A more pertinent fight
I’ve been amused to see so much coverage in The Daily Texan about the so-called gay right fight. Somebody might think that a big part of University community is gays and that their rights are severely compromised. I wonder what percentage of the UT community are gay or lesbian and take risk to guess it is much less than the percentage of people who raise kids.
The support of graduate students’ families in Brackenridge Family Housing is seriously less emotional and constant than all the articles about joy-compromised gays.
There are no civil rights that gays are missing in our country. They can live together, work, write, take part in elections and swim in public swimming pools. Nobody will sue them or send them to jail (as in some other countries). The true reason behind their “right-fight” is money.
As a mom of two, I know better than anybody that the amount of tax-refund money I will get in April is much less than I spent on my kids during a year. Financial support from the government (the country’s and UT’s) is not about anybody’s happiness — it’s about a chance for a family to survive and raise a normal and healthy child. Why should this money be given to gay couples? I don’t see any reason. The purpose of their life seems to be joy and love. Great! Enjoy yourself — but leave the money for kids.
Also — people of California, Arizona and Florida clearly said what they think about marriage. There are many McCain supporters who are not happy about the result of Nov. 4. Do they protest it? No. Because they respect the law and the country. It’s what democracy is. I’d recommend to everybody to do the same regardless of race, religion and sexual orientation.
— Galina Aglyamova,
UT staff
The longest election
Coming from a country where there has never been a presidential election, I envy the opportunity people have in the U.S. to select a president every four years. Yes, elections here are not perfect. People may complain regarding the process — about issues such as voter suppression, shortages of ballots and imperfections with voting machines. In the grand scheme of things, however, there seems to be generally a good system in place to ensure a free and fair election.
But the enormous investment of time and resources to run a presidential campaign may breed partisanship. Reflecting on the emotions expressed by the supporters of both Sen. John McCain and President-elect Obama — especially as the election drew closer — made me wonder how long it may take people to come together behind their president. By the time the political wounds start healing, the next campaign may be here.
In the Nov. 13 Firing Line “Sucking it up for Obama,” Mikael Garcia wrote of this tradition. Garcia, a self-described conservative Republican who supported McCain, noted that “ … Obama is my president now. Useless name-calling would only hinder his ability to efficiently run this country. Would I want to hinder the United States? Absolutely not. President-elect Obama will need the support of every American. There are a lot [of] problems in the world we need to fix. Now is no time for divisiveness and hyper-partisanship.” I commend Garcia for this spirit, and I hope others adopt this spirit of putting the country before ideology.
But still, the question lingers: If democracy is a means and not an end for the betterment of a society, does such a long and expensive election serve a purpose?
— Tesfayohannes Haile,
Education graduate student
