Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 Email: editor@dailyemerald.com Online: www.dailyemerald.com Tuesday, July 1, 2003 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor Ian Tobias Montry EDITORIALS Supreme Court sodomy ruling reaffirms rights Those in the gay and lesbian community received perhaps their biggest triumph in the IJ.S. Supreme Court last week when justices proclaimed that the government should not in terfere with sexual activities occurring behind closed doors. This general assumption has long since been accepted by society with certain exceptions, most of which have to do with sexual crimes. In Texas, the state whose law was contended in the 6-3 ruling, sodomy was a prosecutable violation. With the landmark ruling, gays and lesbians can now practice in any part of the country virtually any sexual act they deem fit, which is exactly as it should be. Sexual activities are clearly part of human nature and so cietal standards should reflect that. To be able to proudly proclaim one's sexual orientation in public, but not to be able to practice what one preaches within the confines of one's home, is absurd. Yet Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a lashing dissenting opinion, saying the decision "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation," and added the court has "largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." Further more, Scalia noted, the decision all but opens the door to homosexual marriages. To the dissent, we respond: Sexual orientation, many would say, is inherited, not learned. This country touts its anti-dis crimination laurels, yet three members of the Supreme Court were ready to pass moral legislation that discriminate againts those with different traits and beliefs from them? How so? As to whether the Supreme Court has indeed signed onto a homosexual agenda, or whether the decision will lead to gay marriage, we ask this: So what? I lomosexuality is an accepted lifestyle, more and more so each day. While a handful of society may adamantly op pose that lifestyle, the Supreme Court showed last week that it is ready to get with the program. The Supreme Court got it right — homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexual America, on the streets and in the sheets. SB 10 will help needy students The current Oregon legislative proposal that would grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens under certain circumstances is a great step toward providing equal education opportunities. Senate Bill 10 would allow illegal aliens in Oregon to pay in-state tuition if they have lived in the state for at least three years during high school and plan on becoming citi zens or legal residents. The bill is a legitimate idea for two reasons: First, the law would help Oregon in the long run by providing more ed ucation options for people who otherwise would have a difficult time affording tuition, thus creating a more edu cated populace. Second, it is unreasonable to assume illegal aliens would take advantage of the law, especially consid ering they must fulfill very specific criterion to qualify. The bill's main detractors say the bill would be too cost ly, draining $780,000 from the state in lost tuition funds. This criticism is hilarious considering the Legislature has failed to demonstrate any care whatsoevei about how much funding education receives or loses. We urge Oregon lawmakers to pass this legislation and help a growing pool of potential students become educated and eventually contribute back to Oregon's snuggling economy. EDITORIAL POLICY This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month. Submission must include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. A DEADLY MISTAKE Jan Tobias Montry Unsatisfied customer During a routine traffic stop last month, Portland police officer Scott McCollister shot and killed 21-year-old Kendra James, a black woman wanted for failure to ap pear in court on drug possession charges. James apparently provided a sufficiently life-threatening situation as she attempted to climb into the driver's seat and drive away that McCollister felt it necessary to use deadly force. In other news, it's great to hear we've re gressed to a time when the dastardly act of trying to flee a traffic stop is worthy of po lice execution, and unreasonable use of deadly force is punishable with a simple slap on the wrist. Portland Chief of Police Mark Kroeker, along with Portland Mayor Vera Katz, announced last week that Mc Collister would be suspended for a "lengthy" period of time. "Lengthy" is tra ditionally a magnanimous 30 to 60 days, according to what police officers have told The Oregonian. But I won't sit here and rant about how disgusted and bitter 1 am about the state of affairs in Copland without telling both sides of tire story. I am, after all, a reason able and open-minded guy, and perhaps the shooting was justified. So here goes: McCollister said that 80 percent of his body was inside the car as he was trying to pull James out of the back seat, and it was at that point when she climbed into the driver's seat and turned on the car. McCol lister said the car then started rolling and that he feared it would drag and kill him. In the insanity of the moment, he decided it was then prudent to shoot her. What's missing here is one vital point: How did shooting James possibly remedy his situation? McCollister said he fired the shot as he was falling out of the car; a state ment which begs the question of how killing her would have stopped the car from moving or somehow made him land more softly on the ground. Obviously he survived falling out of the rolling car, so it's reason ^Wltt wot SHOOT THE UNARMED I V^OT^Hoor TW£ UNARMED f Wilu not shoot £ will not > * * « «. :* • • • • **V •