MTED
1 OJ ->|
neeaed hi
art-time^;
osition
m ad| Hinisti
y to leam ;
email
ng to niedt
e and 0 „ (
' aX f esuj;
n person j.
n College
ne M-f,
3nce & ow „:
logy. F>syct»
uage maj 0l ,
! Grads
Pay$.
)day!
t8+- Comd
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7 • Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Preserving tradition
Congress should implement constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages
F'
i i
radition. This word along with
culture has no meaning or relevance
in today’s America, where now,
^a^iything goes. Nowadays, if some new
bllief, desire or behavior surfaces, contra-
Reter Block|di> tory to the desires of the majority, the
,rfTgh* socially accepted response has become
ook earv simple: offend no one, make concessions
3ckdj.com |l ensure inclusion.
> llo avoid bursting into a song about
^•ftdition like the father from the play
ns, tes: Tiddler on the Roof,” it should be clari-
nents. p t( j that times do change and people and some venerated
practices must change as well. But one area where capitu-
nic^- T ion never transpire pertains to that institution,
pi icticed by man almost from the beginning of existence:
FATE | arria y c -
■Today, marriage is under assault by a minority that
netoan^a 1 " 65 t0 a * ter t * ie definition to feel accepted. Meanwhile,
the majority, opposed to such alteration, remains passive,
—j^Aralyzed by the fear of being labeled such frightening
us ssal terms as “bigot,” “closed-minded,” or even “conserva-
tile,” which now in many media outlets bares a nega
te connotation.
Recently, as many are aware of, the push for a
institutional amendment to ban gay marriage
ade its debut in the Senate, where for days de
les loomed on, but ultimately all efforts to pass
the bill proved futile.
This is surprising because, according to Fox
|ews and other media outlets, most polls claim
ore than half of the nation wants marriage to
ve constitutional protection defining it as a
ion between a man and a woman.
In response, The New York Times, seizing
this “right-wing failure,” has printed a slew
| opinion articles blasting the protection of
e marriage amendment, claiming that this
hole ordeal was just an attempt to throw
is, uwsifldture into the election and force John Kerry
dJohn Edwards to publicly take a stand on
e issue.
Now one cannot help but wonder why any of
ese assertions by the Times would be considered
a bad thing. To those who love traditional values, 1j
hy would it be negative to see which candidates
Jjpport sustaining those values?
io andPl Here’s the deal. President Bush was right to support
e amendment for as he stated “a few activist judges
d local officials have taken it on themselves to change
le meaning of marriage.”
This can’t be allowed to happen.
Consider other implications other than tradition. If
precisely what they are doing now.
Recall the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court’s reference
to marriage as an, “evolving paradigm.”
Commendably, Bush chided the court by stating, “that sends
a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring
meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experi-
CTES
Dommate
wnhome, In
5/mo +bil
361-648.1
"Tbdrinar
II have o
I. 979-7796
i, includes
3-7112.
me 3/2 I
o. +1/M
7-235-3564
iring. 4te
$325/mo.
pring 2004-:
n from am
icres. $157
fishing.
je historic c. :
cute. 571
except
7|
■/2 oilier lei
Antelope,
'3 util- (9®
ir Ashley.
2bdri« ! 1
nciuded W'loncessions are made here where else will ultra-liberal
judges attempt to implement their agendas in the future?
Judges were never meant to make the laws and that is
for 4bdh'5
50/mo.'
ence have nothing to teach us about this institution.”
Still some people might say, “big deal, allowing gays
to marry doesn’t affect me personally.” While this state
ment bares some validity, such an ignorant outlook fails to
consider the many cultural repercussions lurking off in the
distance in wait to unleash their deviant influence on future
generations.
Moreover, whether secularists want to admit it or not,
marriage has deep religious roots and these roots do not
sanction marriage to same sex partners, no matter how much
they love each other.
American values of tolerance and inclusion have now
trickled down to small segments of the population, such
as homosexuals. But just because of toler
ance, one should not hastily conclude that the
institution of marriage should be changed to
address these values.
No, instead these values can be satisfied
and core traditions can remain intact if state
legislators would enact Civil Unions, which
are similar to marriage, yet distinct in their
own way.
More than ever, Americans need
congressmen in office with backbones,
someone with the courage to address
controversial issues even if it means
appearing callous. These individuals
must truly desire to be a public ser
vants, willing to risk losing voters to
do what is in harmony with the will
of the people and what is flat out
right in some instances.
Mark these words: if these
events remain unchanged, if
America continues on this same
twisted “politically correct” path,
there will come a time when
the traditions and values in this
country have become unrecogniz
able and younger generations will
long for the good ol’ days when
things seemed a bit clearer, when
traditions, responsibilities, roles,
standards and expectations were not
impossible to guess.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
Graphic by Will Lloyd
nited Nations should allow Israel to keep wall
ieeded,
s include
$340/mo,"
n call 0
(979)578- ;
id/2ba
s ini'
Syal
/ Wi
25/mo- +'~
eded. $ 3i :js
eluded, oi’
on.
Prniehedj
5ba,
|7
i.net
^mmate ^1
l/2util,
iful condo J
bedroom
Katie, £
>9791
odern man has a
hatred of walls,
perhaps because he
nks that they divide rather
n join in an age of unifi-
ion, or that they symbol-
imbalance in an age of
uality and tolerance or that
y are just plain barbaric,
any case, he remembers
Berlin Wall — that Iron
rtain of Communist op-
ssion. He remembers how the world rejoiced
en it fell.
Ancient man, however, lived and died by the
. Barbaric times called for barbaric mea-
Ires; ancient man was constantly threatened by
|dden, violent attack. There was no mediator
ancient man. The wall was justice. It for-
ssed cities and protected civilizations.
Ancient man has become modem, but there
[a nation that still faces that same barbarism,
lestinian terrorists flood Israeli cities, destroy-
buses, store fronts and innocent life with in-
man acts of cowardice. Two years ago, seeing
s the only nonviolent solution, Israel started
instruction on a 425-mile wall of cement,
rbed wire and watchtowers in the West Bank
ion meant to accomplish nothing less than
se of the ancients’— to protect its people and
vide a life free from fear.
But modern man sees a wall, and he hates it:
ough it stands one-quarter complete, the Unit-
Nations International Court of Justice (IJC)
says it must go. On July 9, the court claimed
that the wall causes “unjustifiable suffering” and
infringes on the rights of the Palestinian farmers
living there by “dividing the territory,” some
times halving farmer’s lands and splitting towns.
The court said, despite whatever Israel’s true
intentions are, and despite whose land it really
is, this action is a de facto annexation of the ter
ritory by Israel. The court said this is unlawful,
and if these were all the facts, most would agree
to the illegality.
Of course, it’s not.
Neither does the court think bombings and
murders to be unlawful, at least not enough to
mention them in the 60-page ICJ opinion. A case
about a wall built to combat senseless acts of ter
rorism and no mention of bombs or murders?
The ICJ has failed by taking a stolid stand in
reaffirming Israel’s right to self-defense and by
condemning Israel for protecting its citizens.
But more disconcerting is the possibility that the
court never intended to handle the case fairly:
Addressing the real issue would be advanta
geous to Israel, and history shows that the
United Nations tries at all costs not to do that.
The United Nations is a dangerous place, Sen.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former ambassador
to the organization, once warned. If one were
Israeli, he would probably agree.
Since then, the United Nations has made other
decisions, such as the withdrawal of U.N. peace
keeping forces from the Gaza Strip in 1967;
bringing in Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat
to speak to the General Assembly in 1974; and
sponsoring the 2001 World Conference Against
Racism, which accused Israel of “racist laws”
and “genocidal behavior” but failed to denounce
nations or people groups who were anti-Semitic.
But the United Nations is sneaky. It realizes
how few know this history,
so it has said a few things to
make it appear sympathetic to
the Israeli cause, one of which
includes the assurance that
it would “support a right to
self-protection” if Israel would
alter the wall pathway.
But, Israel has already
altered the pathway and cor
rected itself for the division
of Palestinian villages. Even
though the state claims that the
wall only displaces one per
cent of the Palestinians who
are affected by its route, the
country has taken measures to
be irreproachable. It ruled that the wall must be
removed in areas that drastically altered Pales
tinians lives before the wall’s incipience.
The only reason the wall even enters the dis
puted territory is because there are Israelis living
there. An attempt to grant all of its citizens the
right to life has ironically brought humanitarian
condemnation down on Israel.
But this is still not the point; it’s not about
displaced persons. A displaced person is a sad,
but rectifiable, story. A dead person is a tragic
story, and it has no remedy.
An attempt to
grant all of its cit
izens the right to
life has ironically
brought humani
tarian condem
nation...
Israel says it will rectify the situation and
change the route to respect the rights of the
peaceful Palestinians. It says the remedy is the
discontinuation of terrorist activity by Palestine.
The moment the deadly attacks on its citizens
stop, Israel says it will tear down the
wall. Until that day, Israel is content
with its wall. A wall that is to thank
for the slump in terrorist acts from
the Gaza area, where there has been
almost a 100 percent drop. In the
last four years, Palestinian terrorists
murdered 1,000 Israelis. So far this
year, there has been only one.
Former Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu makes Israel's point clear
in an editorial in The New York
Times: “Because the court’s decision
makes a mockery of Israel’s right
to defend itself, the government of
Israel will ignore it. Israel will never
sacrifice Jewish life on the debased
altar of ‘international justice.’”
The United Nations should not be a danger
ous place for Israeli interests, but for Palestinian
terrorist activity. For now, Israel is being forced
to live and die by the wall because the United
Nations seems content to watch the Israelis
surrounded and preyed upon rather than the
cleansing of international justice’s soiled altar,
which is barbaric by any standard, whether that
of history or just today.
Clint Rainey is a sophomore
general studies major.
-Tjkoltimn was misinterpreted
house,
iSO/nio*
Tilth. Call
/3b3.
Matt, 7I }
£S
'flvIi’S
dismiss 3 1
response to a July 15 mail call section:
a t(8ari-2 :3 i
>j 20yrs-
ua inn, s ;.
Wal^l
st pi' ce JJ
6117. Sn
After reading Thursday's mail calls, which all spoke out
against Nicholas Davis' June 30 article, I couldn’t help but
jonder if the individuals who wrote these letters had read the
ame article as I did. Overall, they expressed anger towards
[Ir. Davis, accusing him of hatred of Muslims, and of incit-
hg racial violence. One went so far as to say “the end of
[Ir. Davis' article expresses his malice towards the Muslim
ommunity, and suggests threatening a large group of inno-
ent people." However, I could find nothing in his article that
jiould substantiate such accusations.
Anyone who read the article could clearly see that it was ter-
f)rists, not peaceful people, whom he was suggesting should
MAIL CALL
be treated with intolerance. He expressed concern that so
many Muslim individuals believe that the terrorists’ actions are
justifiable, or even commendable, but this is a far cry threaten
ing anyone. In fact, I would sincerely hope that any peaceful
Muslim would be equally outraged by hearing anyone applaud
the terrorists for beheading innocent Americans! Mr. Davis’ ar
ticle correctly asserted that it is impossible to wage a success
ful war on terrorism while simultaneously tolerating the actions
of terrorists and their supporters and sympathizers.
I applaud him for having the courage to state this politi
cally incorrect, but still obvious fact, and I encourage anyone
who disagrees with him to take a long, hard look at the facts.
Who is the real threat here, the terrorists, or Mr. Davis?
Cindy McReynolds
Class of 2005
Democracy allows for
debate on issues
After reading articles such as the one about
disrespectful T-shirfs and some opinion pieces,
I am disheartened at the lack of respect for our
American political process.
The freedom for lively discussion and politi
cal participation in an environment of common
respect and civility is the foundation of Ameri
can Democracy. When a group taints these val
ues by spreading hatred and disrespect toward
an opposing view, our democracy suffers.
I hope that everyone who has a stance on
issues has the strength of character and spirit
to discuss the issues with civility and respect
to all fellow Americans. To state your opinion
truthfully, eloquently and respectfully is the tru
est sign of a patriot in a democracy.
If we are to be a beacon of democracy, I
would hope that we can set an example of hearty
democratic debate, not a country whose people
attack each other when viewpoints vary.
Bush and Kerry are both public servants and
statesmen trying to serve America. Let us re
spect all sides and play the political game with
sportsmanship and honor. Now that’s showing
the true spirit of American Democracy!
James Lloyd
Class of 2006