Posted: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:00 am
It seems that four initiative petitions are being proposed to prevent the State of Oregon from recognizing gay marriages preformed in other states. Before we go too far down this road, a brief review of the facts might be in order:
Churches, even though they receive preferential tax treatment, are private organizations. Therefore they can dictate the conditions for membership and enforce them but only among their members.
The second fact is, the state is the final authority on who can be married and issues licenses to regulate this activity. So what ever the churches do, they cannot by themselves marry anyone. You are only married when the state issues you a license and says you are, no matter how many church weddings you have participated in.
Conjugal bliss is not the only benefit that comes with legal matrimony; you can now file a joint tax return, which means that your taxes will now be lower than if the two of you filed separately. Here is where the problem comes; we are a constitutional government, which means that all persons are equal before the law. The state, by permitting some people to marry and reduce their taxes, has created an inequality. By any standard, this has to be unconstitutional. The obvious solution is to permit everyone to file a joint return and let the churches marry their members. If churches are allowed to force their beliefs on the general public, we will no longer have a democracy, but a theocracy.
George Novak
Corvallis
A constitutional right to be biased?
Can someone please write in and tell us all how giving gays the right to marry degrades the value of heterosexual marriage?
If our political institutions are going to test a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, we should have a discussion. The liberals' argument seems fairly simple: Marriage in the U.S. is treated legally as a civil agreement, even for weddings performed in a church; therefore the benefits and curses of state-sanctioned marriage should be available to everyone regardless of race, sexual preference, age, economic status, education, child-bearing potential, disability, etc.
The conservatives' argument is that … gay marriage is wrong? I don't mind what restrictions your religion places on marriage in its own church. But what is being proposed is a religious stamp on civil relationships that can have no bearing on the sanctity of your own church union.
Let's hear all the good reasons why constitutionally approved discrimination is a good idea.
Laurence Padman
Corvallis
'The Passion' too horrific for kids
Stories of tortured martyrs that I heard as a child messed with my mind! Human burnings, eyes blinded by hot pokers, and other horrors were detailed by "well-meaning" preachers and teachers.
Flash ahead 40 years. The tortures of Jesus have come to the big screen. "The Passion of the Christ" is one of the most talked-about film in years. Even the Pope has endorsed it. As individuals flock to theaters to see this film, some people hope to be inspired by the graphic depiction of Jesus' last 12 hours. They wish, perhaps, such inspiration will lead them to a more pious life. Perhaps it will, but "The Passion" isn't a film for everyone.
Most adults have reached a maturity that enables them to realize when a violent film might negatively affect their own psyche. They can avoid such films. Children however, don't have that opportunity. Kids go where parents take them. I'm frightfully concerned for the children and teens of well-meaning parents who think it beneficial for their son or daughter to see "with their own eyes" just how much Jesus endured for them. How horrifying, through the eyes of those so young!
I'm happy to say that my own psychological trauma was overcome by the time I reached adulthood. But it remains a painful memory, and to this day I shutter at the thought of torture.
I beg you to be careful! Please, don't encourage children or sensitive teens to see "The Passion of the Christ."
Reenie Sumner
Corvallis
Vietnam-era book a Kerry expose
The Corvallis Public Library has an interesting book, "The New Soldier," written by John Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. This was written in 1971, after John Kerry and an estimated 2,300 RVN veterans were in Washington to protest the war.
The book is filled with pictures and statements by veterans and the appendix has an assortment of figures showing ages, education, marital status, veterans' family occupation, and entry into the military (65 percent enlisted) and among other categories, political identity before service (40 percent stated liberal or radical leanings).
In 1971, the veterans' political identity was stated to be a quarter liberal, and two-thirds radical or extremely radical. These appendix figures were based on 172 forms returned out of 200 distributed. A question not asked of the veterans was the use of drugs before, during and after Vietnam service. I would think that this question might have been appropriate. The photos in the book seem to suggest a fairly high percentage use of some substance.
For those interested in John Kerry, he is pictured in several places in the book, including giving a presentation to a committee in Congress. I assume he chose the position of protest as his means of entry into national politics. It is common knowledge that his symbolic throwing of personal medals across the fence was in fact done with someone else's medals. He has his medals on display in his Senate building office.
In Kerry's presentation, he includes the false statement, "Mexican-Americans and blacks were drafted in numbers disproportionate to their representation the this country and then made up casualties in even greater disproportion." Figures I have show Afro-American participation at 12.6 percent (13.1 percent of the U.S. population) and casualties at 12.2 percent. One has to evaluate the rest of the Kerry presentation.
J.H.Coffin
Corvallis
Teachers do far more than teach
Dan Ziegler's letter Feb. 20 criticism of teachers' benefits perfectly highlights exaggerations and mistruths about public education.
The public pays taxes for skilled educators to instill mathematical, English, civic and scientific fluency in our youngest citizens. Instead, public educators have become "gate keepers" of society. We dispense medication and offer daycare for the children of children. We attend sessions on how to deal with depression, drug abuse and domestic violence. We also feed children. In my science class, I have had children who have sexually abused children, students that have committed violent crime - even second-degree attempted murder! Teachers are grossly underpaid, yet are one of the last "glues" of society.
His piece states that teachers make $31.20 an hour? Pure fantasy. Last week when I spent 14 hours outside the classroom grading and collecting marine samples for my class, I received no compensation, other than I care for kids. Elementary teachers invest tremendous amounts of time outside of school preparing lessons, grading papers and shopping for everything from colored pencils to videos. Where does this calculate into salary?
Spare me the rhetoric about excessive spending. Our society literally spend billions on entertainment a year and fast food meals while schools cut programs and hand out textbooks over 20 years old. I teach two science classes without any text, and we are limited to making 200 copies a month!
Those who whined about Ballot Measure 30 don't face the challenge of educating and "absentia parenting" of an increasingly fragmented culture.
John F. Borowski
Philomath