Protect Marriage initiative an infringement of rights
T.J. Shope says he can find very little reason not to support the Protect Arizona Marriage initiative. How about the very obvious one that he is missing - the fact that it is blatantly discriminatory?
Americans are supposed to have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. In addition, didn't we learn in the '60s that separate could never be equal? Until gay marriage is legal, we are giving one group of citizens inferior protections.
Furthermore, he not only fails to counter argue against this initiative, but he also fails to make any decent arguments in support of his own point. His argument seems to be that "the other states are doing it, why shouldn't we?" Hasn't he learned by now that "everyone else is doing it" is rarely a good reason for anything?
His other argument, states' rights, also provides no reason to vote for the initiative. Supposing that states have the right to ban gay marriage, they also have the right to strike down the amendment. Perhaps I am totally missing Shope's point, but if that is the case he needs to make it far more clear what point he is attempting to make.
-- Carly Foreback
japanese senior
Ban on gay marriage should be federal, not states' right
I have one question. How do you deal with gay couples that get married in states where gay marriages are allowed, and move to a state where gay marriage isn't allowed?
A contract that is legally binding in one state is automatically legally binding in another. There is no exception for contracts of marriage. So by allowing liberal Oregon to have gay marriages, it automatically ensures its validity in Arizona.
It ought to be a federal decision along with every other interstate issue.
-- Scott Andreasen
civil engineering major
Close-mindedness leads to weak arguments
In response to Adam Smith's letter to the editor, "Angie's Poor Arguments," how could you possibly say that this is the most liberal government in all of our history? When our rights are taken away every day by our government (take the Patriot Act's ability to hold a prisoner without charging them, wire taps, restricting the teaching of evolution, etc.), then it is certainly not liberal.
Also, there are more reasons for getting an abortion then simply not being able to keep your pants on, and you are so very ignorant for thinking [there aren't].
What happens when a woman is raped or is the victim of incest? What happens when the pregnancy fatally threatens the life of the woman?
The problem with people like you is that you can't see any opinion other than your own. Open your mind to the fact that there are multiple scenarios in life.
--Amy Rainbow
architectural studies major
T.J. misses the point of individual rights
This is in response to T.J. Shope's Friday column on the Protect Arizona Marriage Amendment. He says that he finds little reason to oppose such a ban on homosexual marriage and civil unions. I can cite hundreds. [There are] hundreds of legal protections that would be denied to homosexual couples if the amendment were to pass.
Banning any one of them would constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such are: the right to visit one's loved ones in hospital, community property, legal standing to file medical malpractice and wrongful death suits on behalf of a deceased or incapacitated spouse, the right to custody of children in the event of harm to one partner. I can name hundreds more -- hundreds more that straight people like T.J. take for granted, but I have to do without because I am gay.
Homosexual marriage is not a states rights issue. It is an individual rights issue, something that a states-rights Conservative is bound to respect. The right of the individual to govern his or her own affairs is sacrosanct, and enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.
-- Benjamin Allen
biology sophomore
