When it was announced that the University of California education system would be facing $4 billion in budget cuts, UC students were forced to realize that allies in their financial struggle would be few and far between. In the past months, state legislators, UC administrators and even California’s governor have all but turned their back on the state’s student population, leaving them starved for representation in matters that directly impact their higher education experience. Throughout this crisis, students have entrusted ASUCD leadership to responsibly allocate what little funds they control, hoping that their efforts would somehow relieve some of the financial burden currently facing students.

However, this past weekend’s ASUCD budget hearings, a three-day event which reviews the allocation of $10.5 million of student funds, began with a clear example of flagrant irresponsibility and negligence on the part of one student senator. Roughly an hour and a half into the hearings, GO senator Jesse Rosales arrived late and took his place at the senate table, prepared to serve the interests of the UC Davis students who had elected him in fall. The interruption provided by Rosales’ late arrival proved insignificant when compared to the fact that he had entered the meeting while clearly intoxicated. Several witnesses have attested to the senator’s drunken behavior, which interrupted a presentation by Campus Copies’ unit director, and ultimately resulted in Rosales being asked to leave the meeting.

While Rosales’ actions may have provided a small, yet comical, inconvenience to those that were present at the hearings, the real victims here are once again the underrepresented students of UC Davis. It is these students who have entrusted Rosales, along with the 11 other ASUCD Senators, with the responsibility of making informed and responsible decisions on their behalf. Rosales’ actions not only rob these students of their voice, but also undermine the credibility of the ASUCD Senate as a whole. How can students expect their elected officials to adequately operate their student government when an event as important as yearly budget hearings is treated with such little respect?

What makes matters worse is the very real possibility that Rosales will face no repercussions for his actions, and continue to neglect his obligations to better serve the UC Davis community. While such behavior could potentially warrant impeachment, or at the very least an official censure from ASUCD, it is much more likely that Rosales will escape with only a forced apology and the public embarrassment that will result from this incident. This lack of accountability within our student government represents a great injustice being done to UC Davis students, as well as tarnishes the office of ASUCD senator.

It is the purpose of this column to highlight and eradicate such blatantly irresponsible behavior from our very own student senate, not to incite a backlash against ASUCD. However, it may be time for elected officials within ASUCD realize that their office is one of service, not of social privilege, and that failure to adequately represent the students that elected them should ultimately result in the loss of office. At the very least, they should realize that we’re not paying them to drunkenly decide how to waste our money.

JAMES NOONAN believes that all elected officials, with the exception of the Kennedys, should abuse alcohol responsibly. All differing opinions can be sent to jjnoonan@ucdavis.edu.

The California Supreme Court’s landmark decision that invalidates the law against same-sex marriage has elicited a chorus of jubilation in the gay and lesbian community across the nation and among its ardent supporters.

Such recognition of everyone’s right to form a family through marriage catapults California, a state known for its leadership in controversial policies, onto a significant pedestal in influencing the rest of America. At present, only eight states allow civil unions and domestic partnerships of gay couples, and an overwhelming 26 states constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. Although it is the second state only after Massachusetts to allow same-sex unions, California has taken a major step in affirming the constitutionally enshrined rights of the members of the gay and lesbian community.

Poised to take the issue to the November ballot, zealous anti-gay movements, on the other hand, are promising a vitriolic political and ideological campaign to demonize the legality of the high court’s decision. However, the exponents of these interest groups build their arguments against same-sex marriage from personal beliefs and societal norms, which more often than not, overlook the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

Coalescing with these homophobic movements are ultra-conservative religious groups and church evangelicals who have branded homosexuality as evil and same-sex marriage as blasphemy against the sanctity of matrimony. They even preach that God will send a second great flooding to annihilate those who want and advocate for same-sex marriage. But so far, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain, predominantly Christian countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, have not suffered heaven’s wrath.

The assumption that only the union between a man and a woman justifies sacredness is illogical and preposterous. The encompassing power of love, not gender, makes a marriage sanctimonious. So why not bestow same-sex couples united by love and commitment the equal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples to walk down the aisle and create their families? Same-sex marriage is a matter of choice. No one is forcing anyone to embrace same-sex marriage. It is as simple as this: If you do not want one, then do not get one.

These people who belong to anti-gay groups have successfully dictated the definition of marriage as union between one man and one woman. However, the meaning of marriage must not be premised on personal and spiritual beliefs, which entirely relegate gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. What must redefine marriage are the very basic constitutional values of fairness and equality, not religious dogma.

In the words of Chief Justice Ronald George, “The California Constitution must be properly interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians.” The noble justices who have understood and defended such ideals of the constitution deserve praise and admiration for protecting individual rights.

By ruling that ban on same-sex marriage is a violation of equal protection clause of the constitution, the California Supreme Court has sent a very clear message. Same-sex couples not only have the same inherent right to marry like heterosexual couples, but also the right to form a dignified family instituted on lasting affection. And of course, such granting of matrimonial rights to same-sex couples also comes with the inviolable freedom to care for and raise their own children in any method of upbringing they choose.

However, this issue is far from over yet. This milestone in civil rights is undoubtedly still vulnerable to the impending threats of the right-wing ideologists. But at least the monumental step California has taken would reverberate loudly and clearly in shaping public opinion and enlightening narrow minds. Californians must fight back to uphold such an advancement in equality.

REAGAN PARLAN welcomes your comments and suggestions at rfparlan@ucdavis.edu. 

The ASUCD Senate has the power to censure any elected official of ASUCD. A personae censure is a censure that states the ASUCD Senate‘s disapproval of the particular behavior of an individual. Senator Jesse Rosales displayed inappropriate behavior during budget hearings Friday. He arrived an hour and a half late to the Friday budget hearing and was so intoxicated that he had to be asked to leave by the ASUCD president. Senator Rosales was absent on Saturday‘s budget hearing due to a prior commitment, and he was also late to Sunday‘s budget hearing. All ASUCD senators were notified a month in advance about the weekend scheduled for budget hearings. Attending budget hearings is one of the most important duties for ASUCD senators because we allocate $10.5 million to our various ASUCD units, like the Coffee House and Unitrans. For these reasons, I will be making a motion to censure ASUCD Senator Rosales. We have already sent a declaration of intent to censure to the Office of the Vice President so that it will be placed on the agenda for Thursday’s Senate meeting.

Rebecca Schwartz

ASUCD senator

senate president pro tempore

raschwartz@ucdavis.edu

Okay, so I just signed up for the GRE, talked to a journalism student from NYU and looked up a bunch of graduate schools for different disciplines. Now I’m more nervous than ever about the future and have concluded that I’m not a competitive applicant. My delivery of fail will come in the mail soon.

I knew I shouldn’t have grown up, but it looked so cool at first. Everyone stayed up past eight o’clock and talked about going on vacation without taking home a permission slip. Plus, I envied how my ma had the luxury of not having my grandmother get on an airplane from Vietnam, travel for 14 hours, run to our house and burst open the door and say, “Cover your eyes right now!” whenever that pottery scene in Ghost came on TBS.

True, I’m only 20. Anyone who’s older might think this is all a lame clichéd, quarter-life crisis. I know I’m still “young” or whatever, but isn’t this the age when you start to feel old? When it dawns on you that you’re not who you thought you’d be? I mean, when I dreamed about being 21, I saw myself partying and milking college for all its worth, having a great job that I loved and being in a loving relationship with the guy of my dreams (and also 5’5” with a full B cup – oh yeah, I dreamed big).

But I have none of those things. In fact, I’ve managed to maintain the same body type as when I was 12 years old. I do feel a little better knowing some people feel the same way. It’s called “the death of your inner child,” and I feel for your sad loss at this moment. If you don’t know if yours died yet, it probably did, and here is what you can look for:

First, realizing that s/he is gone can happen anywhere. One day you’re at your internship and your boss is yelling at you because you labeled one tube out of 2,000 wrong, or mixed up some papers in a folder for your company’s annual presentation. You find yourself standing there, taking it like a bitch and remembering what your good friend Jon once said: “There’s nothing less demeaning than working for nothing.” Oh how true that is.

And that’s when it hits you: why am I not an astronaut floating in space and cupping the stars in my hands? Why am I not in Cairo, Egypt, digging up bones and fighting zombies? Why am I not running down the halls of some New York office building screaming, “God damn it, I’m going to turn this whole magazine around if it’s the last thing I do and you’re going to love me for it!” Oh right, that’s because you’re here. Reading this column (which I really appreciate by the way), being a “successful college student” and taking shit for mixing up the annual report with the monthly report. Hooray for life!

You also find yourself never really caring about things like you used to. Remember the time when you used to grab those wishing feathers that floated on by, or blew on those dandelions to make wishes? Now you’re so lazy, anytime you just look at the clock and it happens to be 11:11, you get to make a wish. No energy put into it at all!

Or what about when something bothered you? As a kid I remember I’d just say something like, “Hey Mister, can you put the cigarette out? My 4-year-old lungs are dying.” These days, whenever someone is talking behind you in class, all you do is the stealthy but well-known “side glance,” where you turn your head as a signal that means, “Hey, would you mind STFU-ing for a bit?! Thanks.” (You know, it was never until college did I understand the true meaning of passive-aggression.)

You also realize your childhood’s over when everyone else around you is changing. Facebook and MySpace make it really easy to check up on that best friend of yours from the third grade and find out that she has three kids with a 40-year-old. Thank goodness her life has gone far more awry than yours!

That’s when, out of the blue, you try to relive the days of yonder. You revel in your afternoon naps, pop bubble wrap until it’s all gone and crunch dried leaves on the ground. And now thanks to YouTube, all you watch is vintage TV shows from back-in-the-day because you’d rather watch Serena and Darien get back together after they defeated Queen Beryl than study for your poli-sci test.

LYNN LA has been down in the dumps lately about a lot of things. She’s wondering where all the time has gone and wishes to swing on the swings again. If you’d like to knock down her sandcastle and make her cry, e-mail her ldla@ucdavis.edu.

Not all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are happy about the same-sex marriage ruling. While we recognize that the California Supreme Court decision positively and importantly affects some queer lives, marriage alone cannot solve the problems plaguing queer communities. In fact, the ruling further marginalizes relationships and families that don’t conform to a lifelong, monogamous two-partner structure. We are concerned that most media stories about the ruling have erased queer voices that are critical of extending rights only to a privileged few.

Most U.S. households are not modeled on the nuclear family, meaning many families and relationships still do not receive the rights and benefits afforded married couples. Blended and extended families; single parents; close friends, siblings or senior citizens serving as primary caregivers to each other – all are common examples of family structures denied rights extended through marriage. While legal marriage benefits some, this ruling does not grant full equality for all LGBT people.

We are also concerned with the state’s use of marriage as a coercive tool. For example, the current U.S. welfare program provides economic incentives to promote marriage, in some cases offering extra benefits to single mothers who marry their child’s biological father, even if this relationship isn’t desired or beneficial. Welfare benefits that limit parenting and relationship choices demonstrate that for many people – regardless of sexual orientation – marriage is not the key to social justice. While some LGBT people celebrate state-recognized relationships, many of us are wary of increased state control over our sexual lives.

For a chilling example of governmental regulation of bodies, sexuality and supposed deviance, consider the May 14 sentencing of an HIV-positive man in Dallas, Texas to 35 years in prison for spitting on a police officer. Despite long-standing reports from the Centers for Disease Control that saliva does not transmit HIV, the defendant’s saliva was ruled a deadly weapon, meaning he must serve half of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

Consider also the current committee appointments for revising the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The DSM lists diagnostic criteria for mental disorders, including Gender Identity Disorder (homosexuality was removed in 1974). Dr. Kenneth Zucker is chairing the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group, despite advocating that queer and trans people (especially youth) can be “cured” through reparative therapy. That many LGBT people are unaware of these recent abuses by state institutions reveals that the same-sex marriage struggle overshadows some of the most damaging actions against queer and trans communities.

We support the personal and spiritual meaning that marriage has for many, but question whether fighting for marriage as a state-run institution is the best strategy for queer liberation more broadly. We urge the networks formed through the same-sex marriage struggle to continue working in the service of all marginalized communities. Following the work of projects like Queers for Economic Justice and beyondmarriage.org, and scholars and activists such as Lisa Duggan, Richard Kim and Nancy Polikoff, we advocate the following: Instead of linking state benefits like health care, housing and welfare to marital privilege, they should be detached from marriage and available to all, regardless of marital or citizenship status. Rather than furthering the norm of two partners acting as a single economic childrearing unit, we argue for a movement that embraces multiple meanings of family, and recognizes that marriage and domestic partnership are not always optimal or desired choices. Finally, we believe we can better serve marginalized communities by fighting against all state regulation of sexual and gender choices, identities and expressions.

TOBY BEAUCHAMP, STEVEN BLEVINS, CYNTHIA DEGNAN, BENJAMIN D’HARLINGUE, CATHY HANNABACH, CHRISTOPHER LEE, TRISTAN JOSEPHSON, LIZ MONTEGARY and KARA THOMPSON authored this guest opinion. They are undergraduate and graduate students at UC Davis, engaged in queer and trans activist and academic work.

During the last few weeks, Transportation and Parking Services has created a cyclist upset by confiscating illegally parked bicycles primarily in the Memorial Union and Activities and Recreation Center areas. Notices were left on bicycles to discourage owners from parking in certain areas where no racks are available.

The root of the problem is not that students are breaking the rules of where to park; rather there is an overabundance of unused bicycles on campus that inhibit the places a student can park legally. The majority of bicycles confiscated have been locked to themselves in front of buildings that experience high traffic during school hours. Though a student would understand that parking there is a hazard in the case of an emergency evacuation, students are left with few legal options when they want to park near a building temporarily.

TAPS has recommended for students who frequent the MU to consider parking nearby such as in front of Wellman. However, not all bike parking has been converted to racks on campus. Pod parking does not allow for a cyclist to adequately lock their bike’s frame to a stationary object, which poses a threat to its security. In order for campus cyclists to practice better bicycle parking, the amenities offered to them must be improved. Adding 60 new slots in front of the ARC when 25,000 bikes on average traverse the campus daily will not be that profound of an impact.

In order to improve the situation for both TAPS and campus cyclists, TAPS should make the “sweeping” of unused or abandoned bicycles a more regular practice. When they do this, they can notify the campus by putting notices on the bikes as well as sending a campuswide e-mail. This provides more available parking spots as well as increased courtesy among bicycle owners.

This situation, however, should not be fully considered the fault of TAPS for impounding illegally parked bikes. Students should be more cautious where they park and be considerate of other cyclists. If a student tends to leave his or her bicycle overnight on campus or does not use it frequently throughout the day, he or she might want to leave it locked in an area not as highly used so that there are available spots for others. In terms of parking at the ARC, students should not be reluctant to park a little bit farther away, such as at nearby fields, as they are looking to exercise anyway. The distance is not substantial enough that students should feel the need to park right in front of the ARC entryway when no spots are vacant.

The California State Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex marriages are legal in California marked a historic and positive turn in our state’s history.

While racial discrimination has long been legally banned, this ruling finally recognizes and formalizes equality on the basis of sexual orientation. One of the most important parts of our constitution is equality for all, regardless of any kind of minority status. This ruling has extended this principle to include gays and lesbians, and rightly so. This ruling not only allows same-sex marriages, it also sets a precedent to extend equality for lesbians and gays in countless other legal areas.

Marriage is a deeply personal topic to many, and the thought of desecrating it can be deeply offensive. Many have argued that redefining marriage in this sense goes against tradition. But America is a country built on the voice of many, and “tradition” means different things depending on who you ask. Despite similar protest, our country has previously changed the definition of marriage. It was only in 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Banning marriages between two people of the same gender is no different.

It is important to remember the secular aspects of American society and regardless of the religious meanings of marriage, there are legal meanings attached to it as well. Married people enjoy many legal protections that life partners do not have: they automatically gain joint custody of children, have financial and tax benefits and can make medical decisions for their spouse, among others. More importantly, marriage formalizes the love that two people share, and makes their union legitimate in the eyes of society. To exclude a select group of citizens from these rights is unconstitutional, and it is wonderful that California’s courts have recognized this.

As with any kind of historical and controversial process, there will be those who want to fight this ruling and extend the legal battle. However, progress must prevail, and Californians should search their consciences if an anti-same-sex marriage proposal is added to the November ballot. Do we want to uphold California’s tradition of equality and openness? Or should we return to an era of discrimination and oppression of those without a voice?