This letter is in response to Nathan Arnold's piece, which ran on Tuesday (\Let them smoke, pull back govt. reach"").
MYTH: The main goal of the current campaign to ban smoking in Madison's public establishments is to prevent smokers from harming themselves.
FACT: The main goal of the campaign to ban smoking in Madison's public establishments is to stop smokers from harming others.
While both alcohol and cigarettes both have harmful effects on their users, there is one big difference: When a person drinks an alcoholic beverage, some of the alcohol doesn't end up in the drink of the person next to them, or even in the drink of the person on the other side of the room. But when someone smokes a cigarette, the smoke gets in the air and the lungs of every person in the room! And I am not just talking about the other patrons of the bar (who, yes, have the choice of going to a non-smoking establishment), but also the employees.
Some of us ""poor college students"" have to take what job we can get, and sometimes that means working at a bar or a restaurant. But does that mean we should be exposed to hazards?
Smoking is not a private act, and people are exposed to second-hand smoke not just in bars and restaurants, but on sidewalks, bus stops and many other public areas as well.
Smokers can hold on as hard as they can to their ""right"" to slowly kill themselves, but people's right to stay healthy takes precedence.
The LGBT Campus Center is firmly against a state constitutional amendment that would discriminate against LGBT individuals by denying them access to the civil institution and rights thereof associated with marriage.
We are disappointed with our state legislative body and their efforts to write discrimination into our state constitution. Legislators claim that there is ambiguity in the definition of marriage, ambiguity that is disconcerting to the residents of Wisconsin. There is no ambiguity; marriage is and will always be a symbol of commitment, love and legal obligation between two individuals. To deny that symbolic and legal institution to people based on their sexual orientation is discriminatory.
Furthermore, legislators claim that they are acting in democratic fashion by allowing the residents of Wisconsin to decide what their definition of marriage is. This is fundamentally wrong; civil rights are not popular rights. It is the job of the courts to protect the minority viewpoint from the misunderstandings of the majority, and if the current definition of marriage is susceptible to redefinition by the courts then there is a reason for that.
Therefore, we urge the members of the state Senate to consider their votes carefully and vote no on this amendment before they permanently alter the state constitution to discriminate against a segment of Wisconsin's population.
Just wanted to say thank you to Jessica Rane Gartner and her article about denying rights to the LGBT community.As a former LGBT liaison for University Housing it always brings a smile to my face to hear true allies speaking up for rights of any marginalized group. It seems like the fight ahead of us is a long one, but if more people like Jessica continue to voice their opinions, have conversations with people and approach the topic in a level-headed manner, I have faith that the rights of the LGBT community will prevail eventually.I have always been a Cardinal reader, and that will continue-even from Spain.
