In response to Eric Uskali’s “Gaining Some Ground,” Uskali seems rather misguided in his simplistic views of the gay marriage controversy. A major problem with the change is once the government starts bending the rules and definition of marriage, where does it end? What if a man and his chimpanzee wish to get married and want government recognition? Who are we to say no? Now I’m not equating gays to animals in any way, this is just an example. Should the government give tax breaks and deductions to this man and his love-partner? I sure hope not. I’m not angst-ridden about giving gays the right to elope, but I think with the current conditions, keeping the status quo is the best idea.

This may sound strange, but I’m surprised that gays are so strongly in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Part of being a member of the gay community is standing out in a crowd and being different. Protesting the ban makes you stand out. Getting married illegally makes you stand out. But once the laws change, a legal gay marriage will be just another marriage blending into the rest of society, nothing shocking or newsworthy. This goes against a main staple of the homosexual lifestyle and should be thought about when evaluating the repercussions of this law change.

While trying to defend gay rights, Uskali takes quite a few shots at other targets like Chief Supporters and Republicans. He infers that Congressman Roscoe Bartlett and other politicians against gay marriage are ignorant. Part of democracy is allowing representatives the ability to vote to reflect their views and the views of their constituents. Of course, since Bartlett has a view differing from Uskali’s, it is 100 percent wrong. Eric also states that Bartlett has a “hilarious” name. Quite an observation coming from a guy named Uskali. Bartlett is an elderly man with an old name that he didn’t choose and should not be a point for ridicule.

Uskali’s cheap shot at the RSO Students for Chief Illiniwek (relating Students for Chief Illiniwek’s slogan to a racial segregation slogan) was much more interesting. He seems to be adamantly against having the Chief as the University of Illinois mascot. But let me ask you something Eric Uskali, “Why do you care? It simply does not affect you.” If you find it that disturbing, you don’t have to go to U of I basketball and football games or you can close your eyes at halftime. I think you say it best, Eric.

Banning the Chief “may make you happy for some strange reason, but it prevents happiness in countless numbers of people.” But since they disagree with your political ideology, why should you care?

Brian T. Smith

freshman in engineering