Prop 102 strengthens discrimination

In the Proposition 102 debate, John Winchester takes the cake of bigotry, covers it with icing of illogical reasoning and blows out the candles of common sense all in support of an intangible American system that doesn’t exist. “”Every law is discriminatory”” is arguing for two wrongs making a right. Perhaps the equal employment and housing acts are disguised efforts to take the jobs and homes of white, Christian Americans and hand them to the fist unqualified “”non-traditional”” Americans and families. Even if his claim were right, the next step of his reasoning remains that the current existence of discrimination in America justifies the future existence of discrimination in America. If anyone needs help understanding why this is a socially destructive mindset, then you just plain need help. The “”simple and straightforward”” moral issue that many people believe non-heterosexuality to be immoral is a perfectly good reason to force discriminative legislation. Let’s look back in history to find another prime example of such brilliant mass hysteria-fueled persecutions: Galileo. We all know that “”many people”” demonized him for his promotion of the heliocentric theory. We should all rest comfortably knowing that this massive persecution not only proved him wrong, but also made the geocentric theory come true (sarcastic much?).

Winchester was shooting for the incompetent stars by saying that the separation of church and state does not apply to local, legislative issues. Winchester forgets that the Bill of Rights supercedes all forms of law throughout our country, but he must’ve been absent those days in third grade through senior year of high school. The lack of such basic, fundamental understanding of our government must be attributed somewhere, and I place the blame on his own ignorance. He also claims that our freedom to discuss this issue is under attack. Someone needs to hand him a copy of the Bill of Rights so he can see that freedom of speech and separation of church and state are both elements of the First Amendment, which will be in significant danger if Proposition 102 passes.

Daniel Sotelo
political science junior

Prop 102 ‘redundant,’ limits freedom

I read John Winchester’s response to Julianna Bradley’s comments on Proposition 102 and I feel some clarification is in order. As an Arizona local, I am tired of this issue. Clearly you are unaware that marriage in Arizona is already defined as between one man and one woman. Proposition 102 is redundant to the point of alarming. It is an attempt to prevent the possibility that thinking Arizonans will one day come to their senses and realize that the benefits of same sex marriage can actually help both the economy and family values (that is, the value that feeding your children is good no matter who you have sex with).

You were almost on to something when you said “”every law is moral.”” Laws are moral, theoretically, because they address good and bad consequences for people and society. This is an issue of freedoms, Winchester. Marriage laws should be decided by the individual states but not at the expense of the sacred boundary of church and state. Marriage, in American common law, is a contract of supposedly mutually benefiting parties. Nothing more. Religion adds to the experience, for those who want that extra element. That element, though, should not be forced on everyone, as those supporting 102 are trying to do.

The super religious minorities of the state, the health care companies who want legal loopholes around satisfying claims and certain politicians who are only interested in pandering to extremists should not be able to limit the freedoms of the citizens of Arizona. Only the voters get to determine that and when it comes to 102 they already have. In the end, Winchester, I’m having trouble finding empirical evidence that same sex marriage will harm us as a society. All I hear is an echo of the sentiments of some old-fashioned, though still very respectable philosophies. I don’t want to lose the right to change the law someday, and neither should you. Unnecessary laws that limit our freedoms, as history has taught us time and again, will inevitably harm us.

Brian Mori
journalism senior