered theories upon rigorous
testing and repeatable, unwa
vering results; hence Einstein's
Theory of Relativity.
Creationists have read into
evolutionist literature and tried
to use that word against them,
giving the impression that sci
ence still does not fully accept
evolution.
However, its placement in
scholarly literature means ex
actly the opposite; evolution is
fact, otherwise it would be the
MAIL CALL
hypothesis of evolution.
Second, the statement that
the creation of life is the same
as “putting all the parts [of a
computer] in a bag and shaking
until done,” is a narrow-minded,
oversimplified comparison be
tween apples and oranges.
Inert pieces of plastic and
metal forming a complex ma
chine is not even vaguely com
parable to the story of life. The
beginnings of life involved
chemical reactions, not me
chanical.
After a considerable amount
of time natural selection took
over and steered life toward
more complex physiology.
Evidence of virtually every
step of this process has been
uncovered. The “gaps in evolu
tion,” so touted by creationists,
are shrinking with every new
field season.
In fact, the basic results of
evolution are in almost every
home in America.
Dogs, cats and all other do
mesticated plants and animals
display every characteristic of
selection and evolution.
Just because Barrows cannot
understand how something so
complex and beautiful as life
“happened by chance” does not
mean that it could not happen.
That is called an “argument
through ignorance,” which relies
on completely invalid reasoning.
The only other reason for all
that indicates evolution is that
it is a complex plan by God to
test our faith.
To quote the late, great Bill
Hicks: “Does it bother anyone to
think that God... might be f—king
with our heads?”
Makes ya think ...
Mason Miller
Graduate Student
The Battalion encourages letters to the ed
itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in
clude the author’s name, class and phone
number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to edit
letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters
may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc
Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also
be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-3111
Campus Mail: 1131
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: batt@tamvml.tamu.edu