University Press (Beaumont, Tex.), Vol. 72, No. 32, Ed. 1 Friday, February 9, 1996 Page: 3 of 6
six pages : ill. ; page 23 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
UPOp/nion
University Press
Tracy Harbin..............................................Editor
Allen Pearson....................................Managing Editor
The opinions that appear in editorials are the official views of the University
Press student management as determined by the Student Editorial Board.
Opinions expressed elsewhere on this page are the views of the writers only and
are not necessarily those of the University Press student management. Opinions
are not necessarily those of the university administration.
Editorial ■' .........—.....
SGA deserves applause
for inter-campus bonding
Members of the Student Government Association should be
commended on their effort to support an important issue to other
student governments in the Texas State University System.
Recently, SGA passed a resolution to add a sexual orientation
clause to the TSU System handbook stating that no one can be dis-
criminated against because of sexual preference. While this issue is
important in and of itself, there is something else here that is worth
recognition.
In Lamar’s residence life handbook, a clause already exists pro-
hibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Our SGA
saw a need to support Our new sister campuses in their endeavor
to protect all students from discrimination. Without a resolution
from each campus in the system, the recommendation cannot be
presented to the TSUS Board of Regents for consideration. Every
university in the system except Lamar University-Port Arthur and
Lamar Institute of Technology have passed similar resolutions.
It is exciting to see a bond begin to form among students who
come together for a common goal. This is a healthy sign that
Lamar is truly becoming part of the TSU System.
If U.S. soldiers have to die,
death must have purpose
The inevitable has happened. The first American death in
Bosnia is behind us. Sgt. 1st Class Donald A. Dugan died
Saturday. How he died should not be as important as why he
died.
When Mrs. Dugan is presented with the American flag and
empty rifle cartridges after his body is laid to rest, will the
-people responsible for his being in Bosnia be able to say
“Your husband died with purpose”?
Whether our troops will be deployed has already been
decided. They are there. Americans should now remember
that they are there. Dugas serves as a good reminder. Now we
must continue to question our objective.
The American people can help insure that we are indeed
serving a purpose in our Bosnian presence by asking our
nation’s leaders to reiterate and continue to define our
objective as the peace keeping endeavor continues. Living in
isolation will not avoid another Vietnam or stop another loss
of 241 marine lives at the hands of terrorists because they
were providing a presence in the Middle East.
Requiring that our leaders clearly and continually define
our objective will help the American people better make
judgements in the future. We cannot afford to forget that our
vote and voice do count. We can demand to know. We can
demand a clear objective — if not for our sakes, for the sakes
of many more who will receive a flag and empty rifle car-
tridges. We need to make sure those losses receive a satisfac-
tory explanation. It is up to the American people to make
sure our men and women in uniform die with purpose.
Letters-
Editor:
I really enjoyed Friday’s artical on the new Russian.version
of Sesame Street. It was very interesting and informative. I
wish you would print more articles of the same quality. I also
enjoy your fun page. I would like to see more emphasis on our
| - own university’s theatre. They have two upcoming produc-
tions that have not been mentioned. I have read the UP for
more than two years now, and will continue to. Please keep up
the good work.
Chandra Elliot
Beaumont sophomore
University Press
Editor............Tracy Harbin
Managing Editor ... Allen Pearson
Features Editor .... Tonya Andris
Sports Editor. Michael Thibodeaux
Copy Editor.....Laura Lee Scott
Graphics Editor .... Liv Lindberg
Staff Writers.....Amber Armond,
Billie Dorman, Will Hughes,
Wayne Meza, Chester Moore,
Holly Simmons, Ginger Sjolander,
Todd Sonnier
Sports Writers......Bryce Darby,
Kelly Kirkpatrick, Owen Myhre,
Derrick Sonnier
Photographers......Mark Smith,
Ken Wiatrek
Graphics..........Pablo Gomez,
Jason Parish, Stephanie Staudt
Ad. Assts........Chris Fontenot,
Allan Prater
Interns...........Vita Gradney,
Samantha McGuire,
Elizabeth Mingledorff
Director........Howard Perkins
Asst. Director .... Andy Coughlan
Advertising Director.. Linda Barrett
Opinions Wanted
Individuals who wish to speak out on issues should send a letter fewer than 300
words in length to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 10055, LU Station,
Beaumont 77710 or drop letters off at our offices in 200 Setzer Student
Center. Your name, address, phone number, and social security number must
accompany each letter. Letters received without this information cannot be
printed. . *
University Press • Friday, February 9,1996 • Page 3
Marriage, divorce
‘The better we do with one, the less we have of the other’
President Clinton says “the era of big gov-
ernment is over,” but plenty of other voices are
determined to expand it through any means
necessary, including the heavy hand of the
divorce court.
No-fault divorce has been available in some
form in all 50 states since the 1970s, but legisla-
tors in Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Idaho,
Pennsylvania and Georgia, among others,
would like to make it harder to get, especially in
marriages that involve children.
Various bills would restore the requirements
that one partner be found at fault and that both
partners must agree to the divorce.
Proponents of the change say easy divorce
harms children, cheapens marriage, and more
often than not leaves women bearing the bigger
financial burden.
Opponents also argue that putting fault back
into divorce will hurt children. It could force
many to live in hostile home environments, they
say, and it could set back the new “men’s move-
ment” efforts to gain more child custody time. It
might bring back the problems that led to
no-fault in the first place,bitter feelings,over-
crowded courtrooms, and excessive lawyer fees.
Who’s right? Both are. Fault or no-fault,
divorce is no fun.
But the solution to the problem is not to be
found at the back end of the problem, which is
bad marriages. Let’s look at the other end.
Instead of making it harder to get divorced, I
think we ought to make it harder to get married.
Worse than the no-fault divorce is the
no-sweat wedding. If easy divorce cheapens the
institution of marriage, so does easy marriage.
We have waiting periods for gun purchases,
mandatory training for driver’s licenses, but
nothing at all for two people who want to do the
most important thing human beings can do,
which is to create other human beings and raise
a family.
Opinion
Clarence
Page
Some churches are way ahead of the state on
this matter. Catholics, for example, are required
to undergo intensive education, counseling, and
soul searching before the church will help them
tie the knot. It is no guarantee of marital success,
but it couldn’t hurt.
Among those who agree with me is Marian
Henriquez Neudel, a divorce lawyer in Chicago
for the past 17 years. In a recent letter to the
Chicago Tribune, she wrote, “Trying to discour-
age family breakup by making divorce more dif-
ficult makes about as much sense as trying to
prevent murder by making burial more diffi-
cult.”
She makes a good point. Some wise man
once described human beings as the most com-
plex mechanisms to be created entirely through
unskilled labor. If the state has an interest in
keeping unhappy people married, it has an even
bigger interest in discouraging them from get-
ting married in the first place.
Of course, there is a hitch to making it hard-
er to get married. If the one-parent child is such
a big problem, don’t we need more marriages,
not fewer? Won’t making it harder to get mar-
ried discourage couples from doing the right
thing?
I asked Neudel (these questions) by tele-
phone. Her response may raise even more eye-
brows than the idea of making it harder to get
married.
She would bring back common law mar-
riages.
That may sound like the opposite of common
sense, but it’s not quite. Common law marriage
occurs in certain states when two people of the
opposite sex have been living together for a cer-
tain length of time as man and wife, whether
they have gone through a ceremony or pur-
chased a license or not.
In some states, if you tell even a hotel clerk
that you’re married, you’re married in the eyes
of the law. This raises a host of messy legal
issues, which helps explain why, instead of wad-
ing through all of them, most states simply have
eliminated common law marriages in recent
decades.
Maybe the time has come to rethink all that,
suggests Neudel. for the sake of the children
produced by out-of-wedlock unions.
“After a certain length of time, having kids,
we should say, ‘Guess what, guys. You’re mar-
ried.’ ”
Guess what? Maybe she’s right. If marriage
was made that easy, it might encourage even
more folk to think twice about it before entering
into such a relationship. Americans have grown
remarkably libertarian since the ’60’s about who
shacks up with whom, except when that rela-
tionship produces children. In too many cases,
raising the child then ceases to be just a person-
al problem and instead becomes everyone’s
problem.
Contrary to popular misconception, there is
nothing easier about common law marriages,
once the bloom falls off the romantic rose. “I do
custody cases with people who never were mar-
ried to each other,” Neudel said. “They still
fight. It’s just in a different court.”
How true. All marriages do not end in
divorce, but all divorces begin with marriage.
The better job we do with one, the less we have
of the other.
Clarence Page is a Chicago Tribune columnist
UPSuruey
On February 23 and 24, Lamar is scheduling the first homecoming in
six years. How do you feel about Lamar reinstating this event?
“It’s a positive move because it allows students at
Lamar to experience the same events that many
other university students experience.”
Eddie Scott
Houston sophomore
“It would be better if it were more fun-
oriented.”
Jessica Rubin
Galveston freshman
“I think reinstating homecoming is foolish
because homecomings are for football.”
Torreon Scott
Houston sophomore
“It’s good that they are trying to bring the
student body together, but they need something
more ‘ninetyish.’ ”
Edward Stewart
Gilmer freshman
“If more people come together, it will make this
school a more promising environment.”
Naudia Connor
V Houston freshman
“I feel it is a good idea. By reinstating this
whole tradition, it adds excitement to this new
era of Lamar history.”
Lance Broussard
Fort Arthur junior
1
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Harbin, Tracy. University Press (Beaumont, Tex.), Vol. 72, No. 32, Ed. 1 Friday, February 9, 1996, newspaper, February 9, 1996; Beaumont, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth500657/m1/3/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Lamar University.