OPINION
day, lanuary 28,2000 THE BATTALION Page 9
UNFIT PARENTS?
a , Moption by homosexuals
dditiona):
“ ,0, estroys concept of'family’
SERVICES
t gloves the
heai 1 i o see the
n , fact - of chi 1-
f. ^Minting to be
ptei! Every
'■2*- e a stranger
s them special
nticn, hope
its up their c> cv
TRAVEL ;y am like single
Itswi'iulenng. "Are they interested?
*? ,/■ ^VfT.'thev I iid me atlraetnc ’ \\ ill the\
a- M-, r.it j jtk and take care of me?" These
. s ha\ e been discarded, and no one
. - c *** ia d®\ that they need loving homes,
i a* y.-—jjfMEouire protection and stability.
the deser\e the best Inaeulture
"** ;re Ihey are already the victims of
fum non beyond their control, is it
WEIGHT LOSS crui; to deprive them ol balanee and
s ■ .t** maley when they get a second
*%■. nee 1 Such an environment is only
1 lim. He created them with
unique bodies, emotions and
instincts so that they would
combine perfectly to
love each other and j
procreate. De
spite sci
ence’s best
efforts, it i
still takes £
one man /jB
and one
woman to N
I *
make a
child. It al
ways will.
It cannot
be said, howev
er, that men and
women are valuable
as parents because
of the tasks that they
nd when children grow up in homes
—n—h both a mother and a father,
w sar In a "roundtable” discussion that Di-
• Sawy er had with elementary school
Idreii during ABCs millennium cov-
ge, she asked them to describe a
M0 BattallOhily in the 21st century. Without ex-
Online ,t ' on - despite their familial back-
, 'Unds. socio-economic circumstances
Diters access K >endcr, the kids defined a "family" as
\ . tom [and dad w ith children. ()ne
i VHI ildargue that children have been oil-
HI
perform. The basic in
stincts and rationales of
men and women are differ
ent, and a home environ
ment with this kind of vari
ety’ produces balanced,
well-adjusted children. By
watching their parents, chil
dren learn how to work relationships
around the most basic, deeply-rooted
differences between men and women. It
is not enough to put kids in gay homes
/t is not really about homosexual rights. It
is about the need of children.
‘. tilted F ally conditioned to describe a family
s w'ay. but their ability to explain
i provides ctr hr answers contradicts such a state-
•■••.s coverage r ' mt.Thcse children inherently recog-
. , ■’ „ • J: \ :ed that the debate over w hether or
t gaylcouples should be allowed to
Mrtww^Pt' s 1,01 a bout sexual preference. It
- rftJot really about homosexual rights. It
■ bout the
r: ^' ;ds of children.
Both sexes bring unique benefits to
anting. When I le made life. Clod cre-
attalion.ta n j a man an( j a womBn to worship
where they may only occasionally en
counter role models of other genders.
According to psychologists, marriage
counselors and children from divorced
homes, there is absolutely no replace
ment for growing up with a mom and a
dad. Dr. Jeffery Satinover, a psychiatrist
who has testified against homosexual
adoptions, has said that "the evidence is
overwhelming that the absence of [a
parent] in a child’s life is damaging ...
It’s not simply the homosexuality — it’s
the homosexual ideology.”
A child’s need for balance is the
most important issue in the movement
against gay adoption. There are, howev
er, reasons of a more political nature.
For instance, most states will not place
children in homes where unmarried
adults live together. Homosexual cou
ples are the exception, which, in
essence, institutes reverse discrimina
tion. Gay and lesbian couples can be
come the “co-parents” of a child when
one partner adopts the biological off
spring of another. If unmarried hetero
sexuals are denied adoption petitions
because of alternative lifestyles, the
conditions of gay homes must also be
taken into account. Why would either
situation be appropriate for a child,
especially one who is already in a
troubled situation?
Gay rights advocates argue that a
couple’s lifestyle should not be a factor
in adoption proceedings. If they are not
ERIC ANDRAOS /The BaTTAI-Ion
evaluated on their alternative lifesty les,
though, what will be considered? The
lifestyle choices that are common
among homosexuals have to be
weighed with a child’s best interests in
mind. The gay community is often con
fronted with widespread sexual diseases
and promiscuity issues. Further, the op
position to homosexuality that exists in
society will inevitably filter down to
children. These problems bring
tremendous pressure to the lives of
children in gay homes.
Children need two parents. They
also need loving homes, encourage
ment, help and instruction. In combina
tion with all of these things, they need a
mother and a father to balance and serve
as examples. Regardless of politics, this
is the only kind of home that will pro
duce children of peace, justice and love.
And children, especially, know it.
Heather Corbell is a junior
English major.
Gays deserve same rights as
heteros in adoption cases
E ver since the
Civil Rights
Movement of
the ’60s, the United
States has been on a
path toward equal
opportunity and
equal rights for
every citizen —
supposedly. The
United States has accomplished this ob
jective reasonably well in most areas.
However, current anti-discrimination leg
islation falls miserably short.
For example, consider the current de
bate of whether homosexuals should be
allowed to adopt children. Homosexuals
have been accused of everything from be
ing inefficient care givers to “morally
corrupting” the children they adopt.
1 lowever, the question of whether homo
sexuals should be allowed to freely adopt
children cannot be a question of morality,
but rather must be a question of legal
rights. According to the first amendment,
“the government shall make no law con
cerning the establishment of religion,”
hence, the government has no right to
make laws based on a specific set of values.
By denying homosexuals the right
to adopt, not to mention the right to
marry, lawmakers have denied them the
basic human rights that every other mi
nority group in the United States has
possessed since interracial marriage
was legalized in 1967.
It is unrealistic to expect any couple,
whether homosexual or heterosexual, to
provide a child with optimum care when
they are prone to be discriminated against
in almost any given situation.
Therefore, homosexuals find them
selves forced to provide inadequate care
because they are provided with inade
quate rights. If homosexuals were free
from workplace discrimination and were
allowed to legally marry, a much more
“normal” and child friendly environment
would result.
Critics of homosexual adoption have
argued that gay couples are more prone to
split up after adopting a child, since ho
mosexuals cannot legally marry. If mar
ried heterosexuals were the only ones al
lowed to adopt children, this argument
might have more bearing on the case at
hand. But it is also legal for single hetero
sexuals to adopt children. Not surprising
ly, homosexuals are the only ones receiv
ing criticism. This is a blatant case of
discrimination.
Another common argument against
homosexual adoption is that children are
supposedly more likely to become homo
sexual if tliey are raised by homosexuals.
The argument seems like valid con
cern at first glance, but studies show it is
not logical. First, according to the Chil
dren’s Aid Society' of Toronto, “Studies
Homosexuals are
being denied basic
human rights.
have shown that the children of lesbian
and gay parents do not differ significantly
from children raised in heterosexual
households in the development of gender
identity or sexual orientation.” Second,
the supporters of this argument against
adoption seem to be more concerned
about the spread of homosexuality rather
than the welfare of the children in ques
tion. Again, this is a case of a fear of those
who are different, along with which
comes the natural urge to suppress that
which one does not understand.
The same hatred and fear of file un
known that fueled slavery and segrega
tion is now fueling discrimination against
homosexuals. Thirty' years ago, interracial
marriage and multi-racial families were
jeered at as being immoral and unnatural.
Today homosexual couples wishing to
start a family are dealing with the same
prejudice. It took a Supreme Court deci
sion to overturn the racial prejudices of
the ’60s. Eventually, a similar decision
will be made on the behalf of homosexu
als. The right choice must be made now.
Jessica Crutcher is a sophomore
journalism major.
,ias
! do K
-Smart guns’, dumb idea
Vesident Clinton’s new plan ineffective, avoids real issues
CHRIS
HUFFINES
IAN. 3
hen Wedgewood Baptist
Church was attacked, it was
done with a 9mm semiauto-
a .380 handgun, both of which
pistols. When students in Conyers,
were killed, the student used a .22 ri-
and a .357 Magnum, a sporting rifle
a pistol. The Jonesboro killers used a
ety of hunting rifles. At Columbine,
shotguns, a hunting rifle, and an ille-
y bought, owned, transferred and modified DC-9 auto-
ic pistol were used. The worst massacres of recent years
e all involved sporting guns and handguns.
Despite the data. President Clinton has called for further,
Iter enforcement of existing bans on assault weapons, a
Uram to track guns through ballistics testing, and further
lelopment of “smart guns” that only fire when held by
r owners. The calls for
is your
LAST „
HAIMtf
strati on and smart guns is
only impossible to imple-
)t, but it is scapegoating
s worst.
he Clinton plan aims to
te mechanisms in the bar-
b leave specific and reg-
'ed striations, or mechan-
tO take your markings, on each and
7 bullet fired from that
a n j or njctllfl' ^ K ’ se str ' a fi° ns could
~ r ised to match a bullet fired in the commission of a crime
t the database.
for the 2000 Jnfortunately, this will not work, according to Michael
m ns, Criminalist III and Supervisor of the I louston Police
^qqieland Wnt Firearms Lab. Lyons said normal striations dis-
;red by forensics, made famous through shows like “Law
•rder” and “Perry Mason,” are microscopic markings cre-
hy the bullet’s passage over tiny imperfections on the in-
of a gun’s barrel. These imperfections arc left by the
lufacturing process, dirt, gunpowder loads, wear and
and not only change with time but also depend on the
position of the bullet.
70ns said adding distinctive markings to barrels to leave
stered striations will be impractical because any mark-
intentionally left will be too large to vary based on the
. A .22 bullet is smaller in circumference than a bar
;. Lyons also said the barrel plan is useless, as current
i your picture ta iS -p'oduction techniques render any marking of the
he Aqqieland use * ess ’ s ' nce barrels are interchangeable. If the
. ' p c er pf gun No.l shoots someone after trading barrels
<1 AH rhotogr t g Un 2003, the investigators will focus on the
JAN. 31, ^'er pf No. 2,003, not No. 1.
ted next to C-.yohs said a better system would be to track guns by ejected
er at 1410TexasMbaes, since cartridges carry striations from many different
1 M-F 9 a in nc’ 0 *'b 1c gun. I lowever, it is very easy to collect ejected car
es, and investigators and registrars will encounter the same
h • m • lem of size. A .22 cartridge is as small as a .22 bullet.
These calls for registration
and smart guns is not only
impossible to implement,
but it is scapegoating
at its worst.
Smart guns have their own problems. Smart guns con
tain an electronic receiver in the handle that prevents the
gun from firing unless a special transmitter is nearby, usu
ally on the wrist of the hand holding the gun.
While it is true that the advent of smart guns will re
duce police fatalities (a great number of police officers are
shot by their own weapons) and in-home accidents, it is
also true that it will neither eliminate them nor reduce
crime. If little Johnny sees that daddy only shoots targets
with his gun while wearing a bracelet, little Johnny is
also going to want to wear the bracelet. And if little
Johnny pulls the trigger, whoever he shoots is going to
be just a dead as if it was not a smart gun.
Also, since smart guns only work by physically block
ing the firing pin, filing off the blocking piece will be an
easy method around a smart gun, albeit an illegal one. Of
course, criminals holding up a liquor store or shooting
children will likely not balk at
breaking laws.
The rhetoric surrounding
gun control in the wake of
these shootings has focused
on dangerous assault
weapons. But, the vast major
ity of weapons used in these
shootings have been re
volvers, semi-automatic pis
tols and long arms like sport-
ing rifles and shotguns. With
only two notable exceptions, assault weapons have not
figured into the crimes, and yet, the rhetoric has contin
ued, stirring up the public at the expense of the truth.
Only twice have automatic weapons been used, and in
both cases the weapons were submachine guns, not full-
fledged automatic weapons. The gunman who opened fire
in the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center, despite
having been committed and being on probation, managed
to acquire both a pistol and an Uzi submachine gun. Both
of these are clear violations of his probation and existing
gun-control laws. The third-party purchase of the modi
fied DC-9 by the Columbine shooters was also illegal.
Current gun control laws should have prevented these
crimes.
The nation is faced with two options with which to
cure the cancer of violence that has invaded it. This coun
try can regulate wisely and then enforce those regulations,
or this country can engage in the self-examination that
will allow it to realize there is more to violence than the
immediate and easily-blamed cause.
The first solution will work, and it will curtail vio
lence. The second solution is better, and like all better so
lutions is harder. Unfortunately, President Clinton’s gun
control plan does not address the latter and only pays lip
service to the former.
Chris Huffines is a senior speech
communication major.
EDITORIAL
"“BATTALION
wmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMmmmmmmm a < v, t»i: i a i .-m raw
Editorials appearing in The Battalion
reflect the majority view of the editorial
board members. They do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of other Battalion
staff members, the Texas A&M student
body, regents, administration, faculty
or staff. Columns, guest columns,
cartoons and letters express the
opinions of the authors.
Editorial Board
BEVERLY MIRELES
MANAGING EDITOR
STUART HUTSON
CAMPUS EDITOR
ERIC DICKENS
OPINION EDITOR
KYLE WHITACRE
AGGIELIFE EDITOR
DOUG SHILLING
SPORTS EDITOR
JASON BENNYHOFF
RADIO PRODUCER
GUY ROGERS
PHOTO EDITOR
RUBEN DELUNA
GRAPHICS EDITOR
JEFF KEMPF
NIGHT NEWS EDITOR
BRANDON PAYTON
WEB MASTER
MARIUM MOHIUDDIN
EDITOR IN CHIEF
MEREDITH MIGHT
COMMUNITY EDITOR
MARIANO CASTILLO
OPINION EDITOR
VERONICA SERRANO
AGGIELIFE EDITOR
DAVE AMBER
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY EDITOR
JASON LINCOLN
ASST. SPORTS EDITOR
NONI SRIDHARA
ASST. RADIO PRODUCER
JP BEATO
PHOTO EDITOR
ROBERT HYNECEK
GRAPHICS EDITOR
CRISTINA PADRON
ASST. NIGHT NEWS EDITOR
BRENT BARKLEY
ASSr. WEB MASTER
This is censorship
Tech faculty proposal raises First Amendment issues
On Sept. 9, Texas Tech Univer
sity’s student newspaper, The Uni
versity Daily, published an entire
paper with the words “This is cen
sorship” printed repeatedly
across its pages. This statement
was inspired by a federal court
decision in support of the recall
of 2,000 student yearbooks at
Kentucky State University and the
removal of the school’s student
newspaper faculty adviser for fail
ing to censor some material in
the newspaper critical of the uni
versity.
While The University Daily’s ac
tions may have been motivated by
the Kentucky State court case, a
recent proposal by Dr. Jerry Hud
son, chairperson of Texas Tech’s
School of Mass Communications,
may show the student paper what
censorship really is. Hudson has
put together a plan for restruc
turing the school’s student media
outlets. For The University Daily,
Hudson’s proposal calls for a fac
ulty member to act as “newsroom
editor” and for all student editors
at the paper to be replaced by uni
versity staff personnel.
Hudson’s proposal goes on to
say that the “newsroom editor”
would also teach a class and
would use the students enrolled
in the class to publish stories in
The University Daily.
This suggestion seems like it
could produce a student paper
that serves only to publish what
the “newsroom editor” wants and
certainly to prohibit running sto
ries that criticize Texas Tech.
The changes outlined in this
proposal severely endanger one
of the major voices for Texas Tech
students and undermines the
very purpose of a student news
paper.
If this proposal is passed, the
student newspaper would be
come little more than a newslet
ter for the university. Certainly a
student newspaper’s job is not to
repeatedly attack the university,
but in order to represent the stu
dent body and serve as a means
of daily news, The University Dai
ly must have the freedom to pur
sue stories without bias and with
out being under the thumb of a
faculty "newsroom editor.”
Federal district court decisions
have mandated that college stu
dents, unlike high school stu
dents, should have First Amend
ment rights in their student
publications. Faculty input and
advice is important in producing
a professional work of journal
ism. However, student writers and
editors should still have the op
portunity to produce a newspaper
that says what they want to say,
not what somebody tells them to
say.
The possibility of a student
newspaper being placed under
the direct control of faculty mem
bers is scary by itself. That this
possibility is being seriously con
sidered by university administra
tors is more than scary — it is a
threat to all student publications
at Texas Tech and elsewhere. Cur
rently, The Battalion has a faculty
adviser, but in the by laws of
Texas A&M’s Student Media
Board, no member of the faculty
is allowed to determine the con
tent of the newspaper or any oth
er student media source.
This clause allows The Battal
ion to operate as an independent
news source, free from direct
University regulation. The Battal
ion, and other student newspa
pers who have the same admin
istrative structure, are aimed at
a student readership, rather than
the will of a faculty “newsroom
editor.”
If Hudson’s proposal is
passed in Lubbock, the chance
of A&M’s student publications
suffering a similar fate goes from
being far-fetched to being an all-
too-real possibility.