To the Editor

 Uncategorized
Oct 172006
 
Authors:

I’m afraid I have to take issue with the logic behind Nick Hemenway’s article, “The Other Side of Referendum I,” which ran on Tuesday. Nick doesn’t hide the fact that he clearly opposes same-sex marriage. To this he says, “We believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, which is more than just legal definitions and rights written on paper.” However, in the very next paragraph, Nick contradicts himself when he voices his opposition to Referendum I, because the referendum would “grant same-sex couples the same benefits, protections and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to spouses.” He continues to say, “The only difference I see between this and marriage is the name.” So Nick initially believes marriage is something that transcends the law, but then says giving same-sex couples the same rights under the law is the exact same thing as marriage. Which is it Nick? You can’t justify your argument by making both these claims.

To those who sincerely believe marriage should be solely a union between a man and a woman, then vote “Yes” on the marriage amendment. There’s nothing I can say that would change your mind on that. However, if you also feel marriage is something that is separate from the law and transcends above it, then you shouldn’t have any qualms with just giving same-sex couples their basic governmental rights as U.S. citizens. Otherwise, it does then appear you have a separate agenda from just protecting the sanctity of marriage, as it seems you also desire to ensure homosexuals become second-class citizens.

Travis Wainwright

senior

biological sciences

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

To the Editor

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Oct 172006
 
Authors:

When reading “The other side of Referendum I” on Tuesday, I was strongly offended.

Hemenway states that “[medical and property] rights . can be delegated to anyone via attorneys, medical directives and wills.” This is not true. Legal directives can be hashed out through a lawyer, but any blood relation can trump this. Plus legal fees of gay couples to equal those of straight marriage can total to thousands of dollars, whereas a Colorado marriage license is only $20.

Even worse is when you consider divorce or death of a partner. Where would the children go? Currently only one partner of a committed gay couple can adopt a child. If that partner dies, the children are automatically taken away from the living parent by the state. Ref I stops this by allowing second-parent adoption in Colorado. Ref I deals quite a bit in protecting the rights of the children of gay couples, which is sorely needed.

Hemenway, you might not hate gay people, but you strongly discriminate against them. Like it or not, my life partner of 2-plus years and I will be getting a domestic partnership as soon as legally possible. I love him with all my heart and would like to raise a family with him someday. God help me, I will do all that it takes to protect our love and our love for our children!

Gabe Case

junior

interior design

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Oct 172006
 
Authors:

On Tuesday, you ran a column by Nick Hemenway discussing the opposite side of Referendum I. I just wanted to point out one thing. When you said things like seeing a loved one in a hospital, arranging funeral costs, inheritance and property rights can all be taken care of with attorneys and medical directives, I was curious to see if you know that hiring an attorney is not cheap? Especially if it is an issue of death, do you really think a loved one can afford those kind of things at that time on top of funeral costs? This could be done beforehand, but why shouldn’t there be a law that takes care of this? It isn’t fair to commit yourself to someone then go hire an attorney to make sure you can visit each other in the hospital, be able to take care of a funeral, etc. the day after. It isn’t marriage. Marriage still has more rights in it. So I urge you to read the other side of it, and consider your own relationships. If your significant other (or think of your mother, if you are not involved with anyone) was in the hospital dying, then died, do you think it is fair for you to have to go purchase an attorney and go through millions of legal documents just to be sure that you can have rights to the person?

Jerick Flores

freshman

open-option

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Oct 172006
 
Authors:

Don’t abuse free speech rights

I believe the “free speech zone” on CSU’s campus allows for spirited discussions of myriad controversial issues. But on the snowy afternoon Tuesday, as a colleague and I walked near this zone, the techniques of the individual preaching biblical issues from atop a rock stopped us in our tracks. “Did he just ask me if I’ve ever had Chlamydia?” she asked me. Dumbfounded, we turned and looked back at him. Seeing that his statement indeed caused us to pause, he shouted, “Yeah, I did ask you that. Have you ever had Chlamydia? It’s pretty nasty.” While I support, believe in, and regularly discuss the importance of free speech and open discussion in classes, I wonder if asking non-participating passersby about their sexual disease history is an effective, let alone tactful, technique in generating conversation.

Chlo/ Leisure

instructor, English Department

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Oct 172006
 
Authors:

As a recent CSU graduate, I am disturbed by the Collegian staff’s October 17 edition of “Our View.” While you all were “rolling your eyes and shaking your fists” (very mature I might add), you urged students to show up at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting (which I commend you for), make a statement and demand their rights to smoke from a hookah if they so choose.

This is NOT the issue before City Council though. They are NOT considering banning the use of tobacco or taking away the rights of people who choose to smoke. The issue deals with protecting the health of our community from exposure to secondhand smoke. Whether it comes from a cigarette or a hookah, it is still considered a Class A carcinogen, which is the reason our local (as well as the recent state law that went into effect July 1) smoke-free ordinance was passed – to protect ALL citizens equally from exposure to it in public places. We wouldn’t say for asbestos (another Class A carcinogen) that schools should be protected from it but not retail shops.

Restaurants, coffee shops, and other social venues have all had to comply with the law. These two hookah smoking lounges have outright ignored it while promoting an addictive and deadly product.

People are free to participate in a legal yet lethal behavior (though I don’t encourage it), but not in public places where smoke-free legislation has deemed the priority to be protecting EVERYONE from exposure to secondhand smoke.

Darlene Huang

CSU alumna

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Oct 172006
 
Authors:

Kids and nude men don’t mix

I am the father of Hadeel Esmat who was pictured yesterday on the front page as a Muslim girl in Ramadan awareness night. The issue is the picture of the three naked guys on the front page next to my kid’s picture. I think this is not appropriate for my kid’s feelings. You cannot believe the comments about such a picture. I could not understand the point of having naked guys on the front page of a newspaper. Is it some sort of freedom? Whatever good cause they did is not acceptable. I am sure this is not intentional and I hope so.

Anyway, thank you for covering our program.

Salah Abdel-ghany

 Posted by at 5:00 pm