Proposition 8 column flawed
While I respect Matt Felty’s attempt to use “common sense” in his Monday column “Proposition 8 misunderstood by most,” the use of logic to promote bigotry does not make bigotry excusable. Furthermore, Felty’s common sense is, at best, critically flawed.
Felty argues homosexuality is not an “immutable characteristic,” and as such cannot be considered a protected class under the 14th Amendment. The reality is that race and ethnicity are social, not scientific, constructs. The fact that the homosexual community considers itself a social minority makes it one, immutable or not. Also, I would argue the freedom to marry is, like religious freedom, “fundamental to a citizen’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”
Felty also argues “marriage is an invention of the church,” and he advocates civil unions rather than marriages for homosexuals as a way to ensure equal rights. Marriage existed long before the Christian church, and has been a social and legal institution in every major society in history. If the concept of marriage is indeed a religious one, the term “marriage” should be banned not only for homosexual unions, but also for all unions in the eyes of the state. I hope that idea sounds as absurd to you as it does to me.
- David Sherman, meteorology senior
Gun photos misleading
Daily photographers have crossed the line in their portrayal of people carrying concealed weapons. The pictures published online are very misleading to some people who might not know the laws regulating concealed carry in the U.S. People are not allowed to carry a weapon slung in their waistband like a common criminal. This kind of portrait blurs the line between what people are legally required to do and what most people think of when they think of people carrying firearms. It seems the photographers were going for more of a shock picture than an actual portrayal of a person carrying a concealed firearm. The fact that they were both published with articles that advocate against concealed carry only show the bias of certain members of the staff, rather than the objectivity needed in this type of argument.
- David Hill, University College freshman
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
tommyscheurich 3 years, 3 months ago
Sherman accurately transcribes the crap that has passed for jurisprudence in our court system, based on the shockingly inadequate constitution that governs us. But in doing so, he points out just faulty it really is.
Immutability, however defined or constructed, is utterly meaningless as a standard for judging crime and protectedness. For example, I think there is strong evidence that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. I pity anyone who gets dealt that hand and I wish there were more social structures in place to try to help them, but I am not in favor of decriminalizing them or protecting them if they do wrong. Other people could easily be construed for immutably violent, greedy, dishonest, mentally ill, etc.
If our jurisprudence of social morality were set up better, we wouldn't need "protected classes." It would simply illegalize anything that is morally wrong (with no apologies to Felty, gay marriage is morally neutral by any objective standard because it does no harm), regulate anything dangerous, and leave the rest up to consenting adults.
Jackie_Hur 3 years, 3 months ago
I appreciate that you printed Sherman's rebuttal, it begins to make up for the lax editing that allowed the logically flawed article yesterday. The absurdity of denying homosexuals status as a protected group while advocating the supremacy of religious rights should be blatantly evident. While I understand that staffers have a right to their opinions, they do not have the right to create false sources fudge information or subject us to bad thinking. The standard for protection that Felty has raised is based upon one of two criteria- possessing an "immutable characteristic" or having an "identificiation and freedom" that is "valued and fundamental to our traditions and character". Thusly, were we to frame homosexuality not as "preference" as Felty puts it (and by the way, thanks Matt for mentioning your preference for the opposite sex, between your homophobic swaggering and dashing picture I'm sure plenty of us ladies are dreaming of you now) but as worship of the same-sexed bodies and a relgious conviction that homosexuality shall lead to salvation, then equal protection would dictate that this right not be interfered with. The Norman First Church of Gay thanks you at the Daily for being the inspiration behind our founding!