0 4A - Thursday, October 8, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL HARUN AT BULJINAH@UMICH.EDU c 1 l e mchloan 4:3ally HARUN BULJINA Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu GARY GRACA EDITOR IN CHIEF ROBERT SOAVE EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR COURTNEY RATKOWIAK MANAGING EDITOR 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. Redefining marriage Michigan should follow trend of support for same-sex unions A nother state has begun to question its discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage this week - unfortunately, it's not Michigan. On Oct. 1, a Texas district judge ruled that Texas's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, the first ruling of its kind in the state. This ruling is part of a growing trend among judicial bodies to rule in favor of same-sex marriage and in favor of a basic human right. Moving forward, state legislatures should be more active in the process of revers- ing the blatantly discriminatory bans, and Michigan's must be among them. r~~ .i s Illy i ,f c 1 6I First come, first seated On October 1, Texas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that two men married in Massachusetts could legally dissolve their marriage in Texas because the Constitution dictates "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." In other words, a marriage conducted in one state should be recognized in all others. Judge Callahan further held that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the Constitu- tion. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is attempting to have the case overturned by higher courts in order to defend the "tra- ditional definition of marriage" that was approved by 75 percent of the voters when the constitutional ban was enacted. Such a definition of marriage is mor- ally backward and actively discriminatory toward gay people. Gay relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, and for any law to pretend otherwise amounts to a tragic failing of justice. The fact that this injustice has' been pushed onto most of the country by a hateful, socially conservative minority is fundamentally wrong and requires imme- diate corrective action in state and nation- al courts and legislative bodies. Thankfully, Texas is not the first state to revisit these bans, and instead comes at a time when gay rights are beginning to gain a measure of support from favorable court rulings and occasional legislative decisions. Massachusetts, Iowa, Con- necticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine have all legalized same-sex mar- riage. The District of Columbia City Coun- cil also recently introduced legislation to allow same-sex marriage. With any hope, this emerging climate of tolerance her- alds a shift from the culture that gave us the despicable Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. But while countless states are reconsid- ering their discriminatory laws toward LGBT people, gay marriage remains ille- gal in Michigan thanks to a constitutional amendment in 2009. The longer Michigan waits to join the changing tide in favor of gay marriage, the longer it must stand, dis- graced, in the shadow of its ignorance on this issue. And with any hope, when the change does come, it will be the result of deliberate action on the part of 'alegisla- ture unafraid to tell the voters of Michigan that it supports same-sex marriage and the equality of all people beforethe, law.-, The immoral crusade to ban same-sex marriage has turned gay couples into sec- ond-class citizens. Michigan must join the trend and end its discriminatory marriage laws withqut equivocation. y trip toEast Lansing this weekend gave me a lot to dislike about the green and white. Their campus is point- '4 lessly vast and des- olate. They have a. strange obsession ' with Busch Light, and that drainage' ditch they call the Red Cedar kind of smells. But there is one CHRIS thing right about KOSLOWSKI Spartan football Saturdays. Though Michigan's stu- dent section triumphs over Michigan State's in style, tradition and nowvol- ume, the Spartans' way of seating stu- dents is superior to ours. At Michigan Stadium, this method could eliminate many headaches for fans and end the current haphazard seating delegation system. Even though I'm having a hard time convincing myself that giv- ing up my personal piece of the Big House would be a good idea, I still think Michigan should make its stu- dent section first come, first dibs. While I waited for my season tickets to arrive this summer, I was ecstatic. Finally, as a senior, I wouldn't need supplemental oxygen to stave off hypoxia as I watched maize and blue ants scurry about from my lofty perch above row 80. With "low" hopes, I tore open my envelope and promptly lost much of my faith in humanity. Section 30, row 40, just halfway down the bowl. I don't know why I'm not sitting pretty in row 15 like I had always dreamed. Did I apply too late? Were too many people in my seating group? Too few? Had all those people in rows 1-39 amassed more credits than I did, or was I just unlucky? I'm sure many students are thrilled with their seem: ingly arbitrarily determined seats, but as an obvious loser in that draw- ing, frankly, I'm peeved. In most stadiums, including the remainder of Michigan Stadium, the more you're willing to pay, the bet- ter seats you have. Staggering the seating price in the student section might raise the chance of obtaining desirable seats for those who have the cash, but the price difference between the upper and lower rows would have to be massive to make a reasonable impact on which section students would choose. Also, raising some student section tickets above $25 would prevent many students on a limited budget from attending the games. The simplest solution is also the fairest - make the student section first come, first served. Michigan could open a designated waiting sec- tion on Friday before game day and award the diehards who arrive early their choice of seats. As less crazed students file in hours before kickoff, they simply sit in the best open seat they see. Michigan State does it, and it works. The benefits are plestiful. If I real- ly wanted to sit in the front row dur- ing the Ohio State game, I could, but I better plan on bringing my camping gear. The desire to snag good seats would give me another motivation to wake up earlier and, naturally, party earlier. Any excuse for that is good by me. Best of all, the student section would be forever purged of latecom- ers whining about their occupied seats. I can't stress enough what a joy this would be. It's incredible how so many people are astonished when they stumble into the stadium at the end of the first quarter and find their seats taken. Nothing disrupts the game more than the inevitable arguments, and often belligerency, that follows. With thousands of students cram- ming into bleachers with no seat backs, it's too easy for someone to migrate away from their assigned seat. All it takes is one wanderer and one jackass to start a chain reaction with the potential to ruin the game experience of many. First come, first served would end that. People may worry about the potential of over- Spartan Stadium seating has a one-up on the Big House. crowding in the more popular rows. Well, come talk to me during the Penn State game and I'll show you that it's already a problem ... in row 40! I'm not naive. I know that if I had a better seat this year, I probably wouldn't be complaining. I'd also be a fool if I didn't admit that I enjoy taking my seat - usually without problems - just moments before Blue runs under the MClub banner. But the more I think about it, the more first come, first served seating makes sense to me. The Athletic Department should seriously consider the shift, even if only as an experiment. In the meantime, if everyone in rows 38-42 could arrive at the next game before kickoff, that would be super. - Chris Koslowski can be reached at cskoslow@umich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Ben Caleca, Brian Flaherty, Emma Jeszke, Raghu Kainkaryam, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranga, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith MIKE SAYRE Seeking solutions in Palestine Since his address to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt, President Barack Obama has called on Israel to halt settlement construction in the West Bank, rightfully identifying the expansion of Israel's illegal settlements as one of the primary roadblocks to peace. But under the leadership of right-wing politician Benjamin Netanyahu, Israelhas rebuffed Obama'srequest, claiming a "fundamental right" to expand exist- ing settlements and, in some instances, grant new building permits to Jewish settlers. For years, Israel has blamed Arab intransi- gence for the failure of past peace initiatives and processes. To this day, Israel has yet to compel itself to come to terms with what its existence has meant for the Palestinian people. Since 1947, Arab Palestinians - Christians and Muslims - have been the victims of forced dispossession, dislocation, a brutal military occupation and an overall denial of their basic right to exercise self- determination. The majority of Palestinians are now a scattered people, living mostly in squalid refugee camps throughout the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Syria; Lebanon and Jordan; under an unforgiving Israeli military occupation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; or as second- class citizens of Israel. Yet, there is hope. Following Israel's bombardment of the Gaza Strip last winter, 1,400 Palestinians were killed in under 23 days,with the majority civilians and a significant proportion of children. Orga- nizations and people of conscience have stood up in defense of the human rights of Palestin- ians. The United Nations recently conducted a massive fact-finding mission titled "Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories:Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict." This 575-page report outlines, in meticulous detail, Israel's numerous human rights abuses against the Palestinians, including, but not limited to, Israel's ongoing illegal blockade and siege of the Gaza Strip; attacks on government buildings and police forces last winter; indiscriminate attacks by Israeli armed forces last winter that resulted in the intense loss of life and injury to civilians; Israel's use of phosphorous munitions in contravention of internationally recognized rules of war; and, most disturbingly, Israel's use of Palestinian civilians as human shields when conducting raids. The report also criticized the behavior of Hamas guerillas, specifically when it came to the reckless launching of homemade rockets into southern Israel. Interestingly enough, neither the United Nations nor Amnes- ty International were able to find any evidence that Hamas guerillas, or any other Palestinian militants, used Palestinian civilians as human shields during last winter's conflict. This was something Israel repeatedly claimed last win- ter as Palestinian civilians were dying by the dozens at the hands of the Israeli "Defense" Forces. Although the United States and Israel have tried to discredit the findings of the United Nations report, such claims are unfounded and are not based on any sort of legitimate criti- cismi of the report's actual substance. Accord- ing to Israel and the United States, the report is biased against Israel because it details Israeli war crimes and calls for Israel to hold its lead- ers accountable. We encourage you to read the report for yourself. Additionally on Capitol Hill, two new lobby groups, J Street and the American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights, have formed with the explicit intention of changing Washington's role in the Middle East. Both organizations have recognized that the time has come for the Unit- ed States to function as a truly impartial media- tor between Israel and the Palestinians instead of as a dishonest broker that supports Israel unconditionally. As students at an institution of higher edu- cation, it is no longer appropriate for us to stay silent as Israel continues to prioritize its own security needs over fundamental Palestin- ian rights. Israel is no more secure today than it was 61 years ago when its creation resulted in the displacement of 750,000 Arab Palestin- ians. Israel actually undermines its own secu- rity when it arbitrarily imposes curfews in the West Bank and denies the Gaza Strip of much- needed medical supplies. The question now is what we can do to help contribute to a just and sustainable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - one that protects the basic human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. Tomorrow, Students Allied for Freedom and Equality begins a two-day conference to address these issues. The conference is sched- uled to begin at 4:30 p.m. in 150 Hutchins Hall, and is free for students. Mike Sayre is the media chair of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality. 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 tothedaily@umich.edu B 0 n a recent pleasant fall day, I walked to class through the Diag only to be disrupted by raucous, odious sermons emanating from an insane so- called messenger of Christ. My experi- ence isn't an isolat- ed one. The Diag is regularly abused by religious extrem- ists in order to pro-H mote their beliefs HARSHA in an uncouth and PANDURANGA hateful manner. These religious extremists should be banned from preaching on campus because they are in clear violation of the official discrimination policies put in place by the University to ensure that stu- dents live in a welcoming and hospi- table environment. Undoubtedly, religious freedom is vital to an accepting environment on any college campus. But there is a discernible difference between hate- spewing preachers on the Diag and student organizations such as the Campus Crusade for Christ and Mus- lim Student Association, which pro- mote an inclusive environment while proliferating their message. They have respect and tolerance for others' beliefs. The University is an excellent place to become accustomed to the unfamiliar, and religion is no excep- tion - but many Diag preachers don't contribute anything even remotely conducive to a healthy exchange of information on campus. Certain hate-filled Diag preach- ers are irritating and offensive - but this isn't enough to propose ban- ning them from University property. Free speech is protected to a certain extent on campus, as it should be. Excerpts from the University State- ment on Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression state: "Expres- sion of diverse points of view is of the highest importance... the belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, or in any other way detestable cannot be grounds for its suppression." This portion of the University's policy seems to be tolerant of the preachers' diatribes. But these evan- gelists take their messages a step too far and violate the discrimina- tion and harassment codes. They are an example of lax enforcement of the codes, since their words are clear examples of "bias incidents" on campus. Bias incidents are defined as "non-criminal activities that harm another because of that person's race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, age, religion, height, weight, marital sta- tus and veteran status." Protections against bias and discrimination exist for a good reason - campus without those rules may become an uninvit- ing atmosphere for both current and potential students. The Diag evangelists regularly hurl verbal abuses that are clearly defined as "bias incidents" at passers- by. For example, one can often hear plentiful examples of clear anti-ho- mosexual rhetoric as well as religious intolerance like, "homosexuality is a sin, you're going to Hell," or, "accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior or be subject to eternal damnation!" These types of incidents, which at least qualify as "insulting comments" based on sexual orientation and reli- gion - apart from being simply base- less and offensive - are what should qualify as bias rather than the jok- ing profanity often scrawled on dry- erase boards in the residence halls. This enforcement of the bias rules is inconsistent and asinine. Why preaching on the Diag should be put to rest. Banning the preachers would be aligned with the University's inter- ests of protecting its students from sources of discomfort on campus - especially since the Diag is a loca- tion universally frequented by the student population. Hateful religious sermonizers can preach away on city property, but they have no place at the University. Any action taken to prevent them from speaking could only strengthen religious dialogue on campus. Let's put into effect the rules that were designed to protect us on campus, President Coleman: no more hateful soapbox drama on the Diag. I know I'm not the only one offended. - Harsha Panduranga can be reached at harshap@umich.edu.