The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

106° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mailbag

    Proposition 102 seeks to protect people from ‘radical judges’

    This letter is in response to the Wildcat’s proposition voting guide which labeled Proposition 102 as the worst one on the ballot (“”Our guide to the 2008 ballot propositions,”” Oct. 29, 2008). Proposition 102 isn’t about homophobia, bigotry or hate. It’s about protecting marriage and religion from radical judges.

    More than 40 states in the union have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Over half of those are in the form of constitutional amendments. These have been passed by majority vote, as they should be in our country. However, in nine states, clever lawyers have appealed to judges to try and overturn the will of the people. Only in Massachusetts, California and most recently Connecticut, radical judges have decided what marriage should be, ignoring the majority, each time in a 4-3 vote.

    Proposition 102 protects this from happening in Arizona, and here’s why this is important. Should same-sex marriage be made law, any institution that does not support gay marriage can be sued for discrimination. This includes religions that have doctrines and beliefs stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. They could be taken to court and forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies and to even change their doctrines to be “”anti-discriminatory.”” Think this sounds outrageous? Catholic adoption services no longer operate in Massachusetts because they would not place children in same-sex marriages, thus they cannot operate at all.

    The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. “”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”” Government and radical judges have no right to interfere with the fundamental beliefs of religions. Proposition 102 says nothing about denying same-sex couples rights. They can still get medical coverage, tax breaks, hospital visits or any other right married couples can get. No bigotry, no hate, no detestation as the article in the Wildcat infers. Proposition 102 is simply about protecting what Arizona calls marriage. Please consider the First Amendment rights of others, and vote yes on 102.

    Matthias Whitney
    optical sciences and engineering senior

    Obama fans don’t care for redistributing wealth in the real world

    Sen. Barack Obama speaks a lot about the redistribution of wealth, so I thought I’d test a theory. I decided to find Obama supporters here in Tucson to redistribute their wealth for them to see if they would then support Obama’s position of wealth redistribution. Among the unwitting participants in my study were one waiter, two waitresses, one Super Cuts hairstylist and one car washer.

    To determine their presidential candidate of choice, I either made observation of their apparel (T-shirts and buttons) or would flat out ask them their preference. If they responded with Obama, I decided to go forward with the test. I allowed them to finish their work to the best of their ability and then paid for said work. Then, instead of tipping them, I told them that I was going to help soon-to-be President Obama with his wealth redistribution. I told them what their tip was going to be, but then I also told them that they were not going to get it. Instead, I was going to give it to the next homeless person I found on the streets.

    I am happy to now report my findings: 5 out of 5 Obama supporters think redistribution of wealth sucks when it is the money they’ve worked hard for that is being redistributed. I realize my sample size was small, so I encourage you to reproduce my findings independently.

    Josh Gordon
    computer science senior

    Columnist should pick from broader variety of sources

    Matt Wavrin, I have no problem with people voicing their opinions on a subject (“”Socialism accusations unfounded,”” Oct. 30, 2008), but what I do take issue with are the sources you used in coming to your conclusion that anyone who bashes Sen. Barack Obama for steering toward socialism is an uninformed whack job. After browsing through your sources you mentioned The New Yorker, the Seattle Post Intelligencer and the “”Colbert Report.”” All I could do was laugh. If you are going to pick the most left-wing of left-wing sources, wouldn’t it only be fair to pick a couple of right-wing sources to balance it out? Do you really consider to have a scholarly discussion about this subject when one of your sources is a half-hour comedic news show on Comedy Central? Have you considered going on more balanced Web sites like factcheck.org to read for yourself on Obama’s tax plan? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the New Yorker’s take on issues, nor the Seattle Post Intelligencer, which is a liberal newspaper printed in one of the most liberal cities in America, a microcosm of San Francisco as it likes to be compared to. I went to school just outside Seattle so I’ve read that paper plenty of times to know its character.

    I am a moderate independent and no, I do not believe Obama is a radical socialist, but I believe that taxing the rich more is exhibiting socialistic tendencies. No, I do not believe rich people should be given the Bush tax cuts, but they should not be taxed up the ass either. Why should rich people who donate more money to nonprofit organizations and charities and many of whom worked hard and played by the rules to get where they’re at be penalized? Who says government knows what’s best for us? Obama’s wet dream is to win over the hearts of poor people and take that tax money from the rich and pay for more welfare checks of a large percentage of people who sit on their asses and feel no need to work or contribute to society as long as they are getting money from the government every year. What incentive is that at all to make Americans work? When instead we could encourage rich people to donate to good causes and help people through these charities get back on their feet and out into the world and making a contribution to society. They would know their money is going to a good cause rather than scratching their heads in anger as a much higher percentage of their income is essentially stolen from them and dispersed to who knows where?

    The government does not know what is best for individuals of our society, and it would “”behoove”” you, Wavrin, to choose sources on both sides of the spectrum and in between to give your argument any substance. It would also help if you didn’t make such outrageous accusations that the only people who are worried about Obama’s socialistic tendencies are uninformed right-wing conservative party loyalist basket cases.

    Christopher Boyd
    psychology sophomore

    DPS officials could use ‘lesson in manners’

    My family and I recently had a run in with Department of Public Safety officers working a UA game. The ticket entrance got ugly at the USC game due to the student section filling up. The gate for the family section was shut down and tensions began to escalate. The UA did not do a good job at crowd management, but the response of DPS officers working the game as a side job was part of the problem. They rushed into the crowd with abandon and made matters worse, they manhandled a student, much to the chagrin of many onlookers, and in the process, one officer struck my 11-year-old son in the jaw.

    When I called the department complaining about the officer, I was told that he didn’t remember striking my son. Sgt. Paul Castellano informed me that there was no apology necessary because (the officer) didn’t remember doing it. He then used the analogy that if you cut somebody off in your car and don’t realize you did it, then you don’t owe them an apology. Sounds to me like Sgt. Castellano and the Department of Public Safety need a lesson in manners and accepting responsibility for their actions. Just because (the officer) wasn’t aware that he hurt an 11-year-old boy, doesn’t make it hurt any less. In fact, it is scary that he was that ignorant of his surroundings.

    David Smith
    Tucson resident

    Wildcat shouldn’t try to sway political views

    Thank you for your guide telling us how to vote for the 2008 General Election! When are you guys going to institute that name change to the Arizona Daily Democrat?

    Whatever happened to media neutrality? Why don’t you report on news instead of telling people how to vote?

    Eric Sahr
    undeclared freshman

    More to Discover
    Activate Search