-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
Letters to the Editor
Archive
Comments
Story
Thank the Mormons
Those who supported Proposition Eight like to talk about “traditional” marriage. What they always fail to mention is that in this country until 50 years ago you couldn’t marry someone of a different race, 150 years ago you couldn’t divorce your partner, and African people (property) weren’t even granted the right to marry each other.
A thousand years before that a father picked his property’s (AKA daughter) husband, and any passing nobleman could claim the droit de seigneur (her virginity) on her wedding night. Each of these practices were once traditional parts of “the marriage contract,” yet no one seems to want them back. “Traditional marriage” must mean “if it happened more than 40 years ago it don’t count.”
Even though marriage started out as a religious activity, somewhere along the line the state decided to confer rights based on that activity. As the Supreme Court said in Loving V. Virginia, government cannot set limits on who it will allow to marry. The argument they tried to make then, that the law treats everyone equally because both whites and blacks were consigned to their own “race”, was flawed and today’s contemporary version is also flawed.
The difference between the gay community and the straight community is that the state places no limits on your love. We homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex, but we can’t marry the person we love. Even though same-sex couples can and in fact DO have religious ceremonies, the one thing we don’t get are the rights. Taken together, not only do marriage amendments set limits on our love but on our religious freedom as well.
If African American civil rights, or Mormon civil rights had been decided by majority vote one-hundred years ago, we may never have even reached “separate but equal” and the Mormons might not even exist today. Constitutions exist to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Every court ruling protecting civil rights has been based on that fundamental precept.
There was religious (or secular) opposition to interracial marriages, to blacks marrying other blacks, and to divorce itself but even in the face of religious condemnation all of that changed. “One man one woman” marriage definitions are likewise doomed to eventual failure. Finally it’s been said that Proposition Eight passed because of heavy Mormon involvement.
Isn’t Mormon funding of “one man, one woman” ads more than a little hypocritical? After all the Mormons were once the ones pushing for a redefinition of marriage; one man many women. Aren’t there still sects today that want that very thing? In the end, though, I suppose we should be thanking them.
Proposition Eight’s passage has galvanized the gay community like no other time that I can remember. We’ll probably get national marriage rights even sooner, and it was all because of the Mormons, and the Catholics and the Baptists. But, yeah, mostly the Mormons.
James R. Rodriguez is not a student at Boise State University.
ASBSU at its finest once again …
This letter is in response to the last [infuriating] articles about ASBSU’s legislation decisions. The articles, well written by the authors, showed how little we need a group of materialistic individuals in office. While I read about wonderful bills proposed by a very select few, I read even more about how those same bills were shot down the moment they came to the table and replaced with useless legislation that do not better our community or student body.
In particular, I am speaking of Bill No. 10-2008, allocating money to help the informational events happening during Poverty Week.
Poverty is a very serious issue all across the United States, but hits home in Boise and the surrounding areas more than any of you know.
It is an invisible virus infecting our population daily and nightly; knowing no race, gender, or religion, it affects all of us and could happen to any one of us at any given time. In fact, most of us could be only one paycheck away from homelessness or not knowing where our next meal is coming from. Sen. Justin White put forth a wonderful bill to allocate funding for the events happening during Poverty Week, including a sleep-out where college students could [somewhat] see what it was like to sleep without a roof over their head.
The rest of the senate shut this bill down before it had a chance.
And due to this, many students who I have spoken to do not really know what the event is about. In fact, I have hardly seen anything advertising what this event is about (besides on the quad).
I believe part of this to be because of the lack of funding; thanks ASBSU. Keep tabling the bill until we forget it even exists. Isn’t that how we solve our problems nowadays?
Keep putting it off and hoping it goes away? It won’t.
Poverty won’t go away when we aren’t showcasing its horrid effects or working together to aid those in need.
I was a little upset when I read the first article about this bill being denied, but I am now furious when I read they are pushing a bill through to “demand” dining services and Aramark work together to create more options or they will be boycotted.
This is ridiculous! Oh, and don’t get me started on the money that was spent on flashy new ASBSU jackets for all its members… or Bill No. 11-2008, allocating $112 for new magnetic name tags.
I hope you’re proud, student body. You’ve elected materialistic, selfish, and lazy senators. ASBSU, you should be ashamed.
Cory Sims is a junior studying social work.
You’re Right Kris Donner, Marriage IS More Than
A Word!
Kris Donner, your article “Marriage: more than a word” is ill-revised and poorly executed. You’re right, marriage is more than a word and I find it interesting that you would title your article with how much more it is than a figure of speech, yet you attempt to define the word in terms that would best suit your dismissal of the gay community.
Instead of going to great lengths to define marriage, wouldn’t it make more sense to go into depth of the idea behind marriage? It seems the basis of your argument is that the majority of the nation is Christian, and it is against Christian beliefs to be homosexual. According to your “research”, 75% of the nation is Christian.
Well, according to my “research”, there are such things as homosexual Christians. If marriage is a religious act, gay marriage “does not coincide with God’s moral teachings,” and Christian homosexuals do exist, why then, are homosexuals not entitled to marriage? Why is being a homosexual wrong, if the “God” you believe created all life on Earth created them?
Your argument is completely contradictory to itself because you use the Bible and Christian statistics as support, yet you seem to forget that homosexuals can be Christian too. Why deny homosexual Christians the rights you believe heterosexual Christians have? You both love the same god, don’t you?
Using Christian ideals as an argument contradicts the separation of Church and State we all learned about in middle school. It may be true that America was founded by Christians, but it is also true that America is a free country where everyone is created equal. Homosexuals fall into the category of “equal.” I find it interesting that you seem to think the ratio of Christians to non-Christians in our country is at all relevant, when the meat of the issue deals with the government.
The government is deciding whether or not to pass gay marriage, not the Christian community. In 1954 Brown vs. Board of education ruled “separate is not equal,” According to the ruling, treating people the same, but separating them for whatever reason (in this case, being homosexual) does not constitute equality. Allowing gays to marry, but calling their marriage a different name does not make their marriage the same as a heterosexual one.
You are creating a boundary between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and thus separating humanity into two groups: us, in the case of your argument, heterosexuals, and them, meaning homosexuals. This makes for quite a separation, don’t you think? “Those who persecute and demean others for their choices have no place in our country and leave a black stain on the reputation of those who try to peacefully live their beliefs.”
Well put, Kris Donner. I only wish you can practice what you preach. Homosexuals try to live peacefully.
They believe, as do a great deal of heterosexuals, that marriage should not be dependent on the gender of the two people involved. Perhaps this is not a concept you can fathom, but two men or two women can and will be in love whether or not you give them your blessing.
By stating that homosexuals cannot get married because they will taint the definition of “marriage”, you are demeaning them for their beliefs. By your own argument, it is logical to assume that you, as well, leave a black stain on the reputation of peaceful people in our Nation. If you don’t agree with this, I hope you would have enough cognitive ability to realize that your argument is not sound, nor is it ethical.
Homosexuals do not harm you, nor does their marriage directly affect yours. In the end, I feel bad for you. You seem to “hope we can all be tolerant of one another.” You seem to think that tolerance is important, yet you use a religion with a history of intolerance to support your case. How can intolerance spawn tolerance? With simple logic, you may come to realize that it can’t.
Cari Hoffschildt is a sophomore studying English Education.