Joshua the Orator...who knew?
I feel proud of myself right now (yay me...) and I wanted to share. The following took place today at OUSC:
My fellow legislators, Student Congress Executive Board, and members of the gallery, I thank you for being here today. I come before you today to present Congressional Resolution 05-05. The Oakland University Student Congress Constitution and Oath of Office we took as legislators charge us to protect and defend the rights of students. As I stand before you today, those rights are under siege, by a state ballot initiative known as Proposal 2. Outwardly, Proposal 2 is a constitutional ban on marriage between people of the same sex, a practice already banned within our state by five different laws. So, many would ask, what is the point of banning again something that is already banned? As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. The wording of Proposal 2 states that, and I quote, “The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” What exactly does this mean, you might ask? By the insertion of the word “similar” and of the phrase “any other purpose,” if the proposal passes, there would be no legal recognition of unions similar to marriage. The measure goes beyond a blatant attack on homosexuals to attack any person, heterosexuals included, who does not follow the view of “traditional marriage” that its proponents espouse. The measure would eliminate any possibility for civil unions for homosexuals in our state, and would strip public institutions, including this University, school districts, and local and state governments, of the right to provide Domestic Partner Benefits (that is, benefits to an employee’s partner who is not legally recognized as a spouse) to their employees if they so choose. If this measure passes, the chance of having an equal opportunity at a decent life will be ripped away from thousands of Michigan residents.
Some would argue that this matter does not belong before this body, as it is somehow not a student concern. I reject that claim with the utmost resolve. It is a student concern, and we must make a stand and say, “No, this is wrong.” The lives of students, whether here and now or in the near future, will be affected. Oakland University is not a protected land, free to pick and choose which aspects of the Michigan Constitution it would like to obey. Any action taken toward the way our state is run has a direct affect on our lives. If the state budget is slashed, we feel the effects in the form of a tuition hike. If a road project is slated for our area, we enjoy the benefit of improved transportation. So it goes with Proposal 2. Our University would be stripped of the autonomy to decide to whom it provides its benefits. As stated in the resolution we are considering, the Association of Michigan Universities, of which this body is a member, recently passed a resolution of its own, opposing proposals which would strip universities of their right to make this decision, and encouraging their constituents to lobby against their passage. Proposal 2 fits this description to a tea.
Even if we acknowledge that Proposal 2 will affect students, others might argue that it only affects a small number, so why should we bother when a large number of students probably won’t be affected? To them, I ask this question: how many does it take, before it becomes wrong? 100? 1,000? 10,000? How many does it take? In America, the majority has rights, but so does the minority. Our system of government was constructed so that the minority did not have to live in fear of persecution. The Bill of Rights affirms this: the majority cannot, and shall not, abridge the rights of individuals. We, as this university’s student governing body, must make a stand now, before an ever-growing number of people are victimized by a tyrannical majority. It is our duty to stand up and say, “Not in this country. Not in this state. Not at this university.” The actions we take this year as citizens will have repercussions for decades. It is our responsibility to ensure the policies we approve are well-thought-out. To quote Abraham Lincoln, “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” I urge you to stand up, now, this day, and defend the rights of your classmates…and of yourselves. If we don’t, then what good are we as a voice for the students? By sitting back and doing or saying nothing, are we, in fact, saying, “This is okay.”? Urging students to vote no on Proposal 2 does not mean that gay marriage will suddenly be legal. It means that hatred and bigotry will not become a permanent part of our state constitution. Once written into the constitution, those words can be negated, but they can never be removed. In the end, voting no on Proposal 2 simply means that things will stay as they are, and the discussion will continue.
As a member of the gay community, I will continue to fight this proposal whether this resolution passes or fails. I will not go quietly into the night as my rights, my dignity, and my humanity are stripped away bit by bit. I ask…no, I implore you, fellow legislators, to heed my call and vote with your conscience, not with what you feel will be popular or unpopular. Draw a line in the sand and say, “This far, and no farther.” The very core of our beliefs, the very soul of the nation of liberty and equality in which we live is under attack, and we must rise to defend it. If we do not, the future of freedom itself is at stake.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the floor to Legislator Ewing.
Remarks made by Joshua J. Miller, OUSC Legislator, October 4, 2004.
My fellow legislators, Student Congress Executive Board, and members of the gallery, I thank you for being here today. I come before you today to present Congressional Resolution 05-05. The Oakland University Student Congress Constitution and Oath of Office we took as legislators charge us to protect and defend the rights of students. As I stand before you today, those rights are under siege, by a state ballot initiative known as Proposal 2. Outwardly, Proposal 2 is a constitutional ban on marriage between people of the same sex, a practice already banned within our state by five different laws. So, many would ask, what is the point of banning again something that is already banned? As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. The wording of Proposal 2 states that, and I quote, “The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” What exactly does this mean, you might ask? By the insertion of the word “similar” and of the phrase “any other purpose,” if the proposal passes, there would be no legal recognition of unions similar to marriage. The measure goes beyond a blatant attack on homosexuals to attack any person, heterosexuals included, who does not follow the view of “traditional marriage” that its proponents espouse. The measure would eliminate any possibility for civil unions for homosexuals in our state, and would strip public institutions, including this University, school districts, and local and state governments, of the right to provide Domestic Partner Benefits (that is, benefits to an employee’s partner who is not legally recognized as a spouse) to their employees if they so choose. If this measure passes, the chance of having an equal opportunity at a decent life will be ripped away from thousands of Michigan residents.
Some would argue that this matter does not belong before this body, as it is somehow not a student concern. I reject that claim with the utmost resolve. It is a student concern, and we must make a stand and say, “No, this is wrong.” The lives of students, whether here and now or in the near future, will be affected. Oakland University is not a protected land, free to pick and choose which aspects of the Michigan Constitution it would like to obey. Any action taken toward the way our state is run has a direct affect on our lives. If the state budget is slashed, we feel the effects in the form of a tuition hike. If a road project is slated for our area, we enjoy the benefit of improved transportation. So it goes with Proposal 2. Our University would be stripped of the autonomy to decide to whom it provides its benefits. As stated in the resolution we are considering, the Association of Michigan Universities, of which this body is a member, recently passed a resolution of its own, opposing proposals which would strip universities of their right to make this decision, and encouraging their constituents to lobby against their passage. Proposal 2 fits this description to a tea.
Even if we acknowledge that Proposal 2 will affect students, others might argue that it only affects a small number, so why should we bother when a large number of students probably won’t be affected? To them, I ask this question: how many does it take, before it becomes wrong? 100? 1,000? 10,000? How many does it take? In America, the majority has rights, but so does the minority. Our system of government was constructed so that the minority did not have to live in fear of persecution. The Bill of Rights affirms this: the majority cannot, and shall not, abridge the rights of individuals. We, as this university’s student governing body, must make a stand now, before an ever-growing number of people are victimized by a tyrannical majority. It is our duty to stand up and say, “Not in this country. Not in this state. Not at this university.” The actions we take this year as citizens will have repercussions for decades. It is our responsibility to ensure the policies we approve are well-thought-out. To quote Abraham Lincoln, “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” I urge you to stand up, now, this day, and defend the rights of your classmates…and of yourselves. If we don’t, then what good are we as a voice for the students? By sitting back and doing or saying nothing, are we, in fact, saying, “This is okay.”? Urging students to vote no on Proposal 2 does not mean that gay marriage will suddenly be legal. It means that hatred and bigotry will not become a permanent part of our state constitution. Once written into the constitution, those words can be negated, but they can never be removed. In the end, voting no on Proposal 2 simply means that things will stay as they are, and the discussion will continue.
As a member of the gay community, I will continue to fight this proposal whether this resolution passes or fails. I will not go quietly into the night as my rights, my dignity, and my humanity are stripped away bit by bit. I ask…no, I implore you, fellow legislators, to heed my call and vote with your conscience, not with what you feel will be popular or unpopular. Draw a line in the sand and say, “This far, and no farther.” The very core of our beliefs, the very soul of the nation of liberty and equality in which we live is under attack, and we must rise to defend it. If we do not, the future of freedom itself is at stake.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the floor to Legislator Ewing.
Remarks made by Joshua J. Miller, OUSC Legislator, October 4, 2004.