So many people have been touched by cancer in some way, and because of that Thon represents more than just "the largest student-run philanthropy in the nation." Thon is a way for them to come together, and if only for 48 hours, know that they are doing something for a loved one. Does she not understand what raising $2,001,831.51 means for those families?

She states that Thon "provides financial assistance and emotional support for families with children being treated at the Children’s Hospital at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center," but I got the impression that she didn’t really understand how important this was. The Four Diamonds Fund takes care of all the bills not covered by insurance, and a family could expect a bill of more than $1,000 every week. You can’t trivialize something like that. I feel it would be more "inhumane" to change Thon to being only 24 hours. For some people, Thon has given them a chance to live again. Thon is like Christmas for the families that are helped. Why would anyone want to take away even one minute of that from them?

Sandra Gill
sophomore-communication disorders

The managers have received condemnations from the media, patronizing editorials, hate mail, public insults, attempts of intimidation and death threats. Showing courage and commitment, the managers did not back down, but instead they continued their pursuit of justice. These men have lived through hell since the Starr report was delivered to Congress. They stood this ultimate test for principle and for duty, as they have seen fit. We need more politicians in Washington like the courageous 13 managers who have risked great political backlash to stand for principle and law.

The managers whole-heartedly believed that misleading a federal grand jury, witness tampering, and abusing the power of his office by acting above the law are impeachable offenses. President Clinton unlawfully impeded an investigation in order to protect his image. He was not concerned with the country’s needs when he lied to the grand jury, only his selfish desires. The managers are now easy targets for the White House to humiliate and degrade.

Unfortunately, Democrats will not distance themselves from their popular president, although he committed crimes and violated his oath to uphold the laws of the country. Are Democrats saying that lying under oath is sometimes acceptable? Is it permissible for a president to use the power of his office to manipulate the judicial process?

Brian Blase
freshman-actuarial science

They even named the crime -- perjury. There is no part in that law that says it is OK for you to commit perjury if it involves your personal life. What message are we sending out to America? The message is, if you are president, you can do whatever you want and not face the consequences of your crimes. Think about the implications of acquitting Clinton years down the line when another more corrupt person is in charge of our country.

Clinton is trapped and the only thing that is helping him is the gossip that has been spread to start controversy and gain sympathy. It was never a question of Republicans against Democrats until his campaign realized he was in a world of crap.

I ask you, what is next? Will it be an impeached president who has no credibility because he has repeatedly mocked our justice system and, in turn, it’s citizens? And because of those crimes, he is brought to justice? Or will it be those who want to lower that sympathy board into the hole for Clinton to crawl out of and return to lie to us all again? It will be a travesty of justice to let Clinton crawl away on this one.

Tara J. Allsopp
senior-administration of justice

While some portray this struggle as an effort to subvert the institution of marriage and undermine "moral" society, the fight for the freedom to marry is only about fighting institutionalized discrimination against same-sex couples. Courts in Hawaii and Alaska have ruled that there is no compelling reason why same-sex couples should be denied access to the legal institution of marriage. Fearing their constitutional obligation to recognize marriages performed in another state of the union, states such as Pennsylvania have passed discriminatory laws that single out same-sex unions as being invalid, and the federal government has validated those laws in the unconstitutional "Defense of Marriage Act."

Referendums in Hawaii and Alaska have altered their state constitutions to maintain the discriminatory status quo. Nevertheless, there is a case pending in Vermont and a referendum in California that would recognize the validity of same-sex unions and challenge the state and federal government’s clearly discriminatory and hypocritical stance. The freedom of same-sex couples to marry is an issue that is relevant to anyone who is committed to human and civil rights. It is not solely a "gay and lesbian issue" but it is about ending institutionalized discrimination.

For those who want to know more about how to work to establish the freedom to marry, there will be a program on marriage and civil rights activism at 6:30 p.m. today in 307 HUB. It is vital that concerned individuals stand up to end institutionalized discrimination.

John Katunich
political co-director, Lambda Student Alliance