Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

I am a student here at ULV and I am angry at your column titled “In Fear of a Pink Planet” (Nov. 21). “Score another victory for the homosexuals.” What is that? You are making gays and lesbians sound as if they are bad people. I am a proud, out gay male and I especially disapproved this statement: “As the act implies, we must ‘protect’ marriage from the homosexuals legions so keen on destroying it.” We gay people are not trying to destroy marriage. We just want to be acknowledged as equal human beings. Love is love! Love should not be defined. Love is an emotion between two individuals who truly feel strong towards each other. What President Bush is doing is wrong! Bush should not be trying to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The world is always changing. This is the 21st century! You should stop living in the ignorant ages!

One day, I would like to get married. I would not let an ignorant president keep me back from showing my love to my future husband. (Yeah, I said “husband!”) This is not a “Queermageddon.” You are implying that we gay people are the key to the end of the world. Gay people are human beings, too. Gay people eat, sleep, hurt, fee, and love, just like every other individual. I am angry at the fact that you are trying to promote inequality. Marriage is a sacred institution, and it should be shared with everyone. Let people live their own lives. If two men or two women get married, how will that affect your personal life? Let people live their personal lives! Gays and lesbians are worth feeling love through marriage as all human beings should. We are not inferior to heterosexuals. We are all breathing human beings!

Also, the separation between church and state should be strongly established. Church and state should not mix because it will cause unreasonable legal decisions. Gays and lesbians are people with much love to offer. You shouldn’t be promoting inequality.
If you meant to make the article sound sarcastic or go against the ideals of mere conservatives, then it wasn’t made clear. You should really think about the words you use if you were trying to make the article sarcastic because the word choice really makes the article sound homophobic. But overall, you should rethink what you write and acknowledge your audience.

Hugo Bryan Castillo
Sophomore

Dear Editor,

In last week’s article “Patriot Act threatens rights of ULV students” (Nov. 21), I came across something I had heard several times before: that the Patriot Act “allows the FBI to conduct secret searches without search warrants or probable cause.” Rather than depending on this single article as a factual description of the Patriot Act, I searched the Internet for a copy of the Patriot Act itself and found the section that the article referred to (Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant). By the very title of the section, it is clear that the article I read in the Campus Times is not just misleading, but factually incorrect.

Upon further reading of this specific section, I read that “...any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if... (1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705); (2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.” All three of these circumstances emphasize “reasonable” or “good cause,” very unlike the Campus Times’ description that the Patriot Act “allows the FBI to conduct secret searches without... probable cause.”

This misrepresentation of the Patriot Act appears not to be specific to the Campus Times, but other sources as well. Using the same Google search, I came across Las Vegas’ Review-Journal from Sept. 14 where a person had written to criticize a previous article that had mentioned the exact same misrepresentation. The basic lesson here: Check your source. Nonetheless, thank you for the weekly Campus Times, as I enjoy reading it as much as I enjoy disagreeing with it!

David Calhoun
Sophomore