Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Thursday, October 28, 2004
NEWS STAFF
(541) 346-5511
JEN SUDICK
EDITOR IN CHIEF
STEVEN R. NEUMAN
MANAGING EDITOR
IARED PABEN
AYISHA WIYA
NEWS EDITORS
PARKER HOWELL
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
MORIAH BALINCIT
MEGHANN CUNIFF
KARA HANSEN
ANTHONY LUCERO
CANELAWOOD
NEWS REPORTERS
CLAYTON JONES
SPORTS EDITOR
JON ROETMAN
SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER
STEPHEN MILLER
BRIAN SMITH
SPORTS REPORTERS
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
NATASHA CH1UNGERIAN
SENIOR PULSE REPORTER
DAHVI RSCHER
AMY UCim
RYAN MURPHY
PULSE REPORTERS
DAVID JAGERNAUTH
EDITORIAL EDITOR
JENNIFER MCBRIDE
A! LEE SLATER
CHUCK SLOTHOWER
TRAVIS WILLSE
COLUMNISTS
ASHLEY GRIFFIN
SUPPLEMENT
FREELANCE EDITOR
CABE BRADLEY
NTWS FREELANCE EDITOR/
DIRECTOR OF RECRUITMENT
HANIELLE HICKEY
PHOTO EDITOR
TAUREN WIMER
SrNIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTOGRAPHER
•CCOLE BARKER
PARI IIME PHOTOGRAPHER
ERIK BISHOFF
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER
BRET FURTWANCLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
KIRA PARK
DESIGN EDITOR
ELLIOTT ASBURY
CHARLIE CALDWELL
DUSTIN REESE
BRIANNE SHOL1AN
DESIGNERS
SHADRA BEES LEY
JEANNIE EVERS
COPY CHIEFS
KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD
PAULTHOMPSON
SPORTS COPY EDITORS
AMANDA EVRARD
AMBER LINDROS
NEWS COPY EDITORS
LINDSAY BURT
PULSE COPY EDITOR
ADRIENNE NELSON
ONLINE EDITOR
SLADE LEESON
VYEBMASTER
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDYRIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
REBECCA CRITCHETT
RECEPTIONIST
NATHAN FOSTER
AIBING CUO
ANDREW LEAHY
JOHN LONG
MALLORY MAHONEY
HOLLY MISTELL
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
TYLER MACK
SALES MANAGER
ALEX AMES
MATT BETZ
HERON CAIJSC11- DOLLN
MEGAN HAMLIN
KATE HIRONAKA
MAEGAN KASER-LEE
MIA LEIDELMEYER
EMI1YPHILBIN
SHANNON ROGERS
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541)346-4343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KATY GAGNON
SABRINA GOWETTE
LESLIE STRAIGHT
KER1 SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541)3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
TARA SLOAN
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
|EN CRAM LET
KRISTEN DICHARRY
CAMERON GAUT
ANDY HOLLAND
DESIGNERS
TTie Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year by the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Co. Inc., at the University of Ore
gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald
operates independently of the
University with offices in Suite
300 of the Erb Memorial Union.
The Emerald is private property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
/
r(/KryAHe.LEH
Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist
■ In my opinion
Columnists form civil union against Measure 36
Ailee Slater — NO
Many conservative Republicans
have been duped into thinking that
they should vote in favor of Measure
36. This is not the case. Voting yes on
36 sets a scary precedent in which big
government is allowed to interfere with
private institutions, especially religious
ones. As a conservative, consider also
that a constitution should be a stable
document, amended rarely. Although
protection of marriage may be impor
tant, constitutions cannot be distorted
at each whim of the government. Sure
ly there is a better form of marriage reg
ulation. Remember, defeating Measure
36 does not make gay marriage legal.
The union of one man and one woman
will still be the only form of marriage
recognized by most churches and state
law. For social, religious or moral con
servatives, no on 36 is the best choice.
It ensures that religious organizations
are allowed independence and that
government stays out of private affairs.
Jennifer McBride — NO
Though I'd rather see gay marriage
enacted through the legislature, I'd be
happy to see the courts grant us our
civil rights. The fact is, plain and sim
ple, that gay marriage should be al
lowed. Priests won't be forced into
marrying couples. Children will be
adopted into stable homes. It won't
hurt anybody and any suggestions that
the state would be endorsing homosex
uality by allowing such weddings to
occur are malicious and unwarranted.
Nobody is going to suddenly believe
homosexuality is right or wrong just
because some people can now marry
when once they could not. In a world
full of so much hate, what's wrong
with legalizing love? How would that
threaten heterosexual marriage in the
least? Big Brother has no right to deter
mine who I commit to, and if that per
son is of my gender, another gender or
is a sexless alien from the planet Gzo
ola, it is my choice and no one should
get in the way of my joy. Vote no.
Chuck Slothower — NO
What remains to be said? Measure
36 has garnered far more attention on
campus than any of the other ballot
measures this year, and much has been
written on it by myself and others. Gay
marriage is, like abortion, an intensely
controversial social issue on which
everyone has already made up his or
her mind. Those who support Measure
36 base their arguments on tradition,
religion and emotion. I find no value in
debunking their arguments because
they don’t pretend to use rationality or
logic. Measure 36 supporters fail to see
the parallels between themselves and
those who thought interracial marriage
would cause the downfall of society.
They fail to see that they want to en
shrine something in Oregon’s constitu
tion that won’t last because of chang
ing social norms and legal thought. It’s
really rather exasperating. Things like
Measure 36 make me glad I live in Eu
gene.
Travis Willse — NO
The legalization of gay marriage is
one of those political issues that enjoys
(or suffers) majority opposition from a
wide range of social demographics:
College graduates and non-graduates,
the religious and the not, urban, sub
urban, rural, all regions of the country,
whites, blacks and Hispanics, accord
ing to a Pew Research Center survey
taken last fall. While popularity might
be a good way to run a democracy, it's
often a poor way to sort out fundamen
tal legal rights, as this country's torrid
but improving history of unequal treat
ment shows. Likewise, democratically
encoding what amounts to a limitation
on rights in the state's constitution is a
poor choice. Simply put, a constitution
is a place to specify rights, not to pre
emptively limit them. (Oregon's con
stitution has a poor track record on this
point, at times restricting rights accord
ing to race or ethnicity.) No matter
how you feel about gay and lesbian po
litical issues, or the sanctity of mar
riage, keep as much social policy out of
our constitution as possible and vote
no on Measure 36.
INBOX
To protect forests,
vote no on 34 and 37
I agree with your editorial board that
Measure 34 is a terrible idea. However,
it is essential that voters also know
about another serious threat to our
forests and farmland: Measure 37.
Measure 37 is a misleading and dan
gerous measure that would roll back
Oregon’s safeguards that protect forests
and farmland from being converted
into stripmalls and sprawl. That’s why
environmental groups including the
Sierra Club, OSPIRG and the League of
Conservation Voters, are against it.
The timber industry has already
spent $750,000 for the Yes on 37 cam
paign, because they know the law will
allow them to do more clear-cutting,
unless taxpayers pay them hundreds of
millions of dollars. That’s not fair.
Measure 37 is also extremely expen
sive. The State Treasure estimates it
would cost $344 million just to process
the claims, not to mention all the mon
ey it would take to pay out the claims.
This measure will gut the already mea
ger state budget, which will mean cuts
to education and other programs.
To protect our environment and our
state budget, vote no on Measure 37.
For information contact the author at
margie_klein@lcv.org or 646-408-6160.
Margie Klein
Project Democracy
Editorial
Religion,
marriage
should not
be governed
Even for those who believe marriage should be
between one man and one woman, this measure
is a bad idea because of the precedent it sets.
The institution of marriage is important and
should be protected, no doubt. The issue is cloud
ed, however, by the distinction between marriage
in the civil sense and marriage in the religious
sense.
Marriage in the civil sense pertains to laws gov
erning joint ownership of property, life insurance
benefits, decision-making in the case of a med
ical emergency, etc. For the good of the people,
government sets these guidelines and makes
these decisions at the state and county level.
State-sanctioned marriage is a civil contract, not a
religious contract.
However, marriage, for most couples, is more
than a collection of legal rights. Many couples as
cribe religious significance to marriage — for oth
ers the only significance is interpersonal. In any
case, the decision to bring one’s faith to a mar
riage is a private one, as it should be. Government
has no business legislating marriage in the reli
gious sense — especially in the constitution.
Each couple expresses faith through marriage
in unique ways. What does and does not count
as marriage in the religious sense should be de
termined by the couples themselves with the
guidance of their rabbis, priests, imams, pastors
or other clergy.
No church, mosque or synagogue should be
forced to condone gay marriage. Similarly, the
state of Oregon should not be forced to adopt a
religious definition of marriage. The two should
be kept separate, for the good of both the state
and the church. We enjoy this freedom because
of the separation of church and state.
Though the term “separation of church and
state” has been hijacked by atheistic fundamen
talists in an attempt to keep religion out of public
life, separation of church and state was originally
intended to protect religious organizations from
the inappropriate influence of government and
vice versa. To promulgate religious ideals through
the constitution is a grave disservice to religious
groups and people of faith.
Those who wish to dismantle the separation of
church and state don’t understand is that it is de
signed to protect religion from the government.
America was founded on the belief that all reli
gions should be free to express their faith without
government interference. To do so, the govern
ment agrees to stay out of the religion business.
That is why the U.S. Constitution is the best in
the world. And it can continue to be the best, if
only those who support measures like 36 hold
the Constitution half as sacred as they hold their
documents of faith.
It would be a tragic precedent for government
to decide a religious disagreement. Whatever one
believes about gay marriage, can’t we all agree
that this dispute should not be settled in the
pages of our constitution? This is reason enough
to vote against Measure 36.
OREGON DAILY EMERALD
LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and
should be sent to letters@daityemerald.com or submitted at the
Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic
submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 words, and
guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one
submission per calendar month. Submissions should
include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald
reserves the ritfit to edit for space, grammar and sMe. Guest
submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald.