“Misguided” attempts to redefine marriage
Marriage between a man and woman is a sacred union created by God. Indeed, this sacred union pre-dates the Massachusetts Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and all other forms of government. It is and always has been the fundamental organizing principle of society, the pillar of social stability, the driving force behind human progress and the cornerstone of human happiness.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is morally wrong and socially destructive. The decrees of activist judges, the writings of shortsighted ideologues and the programming of the liberal media may hold out homosexuality as a legally and socially acceptable alternative to traditional marriage, but homosexual relationships will forever remain immoral and debasing to all of humanity.
The shortsightedness of those that attempt to redefine the institution of marriage in the name of individual liberty is astonishing. Turning a blind eye to millennia of human experience, those who call themselves progressives have truly lost sight of what progress is all about. It is especially ironic that idealists seeking a better world would undermine the one institution that is so crucial for the establishment of the good society.
Although they may try, neither activist judges nor mankind as a whole have power to alter or redefine the sacred institution of marriage. Whatever name or legal status that is placed upon homosexual relationships, these relationships will always be morally wrong and will never be marriage. Like a kindergarten class that has proudly determined by majority vote that a male kitten is actually a female, those who advocate for the redefinition of marriage are supremely misguided.
Brock Taylor, 2L
Button button, who pressed the button?
Automatic door-opening buttons were a great innovation for people with mobility impairments. Like many technologies, though, they can be overused. Some members of the HLS community are in the habit of pressing the button every time they enter Harkness Commons, regardless of their physical ability to open the door. Casual use of the automatic opener not only wastes electricity, but also allows cold air to rush into the building for several seconds, and in turn worsens the already frigid climate on the first floor of the Hark. Opening the heavy Hark doors is awkward, but unnecessarily using the Hark button is wasteful and inconsiderate. In the spirit of making lemonade out of lemons , let’s try to make the Hark (and HLS) a somewhat warmer place to be.
Amanda C. Goad and Satyanand Satyanarayana, 2Ls
Defending Bill O’Reilly
I read Garry Grundy’s December 4 editorial defending Michael Jackson with no small degree of bemusement and dismay. Due to the constraints of time and space I would like to reply to one of Mr. Grundy’s many nonsensical assertions.
Grundy writes, “Nevertheless, these assumptions (i.e., that Jackson is black and gay) typify the common-place conservative rush to judgment. ‘This man is the devil – I know it!’ proclaims commentator Bill O’Reilly. You’d think he was talking about Saddam or bin Laden. How can he confess to know anything?”
I challenge Mr. Grundy to come up with the specific day and place that O’Reilly made this alleged statement. I disagree with many things that O’Reilly says, but on the Jackson issue he has been remarkably insightful and circumspect. He has maintained that sleeping in the same bed with unrelated young boys (to which Jackson admits proudly and freely) is wrong. However, he has routinely attacked those who rush to pre-judge either Jackson’s innocence or guilt with regard to the specific allegations on his television program.
Mr. Grundy is letting his hatred of Fox News and conservatives in general cloud his judgment and obscure obligation to journalistic standards. The mere fact that he writes an editorial, and not a news article, does not give him the right to put false statements in other peoples’ mouths, no matter how much he might dislike their politics.
Brian Gottesman, Esq., ’03