4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, November 8, 2004 OPINION +M' + 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 &tothedaily@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 JORDAN SCHRADER Editor in Chief JASON Z. PESICK Editorial Page Editor NOTABLE QUOTABLE ''I guess it's less intrusive than being hand searched." Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. SAM BUTLER 'FE. SA V'!OX 1' i-i, i;6j l { 'itjt i . :("(,* Cour 4 s uc 1 N - Anonymous female airline passenger, commenting on new X-ray scanners at London's Heathrow International Airport that produce naked images of passengers, as reported yesterday by The London Times. #1 The anger of a drowning man DANIEL ADAMS HORSESHDOES AND HANGRENA.DES Democrats haven't taken Tuesday's loss well. I sure haven't. Bitter. Sour- grapes. Sore loser. All apply. This loss was palpably different. I don't feel upset. Upset doesn't even begin to describe it. While I anxiously watched polling data roll in from Ohio, 11 states passed gay marriage bans. Whether or not President Bush won on the issue of same-sex marriage is moot. What is certain is that Bush, Cheney and Republicans nation- wide supported, funded and rallied on the mes- sage that homosexual couples do not deserve legal equality with heterosexual couples. Fiscal and social conservatives, along with a handful of religious Democrats, voted for these men. I do not feel upset. I feel eviscerated. I feel sick. I feel angry. Saturday, New York Times columnist David Brooks attempted to confront this rising anger from the Left. "If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections," he wrote, "just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intoler- ant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: Why is it that people who are com- pletely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?" As a university-town liberal, let me take a stab at that. I am open-minded. I believe that homosex- ual couples have all the rights that heterosex- ual couples do. I also believe that the so-called "Red America" can hate whomever it likes. It just can't write that hate into law. Not surprisingly, most religious conser- vatives don't agree with me. Bush carried majorities in the Protestant, Catholic and born-again demographics. Eleven states, including my own, don't agree with me. These states passed laws banning gay marriage - all by comfortable margins. Bush doesn't agree with me. He supported these initiatives and was rewarded with a sec- ond term in office. America, a nation that I thought had dis- tanced itself from the dark days of state-spon- sored discrimination, doesn't agree with me. And I don't care. Because when it comes to equality, yes, I am close-minded. In America, even freedom comes with restriction. Equality under the law does not. Neither religious belief nor the democratic process can legitimize any effort to unmake it. Because it isn't a give or a bonus; it is a right. It is immutable and unquestionable. It is apolitical and unconditional. It is a right guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. Anyone that voted for Proposal 2 voted to make Ameri- can equality conditional on sexual orientation. If that makes me close minded, so be it. Just yesterday, in an interview on Fox News Sunday, Bush advisor Karl Rove said that Bush would "absolutely" push Congress to consider a Constitutional amendment banning gay mar- riage. He added, "If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman." Anyone that voted for Bush, regardless of motivation, did so in spite of this shameful agenda. But Republicans aren't the only people on the wrong side of history here. Self interested and unprincipled, the Democratic Party sold out its legacy as the progressive party by appealing to the Religious Wrong. Rather than take a principled stand, Kerry and Edwards instead argued that the issue of gay marriage should be left to the states. Congratulations fellas, you got your wish. For the Democrats, the real tragedy wasn't that they lost, and lost badly, but rather that they lost without standing up against the willful and deliberate oppression of a social minority. If the Democratic Party needs to change, it needs to stand up - not move toward the center. Don't rebuild. Reload. Stand up. A gay marriage ban does not belong in this state's constitution. Consideration of such a ban does not belong in the discourse of this nation. I watched television Tuesday night riveted to talk of the war, electoral vote and exit polls. I woke up Wednesday morning ashamed of my nation for the first time. And I will stand up. This election has convinced me quite clearly that even fiscal conservatives, a group whose position I used to understand and tolerate, cannot be expect- ed to do the right thing. To put their social agenda first. They will vote Republican, even if it happens to reinforce a policy of hate. They, along with the Right and a bunch of Democrats in disguise, sold America's homosexuals down the river. News flash to the Religious Wrong: you don't monopolize morality in this country, at least not as long as you insist on fueling your political campaigns with the rights of religious and social minorities. We do - those who believe that with- out equality, no one can be free. And you will lose this fight. History has put America on the path of progression, and you will lose. If it isn't my chil- dren, it will be their children. Or their children's children. But you will lose. You are on the wrong side of history. Brooks calls it "the anger of a drowning man." He's right. Mine isn't a pleasant disagreement with4 those who voted for Proposal 2 and/or George Bush - it is anger. But we, those who wept Wednesday morning for our nation, are not drowning. We are standing. We are right. Adams can be reached at dnadams@umich.edu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 0I Letter writer's vote respectable, his opinion is indefensible TO THE DAILY: Jeff Spencer, people are telling you that you cast a vote for "hate, oppression and incompetence" because you did (It is liber- als, not Bush supporters, who actually need to grow up, 11/05/04). I'd tell you the same thing. While I probably wouldn't call you stupid (and Democrats, that ain't changing anyone's mind), and while I respect your right to vote, I'm not going to respect your vote. President Bush is a president who actively discourages opposing viewpoints, who barrels ahead directly in the face of evidence that his actions are not only erro- neous but actively harmful. He looked at an empty treasury and a war with mounting, staggering costs and thought to himself, "Hmmm. Great time to cut taxes." This is a president who not only refuses to admit mistakes but has made it his schtick. This president supported an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage, but what is equally horrifying is that he knew full well that there was no chance of it passing. He did it to galvanize the hatred and prejudice against gays and dirty liber- als in this country because that's what fed his campaign and, ultimately, his re-elec- tion. Congratulations - you have cast your lot with the bigots and the homophobes. So now we have a devastated budget, under- funded schools, a social policy of fear and hate and a world stage that regards us with resent- ment and distrust, and this country just signed up for more of the same. You're not stupid, but you were duped. Bush pissed on your head, told you it was raining and sold you a broken umbrella. Don't expect me to respect that. Jill Siegelbaum Alum A Libertarian offers his perspective on the election TO THE DAILY: I thought that I should at least attempt to give an outsiders' perspective of the most people never even heard of my candi- date, here is what I noticed about everyone else. First, Kerry never seriously had a chance. Most of his supporters will admit that they did not promote him for any quality that he had, but instead because of a negative - that he is not Bush. While this had the effect of galvanizing the leftist opposition, the middle ground of American voters obvi- ously did not see enough quality in Kerry to win their vote. Second, the Bush versus Kerry fighting got worse and more annoying as time went on. When I first got to campus, the elec- tion was just gaining momentum. Stickers and buttons were being handed out, and campaign volunteers were signing up. As we got closer to election, the fight got more heated. One could not walk anywhere with- out seeing a sticker, a sign taped up, side- walk chalk messages or flyers handed out.. The two sides seemed less intent on winning votes and more on seeing who could put the most junk out there. All of this stuff just ended up making campus look like a waste- paper landfill. I am surprised that leftist environmentalists have not been up in arms about the waste of resources and collection of filth. One side would tear down junk and put up their own. Even up in Bursley (a nice hall full of engineering, art and music majors) people were fighting like children. People would rip down stickers and what- not off of doors and put up the opposition's. This just led to people yelling in the hall- ways and lots of pissed off residents. All of this just makes me believe that the two sides were more interested in pissing each other off than anything else. Third, the post-election turmoil is almost worse. The Republicans can gloat, and the Democrats can do nothing but sling insults. Respectable ideas are hard to find in the mess. Note I said respectable, so this elimi- nates Zack Denfeld's column about blue puddles (Blue puddles, 11/05/04). If the best responses to Bush's victory are costume days, lay-ins, sleepable benches and random anti-capitalist/commerce comments, then no wonder the Republicans are gloating right now. I don't know if anyone cares or if they compete with good ideas instead of insults. Until then, stop the complaining, and see what positives we can draw out of the next four years. Clark Ruper LSA freshman Daily misstates court case concerning marijuana law * TO THE DAILY: Your story, A2 Voters Pass Initiative to Legal- ize Medical Marijuana (11/03/04), misstated the medical marijuana case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Ashcroft v. Raich. That case cannot overturn Ann Arbor's new medi- cal marijuana law, nor the 10 existing state medical marijuana laws. The right of states and cities to protect medical patients from arrest under their local laws has not been contested by the fed- eral government and is not an issue in this case. While the court could give the federal government permission to resume enforc- ing federal marijuana laws against patients, it is important to remember that 99 percent of all marijuana arrests are made by state and local authorities under local laws. Even if the government prevails in Ashcroft v. Raich, overwhelming protection for patients will remain in-place. Bruce Mirken The letter writer is the Director of Communications for the Marijuana Policy Project. LETTERS POLICY The Michigan Daily welcomes letters from all of its readers. Letters from University students, faculty, staff and administrators will be given priority over others. Letters should include the writer's name, college and school year or other University affiliation. The Daily will not print any letter containing statements that cannot be verified. Letters should be kept to approxi- mately 300 words. The Michigan Daily reserves the right to edit for length, clar- it nlo riar nlr" i17nnc a n AN