Paying for values
Uri Horesh, Dana Cloud, Claire Harlin, Greg Vincent and everyone else on this campus need to be reminded that, in 2005, voters of this state overwhelmingly confirmed the definition of marriage ("Starving for equality," Jan. 17).
Proposition 2 - an amendment to our constitution - not only confirmed the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman; it also prevented the state of Texas or any political subdivision of it (that would include UT) from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage. As part of our constitution, this is not just a law but a principle of government for our great state enacted by more than 75 percent of Texas voters.
The fact is that taxpayers are under no obligation to subsidize any relationship. In our society, and historically throughout Western culture, we have chosen to endorse and support the institution of marriage because it is the essential building block of family. Without properly established families we have no communities, no nation and no culture.
Horesh and Cloud have no right to reach into their fellow taxpayers' pockets and force them to endorse and subsidize their "relationships" that fly in the face of nature, family, community, culture and indeed the will of three-quarters of all Texans.
Tony McDonald Chairman emeritus Young Conservatives of Texas Economics and government senior
Scrutinizing gender
If the University is denying benefits to domestic partners of persons in heterosexual relationships based solely on the transgendered status of one party in the relationship as Dana Cloud suggests ("Support for Uri Horesh," The Firing Line, Jan. 16), the University should clearly rethink its policy in regards to providing benefits to domestic partners in general.
A person who has physically and legally changed his or her sex should be able to marry a member of his or her former sex under Texas law. Under Texas law, marriage consists "only of the union of one man and one woman." Therefore, if a transgendered individual formerly male has legally changed his sex and entered into a union with a man, Texas law should recognize that union as a marriage, and the University should provide benefits. However, if the same transgendered individual who is formerly male has not legally changed his sex but still entered into a union with a man, Texas law would not recognize that union as a marriage, and the University would not provide benefits. Based on this example, in order to prove that employees are not married to persons of the same legally recognized gender, the University would have to require all employees and their spouses to submit to genetic screening to ascertain their genetic gender or provide documentation setting forth their legal gender.
Cloud also states that bisexuals in domestic partnerships are discriminated against by the University. She does not clarify whether this is true for both same-sex and heterosexual unions. If the University is denying bisexuals benefits based solely on their sexuality and not the gender of their domestic partners, there is clearly a problem.
And while I loathe to agree with Tony McDonald on anything, Article I, Section 32 (b) of the Texas Constitution clearly states that neither the state of Texas nor a political subdivision of the state may "create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The University is a state agency and the regents are officers of the state. Until the Constitution is changed, the University cannot recognize same-sex domestic partnerships, and changing the Constitution requires more than just legislative action.
Charles Tolliver UT alum
Be patient for change
In response to ("Texas Democratic Party shames itself again," Jan. 17): We do not need a referendum to know Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Polls show Bush's approval rating at the lowest of any president. Senate Democrats have included withdrawal timetables in funding bills, but the reality is that they are too few to override Bush's veto. Cutting off all funding for troops in the field would be political suicide, and it would hand the presidency to Republicans in 2009. And why impeach when you know for certain there are too few votes in the Senate to convict? Hooman Hedayati's frustration is shared by many, but the change he seeks will only come with a new Democratic president: Clinton, Obama or Edwards. See you at the polls.
Thomas Van Orden Austin resident
We need Chow
On Monday, the Tennessee Titans fired offensive coordinator Norm Chow. This is the opportunity Texas has been looking for - We need to hire Norm Chow! Chow coached two quarterbacks to Heisman Trophy seasons (Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart) and created the record-breaking 2004 USC offense. Since Greg Davis has been our OC and QB's coach, we have had missteps in choosing the starting QB - Simms over Applewhite - and anemia in the offense. The only time we were good was when we had a QB who ignored Davis.
Norm Chow is a quality coach and also is a minority hire, something we at Texas need to do to keep up with the times. Loyalty to a coach who is not getting it done is stupid when we can get a proven winner and make a step to better racial equality at the same time.
Robert Williams UT alum
Blinded by the Holy Land
Daniel Earnest's Jan. 16 column "Revelation in the Holy Land" could not be any more antithetical to Christian values. Earnest might like to be reminded that his savior cared very dearly about all who were oppressed and taught to love your neighbor. There might not be much of the latter in the Holy Land, but to be so blind to other people's suffering is truly fanatical. It's nice that Earnest put himself in Israeli shoes, but perhaps he opted not to put on Palestinian shoes because they looked far less comfortable. Not only does the state of Israel not recognize the right of Palestinians to a viable state, but it is actively destroying the possibility of its creation by continuing the colonization of Palestinian land. Last year, while homemade rockets and other attacks killed 10 Israelis, 457 Palestinians were killed, including 92 children. What's more, while the Israeli government lives out its fanatical nationalist ideology of "maximum Jews, maximum land" at any cost, Palestinians continue to be dispossessed of their land, tortured and murdered.
Has any nationalist movement avoided terrorism? George Washington certainly didn't with his savage attack on the Iroquois nation in 1779; the Zionist movement might have taught Hamas something when it placed bombs in markets, bus stops and other public places when they were fighting for their state. All this, of course, does not excuse gross aggression, but when it comes to Israel, that is precisely the point Earnest misses. The hope, perhaps, is that Earnest's savior can forgive him for his neglect of the chosen people's victims.
Joel Suarez UT alum
Blinded by the Holy Land II
Daniel Earnest's naive, vapid and blatantly biased revelation concerning his recent trip to Israel ("Revelation in the Holy Land," Jan. 16) compels a response to its ill-informed arguments. Earnest quickly betrays an evangelical conception of Israel as the holiest of lands and the Jews as "truly God's chosen people." After coming across such lines, no intelligent person could expect Earnest's report to be anything close to impartial and, indeed, we have stumbled upon Israel's newest self-proclaimed "quasi-ambassador." It is evident that his transformation into an advocate for Israel occurred long before the trip and was based largely on theology, not experience. I'll hazard that his conception of Islam as a monolithic religion bent on world domination wasn't formed by firsthand experience either.
It isn't difficult for Earnest to understand the mutual hatred shared by Jews and Muslims, he states. He urges us to put ourselves in Israelis' shoes, but the reader waits in vain for Earnest to try on a Palestinian pair. I don't blame him for his failure to venture into the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But I don't think it too much to ask that Earnest pick up a newspaper and acquaint himself with the realities of the occupation: arbitrary and humiliating checkpoints, abuse of Palestinians at the hands of settlers, the unilateral construction of a wall that cuts off neighbor from neighbor and deteriorates health conditions in blockaded Gaza. Israel has suffered, but this is no Manichean struggle.
Continual American support for the Israeli state is a valid proposition. The U.S. should do everything in its power to maintain its ally's security, but Israel can only have real security by making peace with its neighbors. Spurious accounts of the situation such as Earnest's, endowed with the (questionable) authority of having actually set foot on Middle Eastern soil, undermine this reality in the minds of American citizens and policy makers.
Andrew Kreighbaum History sophomore
Blinded by the Holy Land III
Daniel Earnest's column was very disturbing to read ("Revelation in the Holy Land," Jan. 16). His hateful, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab piece was absolutely ludicrous and an insult to intelligent, conscientious, open-minded students. His "revelation" in the Holy Land was made with blinders on if he only talked to Jewish Israelis. If he had talked to some Muslims he would also have found them to be "special, unique and resilient" considering they are living under an oppressive military occupation after being forced from their homes and property by Israel (with the help of the U.K. and U.S.). But according to Earnest, it is the Palestinians who are the aggressors! His article should be entitled, "The truth and facts according to Daniel Earnest." He also stated that all the Arab countries want the complete destruction of Israel and that the goal of Islam is to dominate the world. Who is he to make such statements? Earnest stated that he knows Judaism through Jesus Christ, who he considers his Savior, and that Jerusalem is the center of the world. I believe that billions of good people around the world feel that this city has little or no significance to their lives or spiritual beliefs. Earnest's article does nothing to address all the injustices and inequalities in the world. In fact, his noxious remarks are very damaging and inflammatory at a time when we desperately need to come together and develop a peaceful understanding of each other. We don't need more articles by unprincipled individuals blind with self-righteous indignation.
Anita Quintanilla UT alum
Be skeptical about UFOs
The Stephenville UFO sighting should be evaluated with a healthy dose of skepticism ("Stephenville reports UFO sighting," Jan. 16). The reports are vague and accompanied by no other evidence.
People are notoriously poor observers of the sky. Size is difficult to ascertain because there are no reference objects, and if the size of the target is unknown, it is equally difficult to know how far away it is. If an observer thinks a 20-meter weather balloon is actually five meters, his or her brain would put it much closer than it actually is.
Do UFOs exist? Obviously they do, as there are plenty of things in the sky people cannot readily identify. Many things, from falling rocket boosters to weather balloons to Venus, have been reported and filtered through a popular mythology of visitors from outer space or secret government projects.
UT professor Neal Evans mentions the extreme difficulties of interstellar travel, all but ruling out an extraterrestrial origin. He could also mention the equally extreme unlikelihood of a space-faring civilization existing within range of Earth at this moment in time. Moreover, how likely is it that ETs would spend so much time and energy coming here and merely lurk in the shadows?
Based on the current reports and decades-long history of mis-interpretations and hoaxes, this UFO sighting should be treated as no more than a curiosity by the local media and a non-story by anyone outside Stephenville unless something other than eyewitness accounts and grainy photographs materializes.
David Hardy Government, geography and history senior
Be the first to comment on this article!