Our View: Celebrate Gay Pride Week and Stop Second-Class Citizenship
by Editorial Staff
Oct 29, 2009 | 2936 views | 10 10 comments | 29 29 recommendations | email to a friend | print
We’d like to begin by congratulating the Auburn Gay-Straight Alliance on a successful first-ever Pride Week here on The Plains.

We hope this is the start of a long standing tradition to help highlight the issues and problems facing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities and will help to bring more knowledge and good will to this campus.

We wish we could write a glowing editorial about the positive things going on in this nation for the LGBT community, but we do not live in a time where such good things exist.

Instead, we live in a time where the LGBT community stands as a group set apart, a group not endowed with the same rights and benefits of citizenship that should be given to every American.

Nineteen states have banned gay people from being married.

Only four states currently allow gay marriages to be performed, as New Hampshire’s law allowing gay marriage does not come into effect until 2010.

Several have written laws to keep gay parents from being able to adopt children.

Insurance privileges and other financial incentives given to other Americans aren’t always extended to gay couples.

Gay men aren’t allowed to donate blood.

Members of the LGBT community can serve their country in the Armed Forces, but only if they stay quiet about who they are and what their orientation is. If word gets out, even the best soldiers are immediately released from duty.

What is wrong with this picture?

In this country, aren’t we supposed to be a nation of equals under the law?

Aren’t we all supposedly endowed with rights and freedoms that cannot be taken away?

The gay community has become a community of second-class citizens, and is being treated by our government as a group that is somehow less than or inferior to other groups.

Perhaps we favor a broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but when it says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” we take that statement at face value.

By reading it in such a fashion we assume it means that no state should have the ability to deny any privileges of U.S. citizenship to its citizens.

The last time we checked, being gay didn’t disqualify you from being an American, so we have difficulty understanding how things like marriage bans and “Don’t ask, don’t tell” are allowed to happen.

Due to the passage of Proposition 8 in California, there now exists a real example of truly unequal rights.

Gay couples who married before Prop. 8 took effect still have valid marriages, recognized with full legal rights.

Those citizens who chose not to marry during that time are simply out of luck, unable to have their love and commitment recognized by the state.

At it’s core, Prop. 8 was a vote by a small majority of voters that took away legal rights of a group of citizens.

How is this possibly legal?

Haven’t we seen this before? They may have been called Jim Crow laws, but the sentiment feels largely the same.

Honestly, we think the state may just need to get out of the marriage business.

If the government can’t figure out to treat everyone with the same rights and privileges, it goes against the ideals of equality we try to preach around the world.

Let’s end the hypocrisy.

Of course, the gay rights issues are not really legal issues. If the argument is fought on legal grounds, the positions against gay rights become hard to defend.

That’s where the moral argument comes in.

By arguing religious beliefs and tenets as absolute legal facts, by tossing out words like “decaying family values,” “sanctity of marriage” and “Sodom and Gomorrah,” hate becomes legislation.

With the divorce rate being what it is, isn’t the “sanctity of marriage” a contradiction in terms?

Do we really want our government acting as a force for morality?

Aren’t they usually the poster children for immoral behavior?

Moral debates and moral issues belong in our churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship, not in the halls of our statehouses.

Our government offices have enough to do without trying to legislate personal morals.

There needs to be vigorous debate in this country on these issues.

We need to examine ourselves and our positions to see what we think, how we feel and why we think that way.

All we know is that laws and policies that put some of our friends and loved ones at a lower level than us can’t be full right.

If a couple wants to adopt a child and raise them in home filled with love and warmth, what does it matter if they are gay or straight?

If people wants to serve his or her country in the armed services to fight for the freedoms we all enjoy, why does who he or she sleep with matter?

If two people love each other and want to commit the rest of their lives to one another, does their sex really matter?

It doesn’t.

And it shouldn’t any more.

Comments
(10)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
IMHOindeed
|
December 11, 2009
I think the Gay community should recognize everyone else doesn't like to be forced to do something. As one poster put it, "rammed down our throats". People don't like being labeled bigoted, racist, etc for something that they don't believe in. That, is unAmerican...duh!
BrainUser
|
December 03, 2009
I find it funny how you say that we should end the hypocrisy right before you become hypocritical. And you obviously hit a brick wall on your attempted travel down teh road to common sense. Try serving your country and then you may understad why "don't ask, don't tell" is in place. On second thought, you don't even have to serve, I know you won't anyway by the content of your article, you just have to think. The military is already an extremely complex machine with an abundance of moving parts. They have enough to worry about. There is no need to add to it. The reason it's there is so it doesn't effect the morale of any of their fellow soldiers. You don't want a whole company or squad worrying about if the LT or SGT is hitting on you. You want them focused on the objective. You absolutely cannot risk somebody prancing around distracting soldiers from the mission. This is why it's okay if it is kept under wraps. The military shouldn't have to worry about counteracting the actions of a gay CO. Also, you sound like the announcers from The Waterboy talking about Prop 8 narrowly passing by a majority vote. Get used to it, the majority of Americans don't need more PC red tape to accomadate another special interest group. Nobody cares if you're gay, at least those of us not in the Klan, people are just sick of gays ramming their cause down their proverbial throats. Don't get any ideas either, there was no pun intended there. Those are the main points that you need straightened out for you, at some point it just doesn't matter though because you'll never see why the majority thinks in this manner and why your small contingent thinks the way they do. You are definitely in the minority here and there is a reason for it.
wozzeck
|
February 02, 2012
"BrainUser" The policy was ridiculous. It was based entirely on the pathology heterosexual male paranoia and the idea of the homosexual as being exclusively bent on assaulting straight guys. As far as I can see lesbian action seems to be okay with military guys. I was in the Marines in infantry and was in Iraq and I'm gay. If you think someone looking at your a$$ in the shower is a national security issue, then you and the "majority" need serious help. I think if IED's got as much attention as the BIG SCARY GAY SOLDIER, the death toll would drop by the thousands. What this policy simply said was that gays were not fit to serve SIMPLY because they were gay, but then it said not to tell. So essentially it was saying that they are serving, but the "problem" is that the heterosexual males are feeling uncomfortable. I think if you or anyone else was concerned about morale you would have been saying something when it was discovered that soldiers were not receiving proper armour or the fact that contractors get paid ten times as much as any soldier. The military is not complex at all, some blowhard has higher rank than you and you do what you are told. We send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to two countries in the most volatile region in the world to kill and nation build and win the "hearts and minds" while they are carrying missile launchers and you think that the repeal of DADT was a social experiment?

You are straight I presume, and a male? So that means you are the most privileged protected and entitled human being in this country. Your Mommy and the other women in your family fight over you and protect you, they reproduce you and then do all of the social labour to help you to grow. The father of course is just present to make sure you don't become a fag. After you leave home the babysitting extends to your girlfriend and eventually wife. All you have to do to receive all the benefits and equal protection is be born, be male and knock-up someone. Gays are discriminated within their families, are discriminated in housing, employment, in marriage (which is an economic institution) and also are not protected like every other class from hate crimes. While I see every disgusting straight couple practically procreating in public, I would have to shoot 90 percent of the male population here if I even held my boyfriends hand. Not enforcing equal protection of the law to protect American fragile manhood issues seems like a special right to me. You lose this one big time.
AuburnAmy
|
November 11, 2009
What diseases can gay men have that straight men cannot? While statistics do show a higher occurence of HIV in homosexual men, anyone can have it and all donated blood is tested for this beforehand.

Denying gay men the ability to donate blood seems like a knee-jerk reaction from the initial outbreak of HIV
WTF?!
|
November 11, 2009
Sexually active gay men shouldn't be allowed too donate blood?!

Are you kidding me?!

The Red Cross and America's Blood Centers have consistently criticized the FDA for this policy.

All of these organizations test all donated blood from every donor as it is now anyway, so why not allow sexually active gay men to donate? Not all of us gays are out having unprotected sex in truck stop bathrooms. It just makes me sick to my stomach the way gay people are consistently denied rights most people don't think about. And this policy of the FDA just furthers the portrayal of us as disease ridden and dirty.
02 Alum
|
November 11, 2009
I'm with y'all on 99% of this article, but sexually active gay men should not be allowed to donate blood. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but the demonstrable, known health risks are simply too high to risk contaminating the available blood supply. Otherwise, good job folks.
wozzeck
|
February 02, 2012
But if they have higher rates, that implies that heterosexuals have lower rates........but wouldn't the BIG deal be that someone's blood is infected in the first place. I mean drug addicts give blood too. Unless they are screening part of the blood donation....which would be absurd, there is no reason to ban donation based on something that the screeners cannot even determine anyway.
hyhybt
|
November 02, 2009
"Nineteen states have banned gay people from being married."

Only 19? That's quite a bit lower than I've heard everywhere else. Which only makes your point stronger, of course.
AuburnAmy
|
October 29, 2009
I understand that many people's objection to gay marriage is rooted in religion, but I can't understand how we can allow that to affect the law. Constitutionally, there is nothing that can justify the ban of gay marriage, so why are we still making laws based on religious beliefs?
Thomas AU 1988
|
October 29, 2009
As a gay Auburn alumni, I am pleased to see the issue of equality for gay Americans reach the loveliest village. Slowly this country is waking up to the reality that all Americans deserve equal rights and respect. To put the rights of a minority up for a vote of the majority is unConstitutional (and will be shown as such). More importantly, it's unAmerican.