4A - Thursday, April 9, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 1 E-MAIL HARUN AT BULJINAH@UMICH.EDU L7be MICdignan +aU1 HARUN BULJINA Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR GARY GRACA EDITOR IN CHIEF Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. A trend toward tolerance All states should push for legalization of same-sex marriage N ovember was a tough month for gay rights in this country. Despite an election that ushered in a Democratic Congress and this country's first black president, states from California to Florida passed ballot initiatives that curtailed gay rights, especially the right to same-sex marriage. But in the past week, in Iowa, Vermont and Washington, D.C., gay rights advocates scored a triple victory in their fight to end discrimination in this coun- try. The rest of the states in this country - including our own state of Michigan - need to recognize the fact that outlawing same-sex marriage is discriminatory, backward and, frankly, wrong. 0A Middle East misiformation 0 0 n.'r The importance of last week for gay rights can't be overstated. In three differ- ent regions of this country, through three different means, the right to same-sex mar- riage - the primary goal of many gay rights activists - was affirmed. On Friday, Iowa's Supreme Court issued a unanimous deci- sion to remove a longstanding law against same-sex marriage. Then, on Tuesday, the Vermont state legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto and passed a bill legal- izing same-sex marriage - the first such legislation in the country. The same day, the Washington, D.C. City Council voted to rec- ognize all same-sex marriages approved in other states. The denial of equal rights for same-sex couples is one of the last vestiges of appar- ent discrimination against a group of peo- ple in this country. While other types of discrimination undoubtedly exist, almost no other discrimination is so shamelessly perpetuated by government and codified in law. Visitation rights for injured partners, tax benefits and family health care are all rights denied to same-sex couples simply because they are gay. Like the Jim Crow laws that denied blacks some of these same rights, laws that deny same-sex couples recognition as equals in our society are bla- tantly discriminatory. Though far from completely eliminating this inequality, last week's developments made quite a dent and are worth celebrating in that regard. But they also highlight how much more needs to be done. Michigan is one such bastion for discrim- ination. In 2004, Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same- sex marriage in this state. Since then, Mich- igan's Attorney General Mike Cox and state Supreme Court have used that amendment as a blank check to discriminate against gay people, incorrectly interpreting the amend- ment to take away state employees' ability to receive benefits for their partners. This fla- grant abuse of power has affected everyone in the state, including employees at the Uni- versity of Michigan, who can still receive benefits for a gay partner only because the University has stretched the law to find a loophole. In states like Michigan, these discrimi- natory laws have to go. Though the courts have typically led the way in this fight (with Vermont being the lone state in which a legislature has had the courage to act), citizens need to be at the forefront of this movement. In fact, they have an obligation to do so. When discrimination exists right beneath one's nose, there's no excuse for allowing it to continue. When history looks back on these laws, they will be understood the same way we now understand the bla- tantly discriminatory Jim Crow laws. That's a place in history neither Iowa, Vermont nor Washington, D.C. want. Neither should Michigan. Or this country. n Mar. 22, a ship from a US naval port in North Carolina docked at Ashdod, Israel and unloaded a cargo of over 300 20-foot containers laden with munitions, E bunker busting bombs, white phos- phorus and other goodies. Never mind that the Bush administra- IBRAHIM tion approved the shipment one week KAKWAN before Israel began its Gaza offensive, or that Israel has used white phos- phorus, an incendiary, in civilian areas. Quite frankly, things like human rights abuses or the unwavering American support for Israel are nothing new or even surprising. What bothers me about this incident is the total lack of media coverage it received. This news did not turn up on CNN, NBC, BBC or any of the other usual sources. Rather, Reuters made a note of the incident, which I found on the second page of a Google search. When the United States claimed to have discovered suspected Ira- nian weapons in Iraq, it was all over the news. The allegations were never proven, and even though the "evi- dence" amounted to little more than a few beaten-up weapons on a table, the story was everywhere. Even local news broadcasts had their dumb, overly made-up anchors circulat- ing news that Iranian weapons had been found in Iraq, complete with the usual mispronunciations. But if a few broken guns can cause a stir and penetrate a large percent- age of the national audience, how is it that 14,000 tons of heavy weaponry can go unnoticed? I am nothinting at any specific bias in favor of any particular country - my issue is with the system as a whole. In the last few months, unmanned U.S. aircrafts have killed Pakistani citizens in over 19 unauthorized vio- lations of Pakistani airspace. This does not make the evening news, but we do hear that an obscure Pakistani group threatened to attack the White House. A few months ago, American heli- copters crossed into Syria, resulting in more civilian deaths. Again, it was not given much attention in American news. And yet somehow we always heard about alleged Syrian support for Iraqi insurgents (which was never proven). My intention is not to criticize the actions, but rather the reporting. How can voters make an informed decision based on such intentionally partial knowledge? A few days ago, someone ran- domly asked me, "So when was the last time the Palestinians messed around with Israel? Is Yasser Arafat dead?" He suggested the Al-Jazeera English website, and he told me he was "afraid to go on those websites." Al-Jazeera is a news station partially owned by the Qatari government, the same government that hosts ele- ments of the U.S. Central Command, responsible for coordinating military operations in the Middle East. There- fore, by association, Al-Jazeera is not very shady. This person that I spoke with is applying to (and has been offered) positions in governmental agencies. The scary part is that this person already had a bias despite a clear lack of background knowledge. It's also the bias that this person will bring when walking into that government office on the first day of work. But where did this bias come from? If our future government workers are afraid to see another perspec- tive, then I can only wonder what thought goes into crafting foreign policy. Remember that in this lovely democracy of ours, you only elect the decision makers. Their advisors, the people who write the reports on which their decisions are based, are hired. And if those whovote feel that they are constantly under attack, who do they elect? I heard a University bus driver comment to a student that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinajad reminded him "of a certain German painter in the '30's" - an obvious Hitler reference. When asked by the student to support his statement, he could not. How biases in American news mislead the public. If the driver had been able to sup- port his statement, even though I disagree, it would have represented an opinion reached based on his own assessment of facts. But'it turned out to be nothing more than overly dra- matic dribble, likely based on a con- clusion already reached for him by some newscaster. A quick Google search of recent news headlines containing the word "Iran" is fraught with negative refer- ences from American media outlets. Only a couple articles from UK-based Reuters and an Arab media company discuss neutral economic issues and do not point fingers at the country. If, after probing just a little bit into both sides of an issue, someone still wants to bomb Iran, support Israel or fly drones into Pakistan, that's fine. But they should at least have the opportunity to formulate that opin- ion on their own, after hearing from both sides. But in a place where 14,000-ton arms shipments do not merit coverage, many are not given that opportunity. - Ibrahim Kakwan can be reached at ijameel@umich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Elise Baun, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh, Brian Flaherty, Emmarie Huetteman, Emma Jeszke, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Shannon Kellman, Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Matthew Shutler, Neil Tambe, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder JULIAN LIZZIO | P iNT Safe and concealed Corn-fed equality Whether the news of the day is a mass shoot- ing or a fugitive's battle with police, this has been a violent two weeks for America. Even in Ann Arbor, there was a DPS crime alert about the assault of a female student by an unknown young male. Of course, we all remember hor- rific incidents of violence at universities, like the Virginia Tech massacre that occurred two years ago next week. This crime was exactly the sort of attack the annual "Take Back the Night" rally intends to prevent. All of these terrible occurrences show two grim truths. First, bad things can happen any- where, at any time, to any one of us. The sec- ond is that we are responsible for our own safety. The young woman who was attacked makes this clear as she struggled and broke free from her assailant. DPS and the Ann Arbor Police Department cannot be everywhere at all times. Improving personal safety requires proac- tive steps like being aware of one's surround- ings and staying in well-lit areas. But despite all the precautions a person might observe, crimes will still be committed. In these situations, forceful self-defense becomes necessary. The trouble with self-defense is that college stu- dents are often denied a highly effective tool of self-defense: a concealed handgun. Suppose the girl who was assaulted wasn't strong or for- tunate enough to break free. If she was walk- ing to or from campus, she was denied the right to use the best tool of self-defense because of state and University laws that make it a crime for licensed gun owners to carry a concealed handgun on campus. University policy also imposes serious academic penalties. To present an even worse situation, suppose there was a mass shooting on campus. Because of misguid- ed laws and policies, those who would other- wise have been prepared to defend themselves would be left unarmed and helpless. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is a student organization working with universities and state legislatures to allow students at pub- lic universities who are licensed in accordance with state law the ability to carry a concealed pistol. The organization has 38,000 members across the country, and the majority of the members are students and faculty. The group has successfully introduced legislation in mul- tiple states and is continuing to grow since its founding after the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007. Allowing the concealed carry of pistols on campus is not about arming every single col- lege student, as many of the group's detractors believe. The fact is, students are already armed. Essentially anyone who is over 21, has no crim- inal background and is mentally healthy can qualify to obtain a Michigan Concealed Pistol License. Many students have CPLs and own firearms, and frequently carry all over Ann Arbor. Statistically, these CPL - holding stu- dents are among the most law-abiding segments of the population. Unlike what many naysayers believed when CPLs were first instituted, small arguments haven't become firefights, nor have police accidentally shot CPL holders when they arrive on scene. In addition, ifa license-holder is forced to draw a pistol in self-defense, they are at least as likely to avoid hitting innocent bystanders as most police forces. The only dif- ference between Ann Arbor and the Univer- sity campus in terms of carrying handguns is an invisible legal line, which neither deters criminals nor turns law-abiding students into irresponsible armed drunks. RCockedemoving this line would make the campus much safer than people imagine it to be at the moment by allowing students to exercise their right to self- defense. Julian Lizzio is an LSA senior. C onnecticut and Massachu- setts, in all their liberal glory, bewildered few when they legalized same-sex marriage. The rest of the country prac- tically expected it of them. California, too, was met with a collective, sarcastic "surprise, surprise"" when they began issuing marriage MATTHEW licenses to gay and lesbian couples in GREEN May 2008. Even Vermont's legisla- tive stride toward marital equality this week was a longtime coming. But at a time when states like Michigan and Pennsylvania maintain bans on gay marriage - and even California's marriage policy is in legal flux - few expected that the American gay com- munity would have friends in Iowa. Last Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a District Court ruling that same-sex couples should have no legal barriers to marriage. Even more surprisingly, all seven state Supreme Court justices voted unanimously to uphold the ruling. In similar court cases in Connecticut and Massa- chusetts, the justices were split 4-3. Thus, on Apr. 3, in a historically overwhelming legal decision, Iowa became the only Midwestern state to repeal constitutional or statutory bans on gay marriage. Politically speaking, that fact shouldn't actually be so surprising. Democrats outnumber Republicans in both the state government and in Iowa's delegation in Washington. And during the season of presiden- tial primaries, it was Iowa's sheer progressivism that led to President Barack Obama's caucus victory and the momentum that carried him through to the general election. Admittedly, it seems alittle odd that a gay couple is more legally entitled in Des Moines than in, say, San Fran- cisco, but Iowa's ruling is a great leap in the right direction. Apart from the three states that allow gay marriage outright, only 12 states recognize or permit same-sex civil unions - and in the other 35, homosexuals who want to marry their life-partners are treated as second-class citizens. California moved in a reverse direction last November when it passed Proposition 8, stripping LGBT Californians of their right to marry. The legality of that debate is current- ly being argued before the California Supreme Court, but the fact that the initiative even passed is a testament to the hatemongering of religious zealots and a handful of ignorant oth- ers. According to CNN, 75 percent of Americans believe LGBT individuals should be entitled to equal rights for housing, employment and protection of the law. But despite this overall tolerance, 55 percent still oppose gay marriage. Some of that majority says marriage is defined between a man and a woman - a definition steeped in antiquated Christian thought. Sure, the United States is a nation founded on many Christian princi- ples, but what has set America apart is its commitment toward separating the Bible from the Constitution. Moreover, what has really killed the traditional definition of marriage is the enormous divorce rate of Amer- ican couples - which is somewhere between 30 and 50 percent. Even if all committed same-sex couples got married, at 4 percent of the popula- tion, gays don't pose as big a threat to marriage as divorce. Other opponents say the point of marriage is to raise children, sug- gesting that same-sex households are unfit for child rearing. But the proper reaction should be: "Gee, thank you, gays and lesbians, for adopting the children we don't want, loving them and taking the burden off the govern- ment." To be sure, growing up with two moms or dads may not be normal for children who developmentally crave to be like everyone else, but it's a lot better than growing up with- out anyone. In order for children to grow into normal, emotionally strong adults, they don't need the conven- tional father and mother. All they Why gay marriage0 in Iowa is an essential step. need is to be raised by parents who shower them with love. More than other parents, gay and lesbian parents can understand that because in order for them to come out of the closet, they needed tobe surrounded by love, too. Here and across the board, oppo- nents to gay marriage seem to ignore that they are merely fighting love. Iowa's recent stand should be a sig- nal to the California Supreme Court that change is imminent and vital, illuminating that the only apparent "abomination" was the language and premise of Proposition 8. And most importantly, the ruling should act as a sort of refresh button for the national perspective on gay rights. Just as Iowa gave Obamathe needed momentumto win the Democratic nomination, the state's support of gay rights will hope- fully stimulate a new tolerance that finally grants much-overdue equal rights. - Matthew Green can be reached at greenmat@umich.edu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be less than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Letters are edited for style, length, clarity and accuracy. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tofhedoily@umich.edu.