The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, July 03, 2003, Image 5

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    STAT
y, July 3,2003
sputa
apt in
ecial
;sion
'IN (AP) —Someopp
a Republican-bacid
onal redistricting pin
nto the early-moni
Wednesday to tei
ie proposal they couke:
ve the GOP a polite
old on the state,
he congressional if
by House Republic*
some Central Test
ts because it woiili
vis County in two#
d U.S. Rep. Lloi!
as a heavy favorite t
iction.
ih repeated delays i
of a Capitol beam;
of frustrated witness-
urs for the opportune
tte Flynn, 84,ofAiiffi
s allowed to speakk
:o the committee coi
ublic input on redro
ite's congressional#
state belongs to Ik
not to tk
ns," Flynn said. 1't
e no longer own on
rnment.”
tring had beenprogres
dayed. The sessiot
for 2 p.m. Tuesdat
oned to 7 p.m., ta
bout an hour until)
n was set up.
Tuesday, Rep. Rill
dendon was joinedb
mocrats in saying#
postponement of ftt
hearing was unfair,
iblic is being exclufei
layed games with,”.#
i, D-San Antonio.‘t
is going to be mak
i very last minute.”
ause Committee on
ng began hearingtes-
sr Rep. Phil King,R-
rd, presented his net
proposal would gin
ns 19 seats it
corn pared to the cut-
ct lines that gi«
a 17-15 advantage,
[rawing of congres-
let lines was the ini-
n for the Texas
:’s special session,
n Monday amid pat-
dies. More fiei)’
erupted Tuesday!
istricting hearing!
id map could be sent It
»House by Monday,
m Gov. Rick Pern
ie special session's
lay to 28 additional
ne Democrats cow
ublleans are pressut-
into backing the cot-
districting plan,
d most of the items
i to the “call” of tk
cial session wet(
government reorga-
that failed during
ession.
ay, Democrats triei
ly in the House
Committee to halt
deration of a redis-
Their efforts fail#
votes.
!»«»iw ‘Ml in»
Opinion
The Battalion
Sup
LEGALIZING sodomy
rente Court rU^ n S diking down anti-sodomy laws a victory for privacy
T ast Thursday, the Supreme suc * 1 as practicing birth control. allowing heterosexuals to do so. Texas could
L ast Thursday, the Supreme
Court overturned a Texas
law prohibiting sodomy, or
anal sex, between homosexuals.
In the process, it overruled a
previous case, Bowers v.
Hardwick, which had
upheld an anti-sodomy law in Georgia.
The ruling was based on the fact that
the law clearly violated the Equal
Protection and Due Process clauses of
the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The
Supreme Court made the right decision.
The majority opinion of the Justices
invalidated the Texas law under the Due
Process clause. The clause protects the
right to privacy, which has been supported
by the court, first in Griswold v.
Connecticut, and then in numerous cases
afterwards. The court believes certain pri
vate and intimate choices may be protected
from state interference.
MIDHAT FAROOQI
such as practicing birth control.
In this case, it upheld the right of
any two individuals of adult age
to have consensual sex in the
privacy of their home.
Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor wrote that the Texas
law was unconstitutional under the Equal
Protection clause as well. She argued that
this clause prohibited states from creating
laws discriminating against a certain class of
people unless the state could show a “rational
basis” and a “legitimate government pur
pose” behind the law.
But the Texas law was discriminatory: it
applied only to homosexuals. Heterosexuals
could freely practice sodomy. Thus, the law
did not criminalize the practice itself; it tar
geted a specific group and was meant to
criminalize homosexuality. Regardless of
whether a person believes homosexuality to
be morally wrong, such discrimination is not
constitutional.
States, too, cannot write laws based on
morality, because the United States is a secu
lar country. People practice numerous reli
gions, each with its unique moral code. In
banning a given practice, which morality
code should the state follow? A Christian
one? Why not a Muslim one? Why not the
Buddhist code?
If a state wishes to abide by the moral
code of the Christian majority, it may infringe
upon the right of people who follow other reli
gions. Thus, to make a law, the state cannot
rely only on morality. Instead, it must show a
“rational basis” and a “legitimate government
purpose” behind the law. For example, a state
could still ban human sacrifice, even if a reli
gion found it morally acceptable. In this case,
the state has a basis — to protect an individ
ual’s right to live — and a purpose: to main
tain order in the society.
The Texas law, however, could not pass
this “state interest test.” There was no rational
basis for the state to keep homosexuals from
engaging in an “immoral” practice while
allowing heterosexuals to do so. Texas could
not provide a compelling legal interest in ban
ning two adults from having consensual sex in
their own home.
Since the decision, various individuals and
groups have lamented the so-called fall of
morality in America. They point out that this
ruling will pave the way to legalizing adultery,
incest and bestiality in the privacy of one’s
home — the “slippery slope” argument. But
this argument goes both ways, and is also
incorrect.
The slippery slope in this situation does not
exist. The current ruling will not lead to the
legalization of other sexual practices since the
state does have a rational basis and legitimate
purpose for the laws banning them. Adultery
involves a violation of the state-sanctioned
legal contract of marriage. Bestiality necessi
tates cruelty to animals and any person will
have a difficult time arguing that the animal
was of adult age and gave consent. Incest is
banned since the offspring from such a union
are harmed — they have a much greater
chance of developing a genetic disease or
passing it on to their children. Hemophilia, for
instance, was rampant in the Russian royal
family due to inbreeding among its rulers.
There is a slippery slope on the other side,
too. If a state criminalizes sodomy, it can
criminalize interracial sex and marriage as
well. Not so long ago, this was considered
immoral too. Laws banning interracial mar
riages were in existence until 1967, when the
Supreme Court overturned such a Virginia
law. In that case, suitably titled Loving v.
Virginia, the law was overturned on the Equal
Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th
Amendment. Sound familiar?
The Supreme Court made the right deci
sion. The Texas anti-sodomy law was uncon
stitutional and unfairly discriminated against
homosexuals.
Midhat Farooqi is a senior
genetics major.
Graphic by Radhika Thirunarayanan.
Reservists getting what they’re paid for
Despite USA Today article, U.S. reservists aren't mistreated or underpaid
O n June 9, a USA Today
headline read “Reservists
Pay a Steep Price for
Service.” Without a doubt, many
people read that and wondered
what anybody could have to say
about the price our servicemen
and women pay for defending American free
dom — they risk their lives and put forth men
tal and physical strength to maintain the most
advanced military in the history of the world.
Sadly, the article in question was not written in
such a spirit.
USA Today seems to believe that military
reservists are mistreated, regardless of the over
whelming evidence to the contrary. The article
is filled with complaints from soldiers and their
families about being called up too often and for
too long, in addition to moaning about having
to put their lives on hold while on active duty.
Such “reporting” leads you to believe that
there is a chain-gang wearing desert fatigues in
Iraq right now who have been duped into think
ing they could sign up for a military commit
ment without having to fulfill their obligation.
Giving them such little credit is nothing less
than a cheap insult to people who fight and die
for those who spit on them in such a manner.
Reservists voluntarily adopt a
unique lifestyle, choosing to main
tain a normal life with work,
friends and family as any other
citizen does, but also working as a
part-time soldier. He agrees to
attend basic and
advanced training like a full-time
soldier, but after that, works only
one weekend a month, and typi
cally two weeks during the sum
mer. However, as part of his con
tract the part-time soldier must
leave for full-time active duty at
the military’s discretion.
“Because Reservists often
have commitments to two jobs,”
the Air Force Reserve Web site
tells us, “it is important that you
fully understand both the bene
fits and the responsibilities involved ... This is a
24-hour-a-day commitment, and one that
requires many personal sacrifices ... There is no
room for personal agendas that interfere with
the needs of the U.S. Air Force or the interests
of our government.”
Joining the military is one of the few cases
where the government makes no bones about
taking away peoples’ rights — soldiers are obli
gated to wear their hair a certain way, wear
their appropriate uniform properly and to live
and go where they are told to live and go. The
Air Force is mistaken to call these things “sacri
fices,” and naming these concessions as such
are a disdainful affront to our
service members. They serve
proudly in the defense of their
country and the cause of free
dom all across the world. As is
evident in the current war
against terrorism, reservists are
very aware of the toll such serv
ice enacts upon them.
We live in a capitalist society,
and such service is not without
compensation. This is true not
only for the full-time soldier, but
for the reservist as well.
According to the Department of Defense, a
budget of $30.7 billion has been planned for the
2003 fiscal year. In addition to their regular pay,
the government spends this tax money on bene
fits such as money for college, student loan
repayment and tax-free stores on bases, as well
as life and medical insurance. When called into
active duty, these soldiers enjoy the expanded
benefits of a full-time soldier. In addition, the
Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act ensures that, while
away, a reservist’s job, pay and seniority remain
intact. Reservists are hardly mistreated.
The presentation of our reservists by USA
Today is suspect, and likely only reflects the
feelings of a small minority of disgruntled
active-duty reservists and their families.
Perhaps they simply haven’t noticed the checks
and benefits the government sends them, and
maybe they forgot about the agreement they
signed before shipping off to months of basic
and advanced training. The fact of the matter is
that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. These
“weekend warriors” cannot expect to reap the
benefits our country gives them and be able to
skip through their obligation. During this time
of war, our leaders have called upon all aspects
of the military to step up, exacting from our sol
diers the results of time, money and effort spent
in training. For those few who have forgotten
that, perhaps they should think more carefully
before signing multi-year contracts.
Mike Walters is a junior
psychology major.
MIKE WALTERS
a
Joining the
military is one of the
few cases where the
government makes
no bones about
taking away peoples’
rights...
5 IN BRIEF
id security
seize $17
f marijuana
, Texas (AP) -
nts found 1,703
arijuana hidden in
atbed trailer in tlie
ana seizure to dak
)'s international
Is with the Bureau
s and Bordet
d Wednesday,
go Martinez, 49,
on federal charges
n and possession
nt to distribute a
stance.
overed the drugs
; Martinez, of
exico, to drive
t scanner Monday,
howed abnormali-
rs found 20 pad-
lana with an esti-
A&M employees denied
a grandfather clause
In response to several news and opin
ion articles:
I certainly hope those eight people
being laid off don't get nailed by lack of
a grandfather clause in the new law
SB1370. Pity the poor soul who started
working for Texas A&M at age 18 and has
36 years of service. He'll have to wait
another 11 years to get retiree health
insurance. Meanwhile his colleague who
only worked five years and is 55 will get
retiree health benefits right away.
By the way, Gov. Perry signed the law
on June 18 according to the SB 1370
Web page, www.capitol.state.tx.us, even
though your article said it hadn't been
signed yet. This was less than two weeks
after The Eagle and KBTX got wind of the
story and even then the implications like
the lack of a grandfather clause weren't
evident or being reported. Where were
Steve Ogden and Fred Brown when all of
this was going on? An e-mail from
Brown responding to a message I'd sent
him stated that the author of the bill did
n't want any grandfathering put in. So I
assume Brown works for Duncan and
not for his constituents or the people of
Texas. And what kind of an Aggie is
Perry?
An interesting thing about the history
of how this legislation was created
shows that there were hearings on May
5 and May 21 where witnesses testified
for and against it. Dozens of people tes
tified against it. Only a few testified for it.
But the lack of representation is really
going to hurt because t.u. had a grandfa
thering clause built in where A&M didn't.
Besides the 55-5 rule and the 80 rule,
they also had a 30 rule — meaning peo
ple who had 30 years of service would
also be eligible. So there were no wit
nesses to point out that A&M got burned.
Where were our political representatives,
student leaders, local media and admin
istration when all this was going on? Is
MAIL CALL
this backdoor politics run amok?
Sure the state budget is in trouble, but
should a small segment of A&M employ
ees and graduate students bear the
brunt of sacrifice especially when their
implied contract at time of employment
gave them these benefits? Other state
agencies in the past who modified retire
ment benefits added a 3-3 rule (adding
three years to years of service and 3
years to employee age so older, long
term employees wouldn't lose every
thing promised).
The A&M lawyers did write an Opinion
Request on June 23 to the attorney gen
eral, but it still hasn't appeared on their
Web site so there may be little time for
public comment. But even then, the
A&M lawyers don't address the issue of
lack of grandfathering for people who
get laid off after Sept. 1 who weren't 55
at the time. The attorney general opinion
can only consider points of law to make
sure that SB1370 is consistent with other
laws. It can't address political issues or
unintended consequences. So we'll
probably need to go back to our politi
cians to get this fixed. And it needs to be
done fast.
John Eastlund
19 year A&M employee
Zero-tolerance policy
defies federal legislation
In response to a July 1 news article:
The idea that noise ordinance viola
tions will be met with a zero-tolerance
policy is absurd and unfair.
Texas state law specifically defines an
unlawful level of noise, but members
of our local Bryan law enforcement
have deemed themselves above the
state in determining violations based
on judgment calls.
A zero-tolerance policy will lead to
convictions simply because of a neigh
bor's phone call, and a police officer is
not going to consider the details of an
unnecessary complaint. What the
police have failed to realize is that it is
possible to offend someone without
breaking the law. For this reason, we
should be courteous as Aggies, and be
considerate of our neighbors, but rec
ognize that we have rights as neighbors
as well.
A decibel meter may not be one hun
dred percent accurate, but at least it
provides some standard for compari
son. Isn't that why they use radar guns
for traffic?
Jonathan Demma
Class of 2003
The Battalion has learned that some peo
ple may have been offended by
Wednesday's cartoon. However, it was not
The Battalion's intention to offend or act
maliciously in running it Rather, it was
meant as a satire of the Supreme Court
decision legalizing Affirmative Action. The
Battalion apologizes for any undue distress
this cartoon may have caused.