; Photo By Dana Schwehr Save the poor innocent Orctolagous Cuniculus (rabbit don’t you know). Rabbits are cute and cuddly, but the do not make good university students. Incidentally this is also not a moose. 9 _ NOVEMBER 5, 2003 Response To the Great Aphra Hughes By Joyce Henley I’m finding this debate over the NUGSS director’s comments during Student Success Week to be quite interesting. I think the whole the point is that whenever you are representing yourself as the member of an organization or group, like it or not the things you say and do are a reflection on that group. I work for a large company with offices all over the world. When I’m at work and I'm dealing with the public, I am in fact a direct representative of my employer. So, what I say and the way I act are all reflections of that company. Barbara was act- ing as a representative of our university, not only in her capac- ity as a NUGSS director, but also as a group leader during Student Success Week. Barbara is cer- tainly entitled to do pretty much whatever she wants, whenever she wants and however she wants to do it. And if she choos- es to photocopy textbooks and then take them back, that’s fine, it’s a free country and it’s her choice to do so. I’m sure there’s a few. other students who do this Debate kind of thing and hey, that’s their choice too. The problem is that Barbara chose to tell new stu- dents about her little scam and that was a big mistake. Should she be fired for it? Probably not, it was a mistake, we all make stupid mistakes and we all make stupid choices. We all say things we regret saying and I’m pretty sure she regrets mentioning it and probably will never say it again in that type of forum. As for you, Mr. Ahmadi, everyone has a right to their opinion, even you. However, nobody has a right to attack someone else’s opinion in such an aggressive and downright nasty manner. I’m sure you have a lot of good points that you are trying to get across, but you went about it the wrong way. So, say what you want to say, but say it in an acceptable manner, more people will respect: and listen to what you have to say if you do it with- out using the ‘f’ word in every other sentence and if you keep the personal attacks out of it. On Same Sex Marriages By Dan Turner Throughout the whole debate over same-sex marriage I have always had this lingering thought, why is religion making it so diffi- cult for itself? Already the Superior Courts of Ontario and British Columbia have ruled that marriage, as a union of only a man and a woman, is dis- criminatory and thus unconstitu- tional according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So now in those provinces any law that bars homosexuals from marriage is void and has no effect. The result of these decisions is that there is now an inequality within Canada, where a couple can get married in one province but is prohibited in another. To bring equality to the country, Prime Minister Chretien has three options. The first would be to appeal the decisions to the Supreme Court, something the Federal Government has done before in cases of this nature. That move would tack on a few years to the issue and considering the Provincial Courts’ rulings were lit- erally air tight, the Supreme Court would most likely side with the lower court decisions. “l can tell you that not a lot of govern- ments are stupid enough to voluntarily remove the equality rights, in an Act of Parliament, to a large organized voting minority” The second would be to invoke Section 33 of the Charter - the notwithstanding clause - and have any law barring homosexuals from marriage notwithstanding the Charter for a period of five years. This would again serve only push the issue off to the side and I can tell you that not a lot of govern- ments are stupid enough to volun- tarily remove the equality rights, in an Act of Parliament, to a large organized voting minority. So that leaves only one option, bring in legislation to legalize same-sex marriage for the whole country. That way the issue has been dealt with and all of Canada is on the same page. But still some people have a problem with that one. The many religions in Canada have blasted the PM and Cabinet for this "attack on marriage,” which takes us to a short history lesson. Back in the days when marriage was solely a religious institution, a Catholic couldn't marry a Protestant and Jews couldn't marry Anglicans. Only a man and a woman of the same religion could marry and the Government saw this as a problem. Eventually the idea came around to create civil marriages with rules governed by Parliament and the Legislatures. It is that civil marriage that the Government wants to change and under the leg- islation religious institutions would be protected from marrying a couple that doesn't fit their reli- gious beliefs. It is the same princi- _ ple that .allows Catholics to not marry anyone who has» been divorced. “This returns me to my question at the beginning, why is reli- gion making it difficult for itself?” This returns me to my question at the beginning, why is. religion making it difficult for itself? Why would it fight legislation that is changing an outdated definition, while guaranteeing it the freedom to practice its religion and beliefs. If the legislation does not pass absolutely nothing changes. BC and Ontario will still have legal same-sex marriage and in mere months couples in other provinces will take their cases to court with the precedents of the two Superior Court rulings. What will follow is a wave of province after province having their marriage laws struck down and. the end result will be nine provinces (Alberta will invoke the — notwithstanding clause) with same-sex marriage and there will be no protection for religions. Without the very law the reli- gions are fighting against any homosexual couple that is denied a marriage in a.Church, Synagogue, or Mosque (and thus denied their right to be treated equally with everyone else) will take their case to court and in most instances will win their lawsuit. And those Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques can't afford to shell out that all that money. My suggestion is for them to acknowledge and. accept that same-sex coupes are just as "justi- fied-and moral" as any heterosexu- al couple, let people live their lives with love and happiness and stop fighting the evolution of marriage. In doing so marriage will become a more open institution and they will have the guaranteed freedom of religious beliefs and expression protected in the Charter.