NEWS
THE BATTALION
N.
ttinued from page 1
invaded in 1990; and Iran,
h fought a long war
am’s forces from 19
an’s U.N. ambassador,
1 Zarif, warned that wj
d produce “a nightmart
irio of death and destmt-
and said “the prospect of
inting a foreign mi
nander to run an Is
Vrab country is all the
bilizing and only indicate
availing delusions.”
)ne outcome is almost cer-
— extremism stands to b
Zarif declared,
te United States
in maintain that Iraq is not
crating fully, as
he last U.N.
ted unanimously n
mber, and are workingons
it ion to authorize
i.
ig Fennelly’s seven-year
been interesting, and it's
it to go through,” he said
something about yoursef
n. I think it makes you
he success you've had in
al.”
not been successful in
including a 69-54 lossio
rday. Senior point guard
) 22 points in the losing
time this year that she has
rints. ISU’s limited depii
the Longhorns, as only
saw playing time in die
for 7 p.m.
itity charged with
dent Activities is
)ter 27; and (2) a
1 hazing on or off
ing Offices:
EDITORIAL
Defeating deregulation
Students should attend Senate meeting
Rarely does a group of students at one place in time have the
ability to impact those who will follow as much as current stu
dents at Texas A&M have today. In the Governance Room of the
Koldus building at 7:30 p.m. today, A&M's Student Government
will meet to discuss the issue of tuition deregulation. It would
be prudent for every student who pays tuition, has a family
member who will one day pay tuition here, or who otherwise
feels a sense of obligation to A&M to voice his opinion before
the organization whose sole purpose is to represent their
beliefs.
The Student Senate will consider a resolution proposed by
Student Senator Kevin Capps that would partially endorse
tuition deregulation. While serious consideration of the issue is
a step in the right direction, the senate's failure to condemn
deregulation is a tacit endorsement. Tuition deregulation in all
its forms will remove the power to set tuition levels from elect
ed officials, and entrust that power to the unelected Board of
Regents, who will pursue institutional interests rather than
those of the public. Gov. Rick Perry has already embraced the
idea as a way for students to pay a larger share of the state
budget deficit.
Take time out of your busy evening to let your stance be
known. It is a small price to pay now to avert the potentially
high future costs of education. And it may prevent the highest
cost of all: the missed education and missed member of the
Aggie family who might one day be unable to afford A&M.
Tuition deregulation in all its forms should be unequivocally
THE BATTALION
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
News Editor
Brandie Liffick
Sommer Bunce
GeorgeDeutsch
Sarah Walch
Asst. News
Member
Member
Member
Melissa Sullivan
Rolando Garcia
Matt Maddox
Brieanne Porter
the Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
less and include 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 submit-
ledin person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters alpo may be
mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
11843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com. No attachments.
MAIL CALL
atfish
puppies
Protests deserve
consideration
In response to a Feb. 18 mail
call:
It is easy to assume that military
force is a simple solution to our
conflicts, but history shows that it
offers no lasting solution at all.
For example, the Soviet Union
was our ally in World War II, but
quickly became our enemy after
that conflict. We then armed bin
Laden to fight off the Soviets, and
we all know how that turned out.
We once armed Saddam Hussein
so that Iraq could fight off Iran,
our enemy at that time. After
each of our wars, a new enemy
emerges. In the meantime, we
brutally sacrifice the lives of
countless soldiers and innocent
civilians. To call the war protes
tors naive is truly hypocritical: do
you know what it’s like to go to
school each day carrying a gas
mask, continually scanning the
sky for the that final missile, and
not knowing if you or your family
will be alive together at the end
of the day? We blame television
for our violent youth, but any
child who looks up to his nation's
leaders finds that violence is por
trayed as the most acceptable
means of resolving conflicts.
Instead of creating an atmos
phere of fear and violence, we
need to put our minds together
to find new ingenious solutions
to our problems, solutions that
may have a lasting beneficial
impact.
Nick Anthis
Class of2005
8850
ARKING
dow Canyon
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Behavior of RHA no
different than in past
In response to Nicholas
Neumann's Feb. 18 column:
My how things stay the same in
Aggieland. I'm a former president
of Hart Hall (1999-2000), and I
suffered through a number of RHA
meetings. Out of protest I refused
to attend any more meetings
when RHA tried to enforce atten
dance. They sent me a nasty e-mail
when I first tried to sign in and
leave early, but didn't have the gall
to pull our funding. They also
demanded that we attend two
small group meetings a month,
which I also forbade my officers to
attend. We refused to help with
any program they created because
they refused to help us with ours.
We even went around them to
donate to a charitable cause they
supported just so that they would
n't be able to take any credit for it.
Our dorm also purposefully went
around the accounting rules just so
that no one would be able to take
away funds that we had worked
for. I pulled $100 out of my own
pocket to pay a very overdue bill
that the hall had incurred the year
before, because there was no way
I was going to the council to ask for
any favors. What they didn't under
stand then and obviously don't
understand now is that their job is
to help the councils help the resi
dents, not the council's job to help
pad their resumes and get awards
at regional conferences.
Brian Shelley
Class of 2000
Marriage denied?
Should same-sex marriages be recognized in all states?
JOHN DAVID
BLAKLEY
I n September of 1996, President Clinton
signed the Defense of Marriage Act, declar
ing that states in which same-sex civil
unions are prohibited‘do not have to recognize
the same-sex civil unions granted by other
states. Although it is a great surprise that a
Democratic Party president would sign an act
that overlooks equality and certain separations
of law and morality, perhaps the greatest sur
prise is how blatant a contradiction to the
Constitution and judicial precedent this act appears to be.
Article Four of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land,
clearly states that “full faith and credit shall be given in each
state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
every other state.” According to this clause, states must recog
nize marriages granted in another state, no matter the gender of
the persons.
Despite these contradictions, no conflict has arisen in the
courts concerning DOMA. This is partly because the success of
legislation approving same-sex marriages in Hawaii was
put to rest when, in November of 1998, voters passed a
constitutional amendment giving the legislature the
power to reserve marriage for opposite sex cou
ples, according to the Human Rights Campaign
Web site. However, due to Baker v. State, which
the Vermont Supreme Court ruled on in
December 1999, a civil union law was enacted
in July 2000, giving same-sex couples the
option of forming a civil union, according to
the Lamda Legal Web site. It is now only a
matter of time before a gay Vermont couple
relocates to another state, and demands their
union be recognized, despite the restric
tions of DOMA. When this occurs,
jurisdiction will fall on federal
courts, and the Constitution
must be upheld, meaning the
the Defense of Marriage Act
would be overturned.
Precedent also directs the courts
to deem DOMA unconstitutional.
Loving v. Virginia, decided only 36
years ago, banned all restrictions of
marriage between persons of different
races. Such laws violate the 14th
Amendment, which grants every person
equal rights and due process of law.
Does this amendment’s protection not reach v ^
the gay community? For the Constitution to be
substantial, for it to have any power or meaning,
it has to reach this minority population. In Loving
v. Virginia, the Court eloquently declared “the free
dom to marry has long been recognized as one of the
vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men.” Marriage is one of the basic civil
rights of people, and the law can deny such a fundamental
right to no one.
Along with being a symbol of love and commitment, mar- %
riage in the United States grants certain rights between spouses,
which are just as pertinent to the union of two persons of the
same sex as they are to spouses of the opposite sex. These
include child custody, divorce protections, certain property
rights, insurance breaks and visitation of partners in the hospital.
These rights should extend to the unions of people of any sexual
orientation.
Opposition to civil unions between same-sex partners stems
from the belief that such relationships are immoral. However, to
tell these men and women that what every inch of their minds and
bodies is telling them to be true is immoral; that their most inti
mate, God-given feelings are in fact wrong; to deny them the love
and connection that every person should be able to feel and expe
rience in life, is ignorant and void of compassion.
However, such feelings do overwhelmingly exist in the United
States. But these feelings cannot dictate the laws of a free coun
try. Opposition to same-sex civil unions, for the most part, find
reasoning in the Bible. It is, however, unreasonable to model our
nation’s laws from the set of laws found in the Bible, which pro
mote slavery, condemn gender equality, and exercise such deci
siveness that if followed, we are, for example, morally bound to
put each other to death for wearing garments made of different
threads. One also cannot forget that not everyone in the United
States follows the words of the Bible. The United States is home
to people who practice Islam, Hinduism, and those who do not
subscribe to any organized religion, and Americans celebrate and
honor the separation of church and state. A country whose laws
are dictated by religion is not a republican government, it is a
theocracy.
There is a thin line between law and morality, especially when
it can be argued that morals are the basis for many laws.
However, these moral codes can only become law in a free coun
try if breaking them consequently harms another person, as point
ed out by John Stuart Mill. Sharing one’s life with a person of the
same sex does not affect his or her neighbor.
When the Constitution was adopted, seeds of equality were
planted. Slavery was not immediately abolished, nor did women
suddenly receive rights equal to those of men. However, the prin
ciples and structure of our country’s founding has allowed such
steps of advancement in civil rights. It is time the United States
takes another important step and recognizes the unions of gay
partners.
The Defense of Marriage Act is repugnant to the words and
nature of the Constitution. The courts must declare it void and
states must continue to honor the contracts of other states.
John David Blakley is ajreshman
political science major.
A rticle Four, Section One of the
United States Constitution,
more commonly known as the
“Full Faith and Credit” clause, affirms
that each state give leeway “to the
public acts, recordings and judicial
proceedings of every other state.” This
guideline was established to facilitate
the formation of a federal legal system
without reconfiguring the legal prece
dent of each separate colony.
However, Congress maintained some control over the
implementation of these laws by inserting the phrase
“and Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the man
ner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall
be proved, and the effect thereof.” With the inclusion of
this key phrase. Congress retained power over the inter
pretation of which inter-state laws would be recognized,
and precisely how these laws would be enforced.
Congress gave each state individual rights to determine
independently whether to recognize the legality of
other states’ laws. Congress’ control over the imple
mentation of one law, however, has come under
attack.
The Defense of Marriage Act was
introduced into the House of
Representatives in 1996 to define
i “marriage” and “spouse” for the
1 purpose of interpreting federal
law, and for Congress to exercise
its power in determining how the
“Full Faith and Credit” clause
would be administrated. In defining
marriage and spouse, Congress made
explicit what had been commonly
understood in federal law for more than
200 years: that “marriage” is the legal
union of man and woman as hus
band and wife, and that “spouse”
is a husband or wife of the
opposite sex. If the federal
government only recognizes
marriages between those of
the opposite sex, state govern
ments should do the same.
In giving each state individual
rights, Congress allowed states to
independently determine whether to
^ recognize the legality of a same-sex civil
*/ union granted in another state. When the
DOMA was introduced, more than 30 states
were considering introducing legislation
^ defending themselves against any compulsory
T acceptance of another state's marriage laws.
These states were preparing to defend them
selves against a ruling that was being considered, at
the time, in Hawaii, which eventually fell in a voter
referendum. However, in 2000, Vermont began granting
approval to same-sex couples wishing to engage in a
“civil union” that gives full benefits and rights to the
gay couple.
As of yet, no couple engaged in a civil union has
challenged the DOMA. However, it is only a matter of
time before this statute will be challenged and the issue
will head to court again, spawning a two-headed mon
ster; the issue of states’ rights intermingled with the
rights of an individual.
Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, in his introduction of
DOMA in 1996, said the act “does not intrude on the
ability of the states to define marriage. To the contrary,
it protects the rights of the states to define marriage for
themselves.”
The legislative precedent has been set: the governing
body of each state has the sole right and responsibility
to decide whether to acknowledge civil unions.
Jurisdiction for the matter falls exclusively in the hands
of the state being challenged, and Congress has already
expressed explicit permission for each state to make its
own decision regarding the “Full Faith and Credit”
clause and by extension, the validity of civil unions in a
state in which they are not recognized. The Fourth
Article of the Constitution is being upheld, and the
rights of the states are intact.
Opponents of the DOMA say that the act is unconsti
tutional and violates the 14th amendment, which grants
every person due process of law. They reference the
1958 case Loving v. Virginia, wherein discrimination
against interracial marriages was deemed un
constitutional. Equal Rights Protection provided by the
Constitution extends to race, sex, and religion, but not
to sexual orientation. There is no provision in the
Constitution for protection against discrimination due to
sexual preference. The breach of Constitutional direc
tive that occurred in Loving v. Virginia is simply not
present in cases challenging states' rights to deny same-
sex marriages.
This bill was met and passed with broad bipartisan
support, and was well-received by the voting public. By
ratifying the Constitutionality of this bill, the Supreme
Court reinforces the principles upon which the federal
government was created, and stops short of infringing
on the sovereignty of the state’s right to govern itself.
Nathan Rogers is a senior
international studies major.