Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL
Parking fix
is a swerve
in the right
direction
Parking at the University can be a real challenge. On a
good day, finding a parking spot somewhere near your des
tination can be something of a challenge. On a bad day,
looking for a space is a fool's errand.
As if drivers to the campus area — faculty, staff and stu
dents alike — didn't face enough vehicular challenges al
ready, the Department of Public Safety's current parking
permit program is a sticky mess. Literally.
You see them on the backs of cars all around campus:
Fading orange stickers, crackling cyan stickers, and half-re
moved green stickers with streaks of dried white adhesive.
Sometimes the/re pasted on top of each other five or six
layers thick. Sometimes they cover an entire rear bumper,
an intricate tapestry of parking permission slips reminding
passersby of this sticky situation.
The University's ugly permits are designed to come off
in pieces to prevent theft and sharing, DPS Parking and
Transportation Manager Rand Stamm said. The trick,
though, lies in removing the too-durable stickers at all.
Stamm says he uses boiling water to remove his permits;
other home-brew solutions he's heard of include vinegar
and WD-40. But all of that is simply too much work for
something that's intended to facilitate a convenience like
parking on campus.
The problem at the heart of this gooey mess is that the
permanent sticker parking permits are just that — perma
nent. Besides the issue of removal (and thus that of aes
thetics), permanent stickers present a logistical problem. If
your car (with parking permit attached) is in the shop, you
need to visit DPS for a temporary permit — not a major in
convenience, but not a necessary one, either.
Similar issues apply to people who drive more than one
car to campus, or to people who buy cars mid-term.
Fortunately, Stamm and DPS are looking into replacing
the unsightly stickers with removable adhesive or static
ding permits. The Emerald Editorial Board praises DPS for
exploring this issue, and strongly encourages the depart
ment to replace the stickers with more user-friendly per
mits. (Rear-view mirror permits, though probably more
convenient for most drivers, aren't a viable option, as EPD
needs stickers to be on cars' backs.)
Removable permits solve all of worst problems assodat
ed with the current system: Is your car in the shop? Peel it
off and put it on your rental or a friend's car you're borrow
ing. Do you regularly switch cars with a spouse? Peel it off
and put it on. Buying a new car? Peel it.
Unfortunately, this change would likely bring with it a
price increase, Stamm explained. If the University changed
to transferable permits, the demand for additional permits
would decrease, increasing the price per permit to main
tain revenues. But that's a small price to pay for this much
convenience.
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 arid 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.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brad Schmidt
Editor in Chief
Jan Tobias Montry
Managing Editor
Travis Willse
Editorial Editor
Jennifer Sudick
Freelance Editor
Ayisha Yahya
News Editor
Dire straights
Americans idealize heterosexual marriages because of homophobic beliefs...
San Francisco is issuing marriage li
censes to gay couples despite a Califor
nia law that prohibits same-sex mar
riages.
It figures.
I should mention here that I not only
grew up in San Francisco, but I lived just
three blocks from Castro Street the gayest
street in the gayest city in the country, if not
the world.
Walking home from grade school, I reg
ularly saw men holding hands. Going to
the grocery store, I passed men necldng
outside a bar. And when my mother was
going to be late getting home, I often
stayed with our downstairs neighbors,
Allen and Jim — did I mention they had a
fabulous apartment?
Despite the years of extensive expo
sure that I had to all that unnaturalness,
here I am today — distressingly hetero
sexual and disgustingly normal.
Of course, I'm sure what saved me
and my normalcy from all that exposure
to alternative lifestyles was the absence
of a state-sanctioned marriage license.
Right.
Conservative groups battling against
the legalization of same-sex marriages
pound on their pulpits as they declare
that such marriages endanger The Fami
ly (insert appropriate trumpet sounds).
Huh?
I suppose if your notion of family
means that you have exacdy one mother
(female), one father (male) and 2.4 kids
(one boy, one girl, and four-tenths of
your choice), then yes, same-sex mar
riages threaten The Family.
Of course, if you actually live on this
planet, it might have come to your at
tention that many of us can't define
family in such a limited way.
We have single parents. We have step
mothers, step-fathers, and step-siblings.
We have live-in boyfriends and live-in
girlfriends. Grandparents raise their
grandchildren while aunts and uncles
Jessica Cole-Hodgkinson
Huh? What? Really.
raise nieces and nephews.
We also have same-sex parents.
Whether they are raising an adopted
child, or the biological offspring of
one partner, homosexual parents are a
reality. Notables such as Rosie O'Don
nell and Melissa Etheridge have helped
put a face on the concept of gay par
enting, but it was not so very long ago
that the city of Springfield was remov
ing "Heather Has Two Mommies"
from its library shelves.
So, perhaps it's time to acknowledge
that our concept of The Family is capa
ble of evolving.
Doesn't it follow, then, that our no
tion of marriage is also capable of evo
lution?
Left to my own devices, I'd define
marriage as simply a loving committed
relationship. I would leave the details to
the individuals to determine for them
selves. I do understand, however, that
our laws require a bit more than that to
go on when determining rights and le
gal protections.
And there are some serious rights at
stake. Marriage can affect the taxes peo
ple pay, the health benefits they're enti
tled to, and what rules of inheritance
and survivorship apply.
There are some basic policy issues be
hind the government's promotion of
marriage. Among them:
(1) Marriage encourages reproduc
tion — before concerns of overpopula
tion, this was considered a good thing.
(2) Marriage allows the state to hold
the fathers responsible for the care of a
child — before paternity testing, mar
riage was an acceptable way of defining
fatherhood.
(3) Marriage encourages a fair alloca
tion of assets — where one partner is the
breadwinner and the other is a home
maker, marriage gives both an equal
stake in the couple's estate.
(4) Marriage encourages monogamy;
in theory, this is supposed to discourage
the transmission of sexually transmitted
diseases.
Notice that there is nothing in these
policies that must automatically exclude
same-sex couples. In fact, expanding
these policies to include same-sex cou
ples would promote the welfare of those
engaged in same-sex relationships.
And therein lies the mb.
Far too many people don't want to
promote the welfare of homosexuals.
They view homosexuality as sinful, dirty,
evil, pernicious or some other pejorative
of-your-choice From that they figure that
any promotion of the welfare of a homo
sexual person is the same as promoting
homosexuality itself. It doesn't quite
work that way.
Science is telling us more convinc
ingly every day that homosexuality is
not a choice but a biological imper
ative. No more than a person can
control the melanin content of their
skin can some people control their
sexual identity.
From its inception, our country has
dealt with bigotry in many shapes and
sizes. It's an ongoing battle, but we are
making progress. The way I see it, if peo
ple of color no longer have to sit on the
back of the bus, I see no reason why same
sex couples should have to go to San Fran
cisco to get married.
Contact the columnist at
jessicacolehodgkinson@dailyemerald.com.
Her opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
...and have trivialized their‘sacred’notions of marriage anyway
Last week I was surfing around online,
and I saw an advertisement for Russian
brides. So I made a few dicks, and in 20
minutes I had my very own Russian
woman, ready to marry me. She likes
knitting and vodka. Her name's Olga.
I told Olga to fly out to Las Vegas, and
I met her at the airport. We drove
straight to the Little White Wedding
Chapel, where Britney Spears got mar
ried to childhood buddy lason Alexan
der. Their marriage lasted 55 hours. Ac
cording to Alexander, the two got chunk
on New Year's, looked at each other and
said, "Let's do something wild and crazy.
"Let's get married. lust for the hell
of it."
This isn't anything new for the Little
White Wedding Chapel. The chapel has
a drive-through wedding service and is
open 24 hours a day. Last year, the
chapel hosted 38;000 weddings.
After we got married, Olga and I drove
to a hotel. We checked in and turned on
the television. "Friends" was on. Phoebe
was getting married, so of course they
made a joke about Ross and his three
marriages (and three subsequent di
vorces). They make this joke at least
once an episode.
It's a particularly pertinent quip for
the "Friends" audience because millions
of Americans get divorced every year. Ac
cording to the National Center for
Health Statistics, the marriage rate was
7.6 for every 1,000 Americans in 2003.
Peter Hockaday
Today is Hockaday
The divorce rate is 3.8 for every 1,000
Americans. That 2:1 ratio has been con
stant for more than a decade.
Tired of "Friends," I flipped to Fox
and "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance" was
on. On the show, a woman tried to fool
her family into believing she was marry
ing a complete moron. The show fol
lows other Fox dassics such as "Married
by America," where the protagonists had
their spouses chosen for them by view
ers, and "Temptation Island," where hot
people in serious relationships had
those relationships tested by the pres
ence of even more hot people.
Olga seemed confused by this culture
of marriage shows, so I turned off the
television and said "Hollywood, baby,
Hollywood." We hopped in the car and
headed west towards La-La Land. When
we got there, I took her to the ultimate
American entertainment event: a Los
Angeles Lakers game.
Those Lakers fans sure are nuts. For
some reason, they worship Kobe Bryant
like Buddha. Kobe Bryant, at the very
least, committed dass-A adultery. He ad
mitted as much and bought his wife —
his high-school sweetheart, no less! — a
diamond ring the size of Jupiter. But the
fans voted him into the NBA's All-Star
Game in record numbers. Kobe Bryant
is an American hero.
Olga didn't like the Lakers game so
much. They only like hockey in her
country. Maybe she just didn't like me.
In broken English, she asked me for an
annulment. So I took her to the nearest
courthouse. Within a few hours, she was
on a plane back to St. Petersburg.
To ease the pain, I decided to head
north to my home town, San Frandsco.
On the steps of City Hall, hundreds of
people were protesting the mayor's deri
sion to allow gay couples to legally mar
ry. These protesters echoed the words of
Massachusetts lawmakers who oppose
gay marriage and echoed our represen
tative in the White House, President
George W. Bush.
"Save the sanctity of marriage!" they
shouted.
"Keep marriage dvil!" they screamed.
"Keep marriage sacred!" they yelled.
They said these things, and I couldn't
help myself. I just laughed, and laughed
and laughed at the irony of it all.
Contact the columnist
at peterhockaday@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.