Letters to the Editor

Denial of benefits is discriminatory

This letter is in response to Steve Markle’s letter to the editor concerning the domestic partner benefits. Markle stated that the denial of the benefits did not constitute discrimination.

The following quote from state Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre, “ ‘The morality issue is significant to me. The institution of marriage is significant.” Basically, by passing something like that, we are endorsing that lifestyle,’ ” was printed in the Collegian Monday.

Gee, with the references to “lifestyles” and the mention of “sexual orientation,” I don’t see how one could possibly see that this is not discrimination against alternative lifestyles. The Board of Opinion is not being absurd here, it is those who claim that this is not discrimination.

This is not to say that I disagree with President Spanier’s decision. I fully understand why it was made. The problem does not lie within the university, but within the government of Pennsylvania.

But to suggest that they should “let it go” and just “move on” is ridiculous. Women’s rights did not come because people just “moved on” nor did the end to segregation. This is supposed to be the land of the free, where we are all treated equally, free of discrimination of any kind. Clearly, the legislators of Pennsylvania do not agree. They are the ones with the closed minds — not the Board of Opinion.

I am proud to say that I work for the second largest computer company in the world and that our benefits include those for same-sex partners. They clearly recognize the fact that same sex partners are just as important to the ones that they love as a spouse, even if the state in which they live does not recognize the marriage.

Garth Long
Class of 1998

Early last week, President Spanier announced that Penn State would not offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples, despite strong support from the Penn State community. Spanier, though in favor of the benefit package, was forced to yield to pressure from conservative state legislators to kill the measure.

Unfortunately, same-sex couples will not be the only ones to feel the effect of the decision. Already, five of the Big Ten schools offer domestic partner benefits, as well as more than 100 colleges and universities across the country. Penn State must offer these benefits to remain scholastically competitive. Penn State should adopt a policy providing domestic benefits to show strong leadership entering into the next century. Lastly, the adoption of the policy would be consistent with the university’s nondiscrimination clause.

Opponents argue the cost would negatively affect the students by increasing their tuition cost. But, in actuality, the cost would be negligible. If all beneficiaries were to collect simultaneously, the benefits would only cost $185,000 out of a budget of more than $66 billion. The real underlying issue is that conservative politicians believe that offering these benefits would “endorse” the “lifestyle” of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. The purpose, however, of the benefits is to encourage equal treatment for disadvantaged groups at Penn State.

Kelly A. Monaghan
co-director of Allies

In response to the column on Tuesday by Collegian Opinion Editor Carrie DeLeon, I felt the need to illustrate a few key points in regard to the Clinton scandal.

President Clinton’s behavior was and is disreputable. He deceived the courts and the American people by lying under oath. The gravity of his offense is best measured by the disgusting amount of attention that has been given to what he did by the media. The arguments in his defense have been semantic and legalistic.

The objection that the American people are opposed to removal of office, ignores culture lags of historical frequency, including general opposition to the liberation of the slaves, to full participation in the war against Hitler and to the need to take action against Iraq in 1991. The true test of the stability of the Constitution is its usefulness in liberating the country from misplaced faith in a failed leader.

Christopher Gillott
chair, Penn State Young Americans for Freedom

After reading Carrie DeLeon’s column on the impeachment hearings I felt I had to write a response. The first issue I’m tired of hearing about is that this hearing is over whether President Clinton had sex with “that woman” or not.

The reason for the whole trail to determine whether our “great” leader lied under oath or not. Perjury is a felony and is a very serious matter, it’s what our whole justice system is based on. Clinton, being a lawyer, should understand this matter. I could really care less if he had sex with every intern or person that he met with. But when questioned about it in a court of law he should be man enough to say, “Yes, I had sex with that woman.” If anyone of us were found to commit perjury in court, we would be doing jail time for it. The president is to be held to these same laws that govern us and to obey them as well or face the same punishment.

The second topic of the impeachment hearings I’m tired of hearing about is the Republican partisanship. I’ll be the first to agree that the vote in the House was a joke because it went down the party lines.

But this isn’t just the representatives being at fault — the Democrats are just as much to blame as anyone. It’s not like any of the Democrats voted for impeachment. The vote was without question a bipartisan vote but no side can blame the other because they are both guilty. If the trend holds up Clinton won’t get removed from office because the Republicans don’t hold a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

And if this is how it comes down then the whole thing was nothing more then a big waste of our tax dollars. I just wish the senators could look at the issues at hand without seeing it through their party’s eyes and do what is the correct thing and remove a felony from office.

Anthony Burkholder
senior-business logistics