Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 7, 2004)
Bush's anti-gay stance risky The uproar over homosexual marriage has only increased in recent months. To address this controversy, President Bush has officially backed a constitutional amendment to ban such "immoral acts." While it should be encouraged to voice one's opinion, the action that opinion would have us take would destroy the very foundation upon which this coun try was built: The U.S. Constitution. Before delving into the constitutional violations such a ban would make, it should be stipulated that the origin of homosexuality has no relevance in this legal matter. If two consenting adults would like to make their love for one an other recognized by the state, the state would be violating certain liberties if it did not grant them that right. The First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In other words, and more commonly referred to as, it is the separa tion of church and state. It would be detrimental for the United States Con gress to pass a law that uses religious grounds as its justification. The early set tlers came to America with a vision of es caping religious persecution. Centuries later, groups of people are being denied rights by the United States with the rea soning of "immorality." For Congress to pass this ban using only religious rheto ric including "immoral," "sins," and "faith," would be to violate the first and most fundamental of all amendments. The Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The key term here is "due process." For a COMMENTARY «'op«> _ law into effect, it must go through the proper measures and use le gitimate legal methods. This line of the amendment was included to prevent states from making arbitrary laws. The problem as it stands is that a religious jus tification for passing a law is hardly due process. The Ninth Amendment 'The enumer ation in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If "the people" consider marriage a right they have in their lives, it is then given the same protection any other stipulated right in the constitution would have. Lastly, the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges .. .of citizens of the United States; Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro tection of the laws." This amendment is a culmination of the three afore mentioned. It gives not only equal rights to any citizen of the United States, but also the guarantee that no law shall be made infringing upon those rights. President Bush is openly negating an amendment that makes all Americans equal under the eyes of the government. Such action is bla tantly unconstitutional. It should be said there is nothing wrong with a private entity such as a church denying any religious ceremony for anyone. When it comes to the public sphere, however, the government cannot actively engage in unconstitutional acts. There is a difference between a religious and a civil marriage. The separation should be noted. If two consenting adults wish to be married under the eyes of the law — not God — let it be so. Amy Higdon is a freshman sociology and political science major. k Get 9 tlie word. Advertise in the Emerald -SELLFIND • cars • employees • furniture • lost items • sports equipment • jobs • computers • roommates Best Rates In Town Call 346-4343 NOW! Oregon Daily Emerald/Advertising LETTER TO THE EDITOR Box-dumpers show intellectual cowardice During spring break, while fellow students were away partaking in drunken, boob-flashing revelry in such dystopic hellholes as Cancun, Mexico and Daytona Beach, Fla., un known individuals decided they could have a more rockin' time by dumping boxes of the Oregon Com mentator. This trashing of issues has not been the first time, and I fear it shall not be the last. The Oregon Commentator has been on campus for 21 years, which is quite an achievement for an all-vol unteer publication; yet nary a year goes by that our boxes go un dumped. The intellectual cowards who have performed these acts over the years are setting a terrible prece dent on this campus. Yes, we are a conservative/libertari an publication on a predominantly liberal campus, but I assumed this was "The Marketplace of Ideas," a bas tion of the Socratic dialectic. I was, it seems, mistaken. This recent case un derscores a major problem facing this university: Discourse is discouraged in favor of banal acts of self-indulgent symbolism. You may not agree with the Oregon Commentator's political views, or you may find our humor to be sophomor ic (which should come as a compli ment to our freshman staffers). But those are not reasons to interfere with the free dissemination of ideas. If you find yourself in disagreement, then try articulating your ideas instead of re sorting to petty acts of vandalism. Box-dumping should not be tolerat ed, for it usurps the right of University students to read a publication funded by the incidental fee. Tyler Graf senior journalism Managing Editor, Oregon Commentator UNIVERSITY OF OREGON Get Ready for Summer. Plan Your Classes Now! The UO Summer Session Catalog with Schedule of Classes is available on campus. It’s free. Summer session starts June 21. Group-satisfying and elective courses, seminars, and workshops begin throughout the summer. ; Check Our Website! http://uosummer.uoregon,edu e 2004 UO Summer Session Catalog is here! Read it online, or pick up a free copy today in the Summer Session office, 333 Oregon Hall, or at the UO Bookstore Telephone (541) 346-3475 Book Your Summer in Oregon UNIVERSITY OF OREGON The University of Oregon is an equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
