Opinion
page 7 • Friday, March 5, 2004
The Battalion
'd/1ba,
ments. *
've-in lleny
'mo 979J r
'aTreeHj L
iec, $4ov ihotographs depicting the United
ids Auj
ng progress and achievements. One
can mage in particular grabbed my atten-
. The photograph displayed a young
:k woman breaking segregation
ulesby sitting at the counter in a small
iouthern diner. In response to her quiet
in 3Mit
bills 979
m/1ba.
4-1082.
irotest, several whites have surrounded her and
nvibaifl re pouring sugar on her head, doing their best
S250<j<*<! odegrade her. Sitting on both sides of the
(Oman are two white youths, whose support
rLS ams them equal treatment from the antagoniz-
rangers. In a place and time in which
acism was the status quo, three young people
tin silent protest against the
ulesand attitude of intoler-
, Oak Fo#ice that had been accepted
: or generations.
Today, we live in a place
19,900/otio.
3.
Juck boat
on, dear
ishwasbe’
awnnw
lly calcus*
J. 15’ mw
millerw.
it +writing
he. no crack
200. Doub
jndilion, 5"
A/IOBQ
3-8147|
fora
ssthanai;
l-718-622!
rsw
civil rights movement
Young Americans should fight intolerance and supP or * & '
was flipping through Life
Magazine’s “Our Century in
Pictures” the other day, admiring
itates’steady and sometimes frustrat-
JOHN DAVID
BLAKLEY
aPabtMl nd time in which some forms
if intolerance are not only
epted, but perpetuated by
tie president. The hot topic of
tie past week has been
teident George W. Bush’s
Roiling«i reposed Constitutional
imendment to ban same-sex
;e. Looking at the
ier TTkaJ 1010 ’ 8 display °f fortitude in
ieii-mainiah itiemidst of hate, 1 realize that
Today, we live in a
place and time in
which some forms of
intolerance are not
only accepted, but
perpetuated by the
president
once again America’s youth must show this
abondoMi country that it has not reached true equality,
and that denying fundamental rights to individ-
^ ualsdueto certain immutable characteristics is
1 click! ft
un-American.
This issue has lacked the necessary outcry
from the usual proponents of equality.
Although the amendment was proposed to cre
ate a wedge in the Democratic Party, it hasn’t
done so because many Democrats have failed
tostandup for what they know is right. The
party through the voice of its prospective presi-
candidate John Kerry, has managed to
ivoidaclear stance on the issue by taking an
0612 ~ iberrant middle road against the amendment
deTafe 05 ^ a i soa g a i nst 8 a y marriage. Even when dis
crimination hits close to home and homophobia
tomes tangible, too many have remained
:nt. Last month a fellow Aggie was physical-
yattacked for being gay. The Aggie family has
been close-lipped and reluctant to lend
support to a brother.
What is stopping young Americans
from pursuing the ideals of equality that
their minds, free from the constraints of
age-related pessimism, should foster?
Perhaps it is the fact that homosexuals
make up a small percentage of the pop
ulation. Figures vary, but the general
consensus is that roughly 10 percent of
the population is gay or lesbian. It is
likely that many opponents to same-sex mar
riage have never had a personal relationship
with a gay person, and thus are ignorant of the
reality that the gay and lesbian population expe
riences love, pain and the full spectrum of emo
tions that comes with being human. Shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bowers v.
Hardwick, a 1986 case which
upheld a sodomy law similar to
the one struck down last sum
mer in Lawrence v. Texas,
Justice Lewis Powell said
he had never known a
homosexual person. He was
the swing vote for the
majority. Ignorance can be
a powerful thing.
Justice Powell’s lack of
empathy allowed a majority
opinion that Indiana University
law professor Lynne
Henderson calls a manifested
form of “prejudice, stereotype,
blind categorization and denial of the humanity
of a group of people.” Yet many people today
continue to verbally attack a group of people
they know nothing about.
Many people use religion to justify their
opposition to same-sex marriage. Religion has
also been used to promote racism and sexism
in the United States. Literal interpretation of
the Scripture, such as Ephesians 5:22-24
(Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to
the Lord. For the husband is the head of the
wife as Christ is the head of the church ... As
the church is subject to Christ, so let wives
also be subject in everything to their hus
bands) at one time overflowed into the legal
system. In the 1873 case of Bradwell v.
Illinois, Justice Joseph Bradley said “the para
mount destiny and mission of women is to ful
fill the noble and benign offices of wife and
mother. This is the law of the Creator.”
.2 1!
Biblical excerpts such as Ephesians 6:5
(Slaves, be obedient to those who are
your earthly masters, with fear and trem
bling) were likewise used to validate keep
ing African Americans in chains. The word of
God should never be used to discriminate
against a class of people, especially consider
ing that the Bible as a whole teaches love and
compassion for one’s fellow man.
How long will America allow intolerance to
remain in its laws? To many, it is inconceivable
that an amendment singling out a specific class
of persons and blatantly denying their rights
could be written alongside the amendments
which guarantee the rights that make America
the nation that it is.- Concerning the rights of
gays and ,oc bians, we have not been loud
enough. Who in the 90 percent will stand for
the 10? Let us young Americans lead the way.
John David Binkley is a sophomore
political science major.
Graphic by Ivan Flores
MAIL CALL
^iJqiiality of the sexes
Style F250if^ J
w/caps
)23-3663
ipplies to bus etiquette
TED
England
'ennis, W
let Hiring
Aornins 5
:let hiring
ig. W'
9-764-^
In response to a March 3 mail call:
^es/senl^ ua ^ reatment °f men ar| d women is one of
neederu legitimate aims of our society, and the fatuous
now! Cd amments by Ms. Doan do nothing to projriote
equality. Respect over and above that corn-
courtesy which is extended to all mem-
c^T|ersof society is to be earned on merit, not pre-
rred based soley upon gender.
I suggest that if Ms. Doan gets on a bus in the
ard s wsijitore that is full of men sitting, then she should
ting, Aidfowhat any other normal individual would do in
Ropes.'
ramies, V
•e, Nurses
.800-443-6
nent.com
all shifts)'
is in the'
>.m ‘
similar situation: stand up, suck it up and take
lefirst seat that becomes available.
Disabled? Old? III? I will happily move for
imebody who suffers physical difficulties due
or age, but gender alone does not fit
is category and nor should it qualify some-
idy for extra respect.
want more respect from me than I would
reto another man? Earn it or live with it, it is
equality.
Daren Swanick
Class of 2007
inS^pader didn’t cause Gore
lose 2000 election
response to Collins Ezeanyim’s March 3
In the Marine Corps, we would refer to this as
io impact, no idea.” I am of course referring to
(efaetthat Mr. Ezeanyim has missed the mark
itli his latest attack of our commander in chief,
is story was cloaked in some misguided rhet-
ic about Ralph Nader's influence on the
ctions in 2000 and the upcoming one in
wember. However, he just couldn't resist
rowing a few shots at Bush.
Here's the bottom line: Ralph Nader did not
use Al Gore to lose the election in 2000. Al
ire caused Al Gore to lose the election in 2000.
id Al Gore won his own home state of
iooessee (where he served as senator), he
)uld have won the race. However, the good
le of Tennessee, the constituency who prob-
knew him best, agreed with the majority of
dericans in that they believed George W. Bush
be president.
Ido have to give Mr. Ezeanyim credit however,
ks+LI^
ectil
for being consistent with the typical liberal
attacks and blame games we are seeing every
day. Especially from the likes of John Kerry,
who has spent $6.9 million on TV ads with 74
percent of them directly attacking the president.
It is understandable that Kerry doesn't want to
talk about himself and his^ecord. With a vot
ing record like his, I wouldn't either. From a
service member's point of view, how in the
world are we supposed to react to facts such as
him saying "I’d like to see our troops dispersed
through the world only at the directive of the
United Nations" and him voting against 27
major weapons systems we currently use? With
or without Ralph Nader, come November, the
choice for me is crystal clear.
Andy Thaxton
Class of 2006
Outsourcing is what’s best
for consumers
In response to Jon Steed’s March 4 column:
Jobs do not belong to the employees who fill
them. The jobs belong to the employer.
Therefore, they cannot be "lost," as Mr. Steed
says, because the employer knows right where
they go: to people who can do the same work for
less money.
Jobs are just another item to be traded in a
free market. With government interference, the
market forces are upset by artificial controls,
and costs invariably go up. As long as out
sourcing continues, the winner will continue to
be the consumer. The employees who "lost"
their jobs had better develop some marketable
skills. Take note, Mr. Steed, this whole out
sourcing buzz is just another factor in econom
ics. Those who can do the best job for the least
amount of money get rewarded, just as with any
other product we buy in stores.
Paul Sims
Class of 2006
Clarification
Two sentences were combined in a Forum
column in Thursday’s Battalion by Graduate
Student Council President Josh Peschel. The
column should read as follows: “Traditional
social conservatism adamantly opposes gov
ernment intervention. On the topic of same-
sex marriage a common sentiment is for the
government to restrict same-sex marriage."
Bush shouldn’t support
costly highway bill
A
DAVID
SHOEMAKER
government committed to
a war far from home, while
simulta
neously allocat
ing funds to
new and expen
sive domestic
programs, will
inevitably run
an increasing
deficit. This is
what President
George W. Bush
is leading the
country toward in the run up to.
the November elections if things
keep going they way they have
been. With the massive expendi
tures necessary to sustain troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush
cannot let Congress pass so many
new programs, especially pork
projects such as those inherent in
the new, massive highway bill
before Congress.
The highway bill slowly mak
ing its way through Congress is a
perfect target for Bush to show
that he cares about stopping out-
of-control spending. According to
The Washington Post, the bill
passed the Senate with a total cost
of $318 billion, and “it differs
from a costlier bill pending in the
House.” The spending in the bill
cannot be covered solely by the
highway trust fund, according to
the article, meaning that the dif
ference must be made from funds
that could go toward other pur
poses.
According to the article, the
House bill will likely total $370
billion. The president requested a
bill that would have cost $256 bil
lion, a number more in line with
the revenues from the federal gas
tax, which pays for the highway
fund. This would not force an
increase in the gas tax, as noted
by Sen. Don Young, R-Alaska.
Revenue would have to be divert
ed from other projects that would
be necessary in ofder to pay for
the huge bill.
The highway bill will allow
congressmen in an election year to
present accomplishments to their
constituents. A column by Bob
Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times
rattled off a few such cases: Sen.
Lisa Murkowski got $30 million
in the bill to build roads in remote
parts of Alaska; Sen. Pat Murray
got more money for ferries serv
ing Puget Sound; and Sen. Harry
Reid, the Democratic whip in the
Senate, got a provision repealing a
gaming tax thrown in.
Bush should not go through the
motions of being opposed to the
project for show. He needs to
bring the government’s annual
budget back in to balance, or at
least as close to being balanced as
possible. He also needs to resist
the characteristically Democratic
desire to raise taxes. The only way
to do this is to keep a close eye on
spending, which the government
should be doing anyways.
However, it looks as if the
White House, with the ever-pres
ent advice of Karl Rove, may be
simply using the issue as a politi
cal foil. In a recent column,
Novak mentioned that even if
Bush vetoed the bill, as he has
threatened to do, it would still
likely be passed on the two-thirds
override. This would allow the
president to look tough on spend
ing restraint, but let Congress get
their serving of pork. As Novak
says, “that may be too clever by
half for Americans.”
Bush should just stick to his
guns on the issue and not just for
show. If Bush wants to make sure
his domestic initiatives — such as
prescription drug coverage —
don’t end up in the same boat as
Social Security, he must keep at
least some semblance of fiscal
responsibility by holding down
spending as much as possible.
Raising taxes again will not
help solve the problem, either.
Democrats always complain
about tax cuts only benefiting
the rich, but one thing that
increased tax revenues will
inspire is more spending. More
spending at the federal level
means more pork.
Tax cuts themselves do not
drive economic prosperity, but
are aids to those who do drive it,
people who invest money into
the economy. An example of
how lower tax rates can help
spur investment was mentioned
in a column by Larry Kudlow on
www.nationalreview.com.
According to the Labor
Department, 2 million
Americans have gained employ
ment this year, spurred by
“independent contractors and
the self-employed (are) setting
up limited-liability companies
to keep more of what they earn
through lower individual tax
rates,” Kudlow writes.
Bush must hold the line on
spending with his own party and
prevent the Democrats from
pushing for a tax increase. By
doing this he can hopefully
reduce the deficits the country
will surely run during the war on
terrorism and as major domestic
programs are restructured. The
challenges facing a balanced
yearly budget are too serious
now to let the budget be flooded
even further with pork.
David Shoemaker is a junior
management major.