2(01
Opinion
LION
Page 5B ♦ Thursday, February
ren't
iat M s
Ihttoi
tly aoj
rib
es,
visils
s plar
Jblis
3 AIDS
iem,"is
ilaming
:ing bis
liar
'ee
lassivs
natioir
spread
as haw
ad sei
irn will
ipreva
su
a
if 2d
tiers lo
TOrdsor
ime.
ipinioo
limfcr
’smjle
D.
l4Rii
If
W
tmail-
A national problem
San Francisco’s gay marriages will lead to an inconsistency across America
I t finally happened. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger emerged from under
his desk and decided to uphold his sworn oath to enforce state laws by
issuing a letter to California’s attorney general stating, “San
Francisco’s actions are directly contrary to state law and pres
ent an imminent risk to civil order.”
The attorney general is now taking the necessary
steps to obtain a judicial resolution to the gay mar
riage controversy.
For many, it’s about time. San Francisco
Mayor Gavin Newsom clearly abused his
authority and violated the state’s family code
by initiating gay marriages.
Schwarzenegger should be ashamed for opting to test the
political waters before taking a definitive stance on the issue.
Schwarzenegger should have had Newsom arrested to demon
strate that laws are to be made by legislators, interpreted by the
courts and followed by everyone, including mayors. If
one wants to challenge a law, it should be contested
in court.
No one should beguile themselves into believ
ing that the actions that have recently transpired
fepresent democracy in action. It’s far from it.
For starters, proponents of gay marriage only
represent less than half of the population.
According to the nonpartisan Public Policy
Institute of California, only 44 percent of all
Californians favor gay marriages. And this figure is
considerably lower nationwide. A more appropriate
lermfor flagrantly violating a law supported by the
majority is anarchy. The mayor has conveyed the
message that he will only abide by the laws that he
personally agrees w ith and there is nothing anyone
candotomake him change his mind — not
even the governor.
What would happen if everyone fol
lowed the precedent set by Mayor
N'ewsom?
Some people scoff at the controversy and
perceive the dilemma as trivial, especially
those who reside in other states.
Unfortunately, this mentality overlooks
oneplaring point: the newlyweds are not
allCalifomia citizens. They are from all
rw/iecountry, and it’s unlikely that they
will hang their hats in San Francisco to enjoy a fallacious
marriage.
JANE a
A ,
trrnyr
** AtAJUUJQK >
imU Arw, in - j?
< MJrXMMA a'JD
— r
/ \/-\/ < '/.r/ '' kC •*-
/.r<L
/t «~tr r :K /<
>1^1
r wo
Instead, they will return to their home states and demand that their marriages be recog
nized. Subsequently, when the states refuse, lawsuits will inevitably follow, citing viola
tions of equal-opportunity laws, and it will happen all over the country.
Make no mistake about it; homosexuals are not looking for a compromise. They are
trying to cram a lifestyle down the public’s throat in a fashion that conveys the mes
sage, “deal with it.”
Gay people deserve the same legal benefits that married heterosexual cou
ples enjoy, but addressing this issue is an arduous task. If one type of altema-
„ live marriage is allowed on the grounds of equal opportunity, all alternative
lifestyles must be accepted. One cannot be hypocritical and favor only gay
marriages. As a result, every nut in America will be afforded the luxury
of marrying multiple partners, family members, adolescents, animals or
other ridiculous unions. These examples may sound absurd, but they
nonetheless logically follow.
The most appropriate response would be to enact civil unions. This
would grant homosexual couples the same legal benefits married cou
ples have while simultaneously excluding the radicals.
But most homosexuals seem to be dissatisfied at stop
ping at civil unions. They desire to utterly change a reli
gious tradition that spans centuries.
Historically in the United States, marriage has been
recognized as a union between a man and a woman,
and it should remain that way. Undoubtedly, gay mar
riage proponents will dismiss this opinion as nothing
more than the incessant babblings of a religious zealot, a
close-minded bigot or any other cliched term evoked as a
means of discrediting an opinion that goes against the
grain of the progressive liberal ideology to avoid consid
ering it.
Indeed accommodations should be made, but the enact
ment of gay marriage is not the answer. It opens the door to
far too many adverse social consequences.
Something has to give. If politicians such as
Schwarzenegger continue to buckle under politi
cal pressure and capitulate more and more tradi-
*tional ground to the progressive movement, it will
inevitably lead to the creation of an “anything goes
society,” where traditional values have long been
abandoned, and individuals are discouraged
' '
O'.'
A '
' ^7 , v ^ from making distinctions between right and
( -a A> ^ wrong. Subsequently, this may create a cultural
^ ' backlash too complex to fix.
\ \ - - , .
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
Graphic by Paul Wilson.
i
in
Die
sen!
J
.edii
Blocks in the road
Kerry cannot overcome several obstacles
A s Americans pick up
their local paper and
channel surf through
the airwaves, one figure is
becoming more popular as
America moves closer to
November's election: John
Kerr} 1 . He has stolen the show
intheeyesof many media
and political pundits. Noted
by many as the clear front-
nmnerready to battle President Bush in the
coming 2004 presidential elections, experts are
predicting Kerry to clean up in the last 30 cau
cuses and primaries. Although all seems well in
Kerry's world, several roadblocks stand in the
way of his final destination.
There are simply too many factors that will
block Kerry’s run for the presidency.
Circumstances that he cannot control and his
own political unsteadiness will ultimately sabo
tage his campaign.
Enter Ralph Nader. The off-the-wall champi-
onofconsumer rights has decided to vie for the
captain's seat in the Oval Office once again.
Although he is running as an Independent,
bisplatform appeals to the tree-hugging, effi
ciency-screaming, anti-gasoline burning voters.
Many may write his cause off as unrealistic,
extreme environmentalism, but Nader’s contin
gent carried 2.8 percent of the electorate in the
closest election this country has ever seen.
Those with sentimental attachment to the
Green Party were much more likely to vote for
Kerry before Nader’s arrival, giving the nomi
nee the confidence of the environmental vote.
This is one curve ball the Massachusetts liberal
Kerry does not want to face, battling someone
even more partial to the environment than him
self, This will clearly be detrimental to Kerry’s
cause because of his recent attempts to appear
more moderate. He clearly cannot withstand the
necessary challenge of appealing to the extreme
environmentalists while trying to secure the
vote of the blue-collared factory worker who
makes a living by working a machine yielding a
black fog into the environment. Kerry cannot
bave his cake and eat it too, and those who
revere Earth as sacred will be loyal to their
cause and the Green Party as well.
This is not to say that Nader has a shot at the
presidency. But he will take thousands and even
hundreds of thousands of votes if history
repeats itself in November. In a race predicted
lobe close, every vote will be crucial in a num
ber of swing states. Nader’s emergence will
diminish Kerry’s chances and will give Bush an
% as the most liberal Americans struggle
between choosing the Democrat or Independent.
A more substantial roadblock, however, is
not subject to an outside force, but rather on the
candidate himself. Kerry defines and exempli
fies political flip-fiopping. On a wide range of
issues, one can find Kerry, at some point in his
life, screaming for advocacy and support on
opposite sides of the spectrum.
Take his stance on gay marriage for example:
He was one of 14 senators who opposed the
Defense of Marriage Act in Congress. This
clearly implies a belief that the government
should not define marriage. Then, two years
ago, Kerry signed a letter issued by homosexual
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, “urging state law
makers to drop an amendment limiting nuptials
to a man and a woman.”
Yet, as he has recently come under political
crossfire, Kerry boldly claims that he does not
support gay marriage. Candidates need majori
ties to win, and the majority in this case is
against what Kerry once stood for. According to
a recent poll, 62 percent of Americans oppose
any legislation that legally equates heterosexual
and homosexual marriages. This is a quintessen
tial example of a political flip-flop, sacrificing
principle for more votes.
Explaining the war in Iraq is perhaps Kerry’s
biggest obstacle. In October 2002, Kerry signed
a bill giving the president authorization to use
the U.S. Armed Forces “as he determines to be
necessary and appropriate in order to ... defend
the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”
Kerry also voted against an alternative meas
ure that would have required authorized force to
be granted by the U.N. Security Council. This
stands in stark contrast to the senator’s current
position on the war. Now one of Bush’s harshest
critics in security efforts, Kerry is simply allow
ing his opposition to attain ample examples of
his flip-flopping nature.
It is true that Kerry has a lot going for him
right now. He is the clear front-runner of the
Democratic Party, but outside forces such as
Nader’s candidacy are looming on the horizon,
and a history of unprincipled decisions have a
good chance of coming back to haunt him.
This senator knows how to politicize, and it is
the responsibility of voters to determine
whether this man has the moral clarity, proven
record and decisiveness one must hold to run
this country.
Matt Younger is a junior
political science major.
MATT
YOUNGER
MAIL CALL
Tolerance and
acceptance differ
In response to a Feb. 24 mail
call:
There is nothing wrong with
being proud to be straight.
However, having a straight pride
day is wrong because the only
reason for its existence is to
spite homosexuals. It is like hav
ing a white pride day during
Black History month. You can be
proud that you are heterosexual
without exhibiting ill will towards
another person.
Also, Mr. Moore is confused on
the notion of “tolerance.” You can
be tolerant of something with
which you do not agree. If you had
to agree with homosexuality or any
other idea, the term would be
acceptance. Being tolerant means
recognizing and respecting the
beliefs and practices of others.
Having a straight pride day or
driving around with large signs on
your car reading “Satan is a
Flamer” is directly insulting to the
gay community and hateful. If you
do not agree with something, you
don’t have to accept, instead
practice tolerance and show
some respect.
David Johnson
Class of2004
Gay pride week is
maliciously timed
In response to a Feb. 24 mail
call:
I don’t understand why conser
vatives are so surprised that
YCT’s straight pride day is touted
as being bigoted when they con
ducted it during gay awareness
week. Yes, I think there is noth
ing wrong with being proud of
your sexual orientation, but the
timing of the event is very rude
and inappropriate.
No matter how innocent the pur
pose was, it is easy for people to
be suspicious and think that the
event was a rebuttal against gay
awareness week instead of a
proactive action.
Free speech is no excuse for
homophobia and bigotry. If you try
to have a white pride week in
February you are a racist. If you try
to have straight pride day on gay
awareness week then admit it, you
are a bigot.
Gita Zulkarnain
Class of2005
Everyone should
have similar beliefs
In response to a Feb. 24 mail
call:
Ms. Mayfield makes an inter
esting point. She claims gays
have the right to marry, just not
to whom they choose. Perhaps it
would be too much to suggest
that everyone who wishes to
practice religion should attend
the same faith. Starting Sunday,
everyone who would like to prac
tice a religion should report to
their nearest mosque.
Eric Matus
Class of2004
Marriage is a
sacred institution
In response to a Feb. 24 mail
call:
The fact that homosexuals can
marry someone of the opposite
sex is true, but if we hold marriage
to be of such a sacred union,
wouldn’t that be ironic? If gay peo
ple married straight people, it
would create a system where mar
riage is a mockery.
The fact is that at some point
interracial marriage was consid
ered heinous; we now know noth
ing is wrong with it. People are dif
ferent! Get over it and let people
live like humans, not slaves to soci
ety. People should be able to
marry people.
After all, if the tides were turned
and only marriage between homo
sexuals was allowed, would you
feel it is right to marry a person of
the same sex? I should think not.
Brook Marshall
Class of2007
Homosexuals seek
civil rights equality
In response to a Feb. 24 mail
call:
Human rights and civil rights are
not synonymous, despite Ms.
Marrs-Mayfield’s use of the terms.
Human rights are not in question
in this issue, only civil rights.
Her inconsistency not withstand
ing, Ms. Marrs-Mayfield’s argu
ment that homosexuals are not
being denied civil rights is based
on a faulty premise — that they are
allowed to marry anyone of the
opposite sex. The idea is that gays
are denied the civil right to choose
whom they marry. A homosexual
person is no more inclined to
marry a member of the opposite
sex than she is inclined to marry
someone of the same sex. If we
based all civil rights on her con
cept, we would have the civil right
to vote, as long as we voted for
Howard Dean.
Matt Gindling
Class of2005