s-Afrsr-{BURN

{C 7S'.l‘OZ\-If
,ABINETRY}

{AUTOUAD
ms. 9 IGN}

Terry Light

Sales & Leasing Consultant
Please call 802-660-8099 x-107 A

(1-800-833-5945) Cell 802-309-0554

or E-mail terry@burlingtoncars.com

for information or appointment

333 Shelburne Road,

Burlington, Vermont 05401

Bu lington Subaru

 

From outdoor picnics
to special dinner parties...

 

~ City Market
has all the
ingredients!

City

Omuu River Cu-op

    

Your Community—Owned Grocery Store 3
Open 7 am - 11 pm every day - 802-863-3659

82 South Winooski Avenue, Burlington‘
EBT cards, CATcards, Knight Cards 8: manufacturers’ coupons welcome!

out in te mountains

 

Views:

Don't Amend the
Constitution

ince President Bush was

elected to the White House

he has made many changes,
some substantial, some not. Soon,
however, President Bush will be pro-
posing quite possibly the most ludi-
crous edict ever brought before the
country. The president is proposing
an amendment to the sacred docu-
mentthat is the Constitution that
will prohibit same-sex marriage.

The proposed amendment
would soil the ‘sanctity that is the
constitution. The 200-year-old docu-
ment has been amended many a time
over the years and in doing so it has
shaped a nation. While every amend-
ment is important, some outshine
others —- the first ten amendments,
known as the Bill of Rights; the 13th
Amendmentfoutlawing slavery; the
15th Amendment extending the right
to vote to all (male) citizens without
regard to skin color or “previous
condition of servitude”; the 19th
Amendment, giving women the right
to vote; and the 26th Amendment,
lowering the Voting age to 18.

As some of the most
important amendments to the United
States Constitution, they uphold the
dignity of the country while sustain-
ing the freedoms of the people.
Right now there are 27 constitutional
amendments.

The proposed marriage
amendment, however, would lack
the elegance, but more importantly,
the freedoms that the ones of yester-
year provided. The “28th” amend-
ment would take liberties away from
a moderately large group of people
simply because of what some would
argue was the way they were born.
Many people believe that people are
homosexual upon birth; if so they
would fall under the category of
“unalterable minority,” such as gen-
der and skin color.

If homosexual people can-
not help the way they are, would the
28th amendment be any different
than an amendment allowing preju-
dice because of skin color, or nation-
ality? It is attacking something they
have no control over, and singling
out and allowing discrimination for
an entire group of people, something
never before put in the constitution.

Another factor is how pre-
posterous the amendment would
appear, how it would be worded:
“We the people of the United States
of America prohibit marriage in any
form other than man-women because
we think it’s icky.” There isn’t any
way to create an amendment without
broadcasting our prejudice. There is

 

also the problem of this generating a
domino effect, which could be dev-
astating.

If 2004 is the year that

America decides it’s okay to openly
discriminate against homosexuals,
what will happen next? Will 2005 be
the year we decide that those of the
Jewish faith are second-class citi-
zens? What about Muslims, or

people more freedom; there are very
few if any circumstances in which
this will cost jobs. In short, this issue
does not directly or even indirectly
affect most of the people protesting
against it, which makes you wonder
why they are actually protesting in
the first place.

The leading argument for
the 28th amendment is that it will be
protecting the sanctity of traditional
marriage. Marriage has never really
been the “pure holy union” that it

' has been made out to be. In the days

when the church had influence over
nearly every facet of the civilized
world, it sent out two messages that
founded marriage: “You can’t have
sex unless you are married, and you
may only be married to one
woman.”
If politicians really are in

this merely to protect marriage, two
questions beg to be asked. The first

Gay marriage does not
affect most of the people
protesting against it, which
makes you wonder why
they are actually protesting
in the first place.

African Americans, or even vegetari-
ans? In 2005 will we say that vege-
tarians can only eat in certain restau-
rants? Women must sleep in separate
buildings from men? If we don’t
stop this now it may run wild.

Many Americans are out-
raged at the idea of gay marriage
despite it being a minor issue at best.
I have a personal philosophy that I
believe is applicable in many politi-
cal situations: “Does this issue affect
me? My friends/lov_ed ones? Does it

endanger the lives of people? Does it‘

threaten the environment? Will it
raise the price of gasoline? Will it
cost jobs? Will it hurt the economy?
Will it upset a political balance? Will
it hurt people? Does it threaten the
liberties of people?” For most people
the answer to every question in this
case is no.

Gay marriage will not kill
people; it will create a boost to the
marriage industry, thus helping the
economy. It will give a group of

is if they would support an anti-
divorce amendment. It appears that
divorce is the bigger threat to mar-
riage. Fifty percent of all marriages
end in divorce, which is freedom to
women in abusive marriages. As
early as one hundred years ago the
only easy way out of a marriage was
the eventual death of one member of
the marriage. It was either die or
wait for him to die.

The other question is how
politicians can be the ones to define
marriages when they can’t even get
their own to work. Many politicians
have had affairs: Strom Thurman’s
mistress gave birth to his daughter of
African decent; Thomas Jefferson
had an affair with his African slave
who also gave birth to illegitimate
children; and of course there’s the
infamous “Monica-gate.” With so
much infidelity within Washington
throughout history, it is obvious that
the politicians certainly
aren’t the ones to tell us >>