Letters

Reader disturbed by responses to Garrett

It is with deep disgust I read the responses to Mr. Garrett's "First Person" (Sept. 25). For a community that prides itself on diversity and openness to opposing views, it is clear the majority have little regard for those opinions that differ from their own --what a surprise! Many of the responses were the height of hypocrisy and not one was printed in his defense, not even from the religious community. Clearly the article and responses are on opposite ends of the spectrum; we all need to work toward a little middle ground.

Anne Nugent
Department of Anthropology

Garrett's opinion that of silent majority

Thank you for printing Gerald Garrett's viewpoint on the domestic partner benefits issue. Noticeably absent, however, were any letters supporting his views in subsequent issues of Emory Report. Is this an example of smaller special interest "squeaky wheels" getting grease while the much greater majority lies silent?

I support Garrett's position wholeheartedly, and questioning colleagues finds most in agreement. However, a prevalent attitude today is that only certain groups have a "right" to express their opinions. Anyone in opposition to these views is automatically branded as hateful, bigoted, self-righteous, homophobic, etc. Opinions now come with titles. Fortunately, the right of expression also applies to Christians, free speech being a "true right." (What many conveniently forget is that their right to free speech and religion is guaranteed solely to living in a country that was founded on fundamental Christian principles.) Additionally, many confuse rights with privileges. This is not a country of unlimited rights. Society demands personal limitations.

In defense of Mr. Garrett's "offensive words" regarding homosexual behavior, they are not his own but quoted directly from Scripture. The question that begs an answer is: Is Scripture the word of God or not? Apparently, the founders of Emory, and most great educational institutions and hospitals in the world, thought so. Makes you wonder how such a lofty establishment as Emory could have sprung forth from such faulty foundations.

The idea of multiple "standards of truth" is simply laughable. I would love to see the response of the purveyors of this nonsense when their Delta captain tells them he is about to invent a new aerodynamic law on their flight at 35,000 feet, or when their surgeon tells them that he doesn't "believe" a sterile field is necessary for their bypass surgery, or when a judge gives them 40 years for a parking ticket. Hey, it's all relative, no? Their truth is as good as yours.

Finally, are domestic partner benefits discriminatory? Yes. As a single in a committed relationship, why shouldn't my "partner" be allowed to partake of my benefits? Only one reason I can see...he's a guy and I'm not.

Mary Jane Kelley
Department of Psychiatry

Remember Oxford

I read with interest your stories about the hurricane and the United Way. I would like to ask that when you do a story that has University-wide scope that you include information about Oxford. For instance, the Oxford campus lost power for more than a day and lost two huge 100-year-old oak trees. Also, it is not true that all Emory employee donations to the United Way go to Metro Atlanta United Way. Oxford employee donations go to the Newton County United Way.

It is not that Oxford is omitted intentionally, I know. It is just easy to overlook a campus 35 miles away. That is why I feel like all of us must ask the question, every time we speak of the University, "What about Oxford?" Sometimes this will lead you in a new direction and sometimes it won't, but please do not forget to ask.

David Rowe
Development Office,
Oxford College