Sexual preference is one's own business

Kudos to Prof. Wakefield for his well-reasoned and well-articulated letter "Gay rights are wrong because itís immoral behavior." However, he is completely wrong. Gay rights and morality have nothing to so with each other.

Sodomy, briefly defined, is committing or submitting to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. In Mississippi, sodomy is a crime against public morals and decency punishable by 10 years in prision.

Now, before you put the paper down and inquire about the statute of limitations in Mississippi, let's consider the morality of this statute. Should it be illegal for hetrosexual married couples to engage in acts of consensual sodomy? What about unmarried couples? Finally, should that act only apply to members of the same sex who engage in oral and anal intercourse?

The Supreme Court of the United States considered these issues in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). In a 5-4 decision, the Court held a Georgia sodomy statute constitutional when applied to consensual homosexual sodomy. In a footnote, the Court emphasized they expressed no opinion on the constitutionality of the statute as applied to other acts of sodomy. Apparently, the statute was valid because proscriptions against sodomy are deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition.

A better view, I think, was offered by the dissent. Despite its ancient roots, the statute should be invalid because it interferes with the most comprehensive of rights, the right to be let alone. Homosexuals, like everyone else, should have the right to engage in private, consensual sexual activity regardless of whether we believe their conduct is right or wrong. Depriving individuals of the right to choose for themselves how to conduct their intimate relationships poses a far greater danger to our country than relaxing an out-dated Judeo-Christian tradition

Asa Hercules
Second year law student

The circle looks 'really bad'

I have held my tongue for a while now, but I can no longer do so. The circle looks bad . . . make that really bad.

In previous years I have always been able to go to the circle, find a nice stretch of grass under a shade tree, and read my DM while watching students make their way to class. The circle has always been a quiet place to sit and watch the squirrels and people.

However, these days you don't see quite so many squirrels due to the horrible noise of machinery which is in the process of paving over much of the formerly lovely grass. There are no large stretches of lawn anymore, only red spray-painted sidewalk lined in clashing wine-colored fake brick.

Construction Manager Bill Anderson said in Thursday's paper that they hope to "have the whole campus looking like that." Spare us, please! The $300,000 going toward this project could better be spent replacing archaic computers in the journalism lab or creating new scholarships to replace the ones the state is cutting this year. Or how about putting a little of that toward making all of our classrooms handicap accessible?

This campus beautification project has gone terribly awry. Ole Miss has been blessed with millions of dollars in donations over the years. I beg the administration to please think before using these funds to pave over our beautiful campus.

Jennifer Bullock
Educational Psychology
Graduate Student