Baylor > Lariat Archives > News

Letter to the Editor

Feb. 13, 2001

Discrimination of gays occurs regardless of political affiliation

It is more than obvious, by right wingers, moderates and liberals alike that homosexuals are often treated with discrimination within communities and the educational system. It is also correct to say that current legislation both at the state and federal level is not protecting gays, lesbians or bi-sexuals from the obvious bias within our society. The proposed Ehrhardt legislation would most definitely protect the rights and safety of homosexual students.

What concerns me is the idea that homophobic attitudes are being attributed to the far-right wing only. Granted, Jerry Falwell and his sad little Tinky Winky episode reflects many of the attitudes of those in the conservative right wing.

A large number of moderates within the conservative movement, myself included, are disgusted with the narrow-minded and oppressive attitudes shared by members of the right wing concerning homosexuality.

But the underlying feelings behind homosexuality go far deeper than party affiliation. Simply claiming to be a member of the liberal side of the party does not mean that the same oppressive and ignorant attitudes concerning homosexuality do not exist.

Members of both sides of the party have had ample legislation proposed protecting the rights of the homosexual community but little has changed. A lot of lip service is being paid to the idea of protecting and securing the rights of homosexuals but nothing substantial has been done.

This lack of action is blamed on those 'far-right wing wackos' and their ignorant attitudes. I believe that this blanket of blame should not rest on the shoulders of the right wing solely, but also on conservatives and liberals who, out of ignorance or close-mindedness, discriminate against homosexuals.

Joanna Cattanach

Political Science '03

I am shocked at Jason Fobart's letter to the editor in Thursday's edition of The Lariat in response to the editorial about the earthquake in India. In his response, he seems to say that the United States is in no position to be helping out other nations. I find this to be humorous, shocking and ignorant.

First off, the United States has the prerogative to eliminate its debt. With the calculated surpluses, we could easily pay down the debt and still remain the same powerful nation. Our nation chose to elect a man whose top priority isn't in reducing the debt. For this reason, we cannot make the claim that we are 'too far in debt' to be helping others.

We live in a civil world, not a world where every country stands by itself. There is a moral obligation to beneficence because we owe it to our brethren nations to help them in times of need. Too often from what I see, the United States will help other nations only when it has something to gain. This is not just and it is not civil to act in this manner.

Thousands upon thousands are dying in cold streets with disease running rampant. Should we desert these innocent people affected by unfortunate disaster? Should we be so self-centered? I hope not.

Sachin Gupta

University Scholar '04

I am writing in response to Clint Cox's column in the Friday edition of The Lariat. His column is little more than mudslinging. B.J. Goergen does a great job in her article of keeping to the facts and not just insulting Democrats who wish to protect the Alaskan wilderness from drilling. I support Bush's plan to drill in the wilderness if it is done in a safe manner. In spite of what Cox says to the contrary, I believe that most Americans feel the same way I do; otherwise, Bush and Republicans in Congress would not have been elected. I would ask Cox to learn a lesson from Goergen and stick to the facts in a respectful manner, instead of using mud-slinging and name calling.

Cody McQueen

Recreation '03