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.