Editorials
Week Of February 23, 2004
Shall We Dialogue?
April Link
The Lance
First and second year stu
dents, do you wonder what the
white boxes with Greek writing
on them in Belk, MJ, Vardell and
LA are for? Do you remember
“The Dialogues”, juniors and
seniors?
In the 60s, there was plen
ty to talk about: the Vietnam War,
drug laws, civil rights,etc. Back
then, St. Andrews students used to
frequent Jim’s Bar across the bor
der, in SC (Scotland county was
dry). It was segregated. Well, SA
students, faculty and administra
tion decided that that just wasn’t
acceptable. So, they started a
forum on campus called “The
Dialogues” (a nod to the Greeks)
to voice their opposition. It was
used as a medium to rally a boy
cott of Jim’s. It worked; Jim’s
desegregated.
Ever since then, “The
Dialogues” have dipped in and
out of activity, but keep springing
up. At times of peak interest, sev
eral issues were being written and
distributed across campus every
week. My first year here people
from Aaron Gatten to Bobby
Dzie^lski to Speedo wrote
them. It has always been open to
absolutely everyone on campus to
participate. That includes faculty
such as Ron Bayes and adminis
tration like Cynthia Robinson.
The college pastor originally
started it. Anyone with an opin
ion, criticism, question, debate or
idea can write one.
In 2004, we again have
much to talk about: the Iraq War,
drug laws (the anti-marijuana
campaign in the US and decrimi
nalization in other countries),
civil rights (same sex marriage,
the Patriot Act’s infringement on
basic rights), etc. Or we can look
closer to home at the St. Andrews
campus and Laurinburg. One
great thing about our college is
that we are given opportunities to
let the people running things
know what we think and want.
What they do with that, if any
thing, is another issue, but it is
supremely important that we not
let this chance for a hand in the
control of our lives here and the
ability to raise our voices fall
away.
So, let’s pick up this St.
Andrews tradition of free speech
and open dialogue again. This is
what you do:
1) Write up a page or two
on changes that you’d like to see
happen, a gripe you that have, an
opinion that you think needs pub
licity or anything else you want
the campus to read. Just stay
away from slander and overly
vulgar stuff. We won’t edit your
content, just proof the writing and
distribute.
2) Sign it! This gives the
piece credibility.
3) Save it to disk if at all
possible and stick it in the slot in
one of the white boxes in LA, MJ,
Vardell or Belk.
Not long afterwards,
unless we need to contact you,
you’re piece will be in stacks on
the tops of the dialogue boxes and
possibly on cafeteria tables and
such.
SO SAY SOMETHING!
If you want to help put this out,
contact me, April at
linkad@sapc.edu or ext. 5382.
Bible Bans Boy Brides
Chuck Bond
The Lance
First of all, let
me just say that I hon
estly don’t care what
you think about homo
sexuality. I don’t care
if your God says it’s
wrong, and I don’t care
if your President says
it’s wrong; the simple
truth is that there is
absolutely no legal rea
son to oppose same-
sex marriage, or at
least there wasn’t
before the Defense of
Marriage act of 1996.1
understand the church
es not wanting to
marry same-sex cou
ples as it is expressly
forbidden in the book
of Leviticus (Lev.
18:22). Of course the
Book of Leviticus is
the book that gave us
such all time classic
hits as: you can only
have one species of
animal hooked up to a
cart at a time (Lev.
19:19), and you may
not lay with a women
during her menstrual
cycle (Lev. 18:19), but
I digress. So the Bible
is against homosexual
ity for the most part.
I’m fine with that, the
Bible is against a lot of
things that I find not
only quite fun, but also
quite fulfilling.
So why is our
government against
same-sex marriage? To
answer this question I
turned to an old friend
of mine, the Bill of
Rights. I know many
of you out there in post
9/11 America have for
gotten ol’ Bill, but I for
one haven’t. Oddly
enough Bill didn’t say
anything about outlaw
ing marriage amongst
homosexuals. As I was
reading it I was taken
aback by certain things
which I found
appalling, like the fact
that it guarantees free
dom and a say in the
government only to a
select number of white
male landowners.
Barring these glaring
faults, I would have to
say that the constitu
tion is overall a big fan
of freedom. Our soci
ety today at least pre
tends to be big fans of
freedom, with big
American flags on the
back of each car. I
mean we are even such
fans of freedom we
have taken the whole
freedom thing on the
road, first we freed
Afghanistan, then Iraq,
soon maybe the whole
world will be free,
including America.
The fact is we just now
made it legally ok for
people to have sex in a
non-traditional way
(sodomy), and Virginia
still has issues with
that.
Let’s look at the
Defense of Marriage
Act of 1996. The
DOMA defined mar
riage as a legal union
of man and woman as
husband and wife. It
goes on to define
spouse as someone of
the opposite sex who is
a husband or wife. So
there you go, finally
we find some legal
reason to oppose gay
marriage. The problem
is, someone just made
it up. There is no his
torical backing. There
is no reason to define
the parameters of mar
riage this way, unless
of course you want to
make it certain that
same-sex marriage
doesn’t become legal.
The act jumps right off
the bat by saying that
no state has to recog
nize any other defini
tion of marriage. So if
I get married to a love
ly young man in
Amsterdam, whom my.„
parents love by the
way, and move back to
the States to be closer
to the aforementioned
parents, the state I
move to does not have
to recognize us as mar
ried.
President Bush
recently made mention
of the Defense of
Marriage Act in his
•See Brides, Page 7
A Yankee’s Perspective on Winter Headwear
Peter Galan
The Lance
Where I’m from
(Rochester, New York) it is essen
tially winter 6 months of the year:
October until April. Yes, 1 have
had snow on Easter Sunday. So
whenever I went out somewhere, it
was always, “Peter, do you have a
hat??” And of course I would say,
“Yes, Mother, 1 have a hat.” But
that’s all it was. A hat.
And then I came to St Andrews.
When I first heard people talking
about getting this “Really Cool
Toboggan” at American Eagle or
Aeropostale or whatever is “cool”
in that moment, I said, “You
bought a sled at American Eagle?
Why would you do a silly thing
like that??” Of course I got some
really weird looks for saying that -
silly me for being an ignorant
Yankee - as people told me that a
toboggan was something that you
wear on your head. The “hat” to
which I referred as a New Yorker
was, to you Southerners (sorry,
“y’all”) a toboggan. I thought that
was pretty goofy. I mean serious
ly, who wears a sled on their
head??
And then there are the
Canadians. Boy are there some
Canadians here. It seems like
every other person here is from
our “Neighbors to the North”.
Don’t get me wrong, I love ‘em all
to death, but even they don’t know
how to talk (don’t get me started
on the whole aBOOT thing. Silly
Canuckleheads© [Joe Harris,
Spring 2003]). Remember the
“hat” I was talking about? Sorry,
the “toboggan”? No no no, it’s not
a toboggan; it’s not even a hat. To
them, it’s a toque, eh? Now, I will
be honest for a minute here. If I
don’t call it a hat, then I am going
to call it a toque. But still. Why
would you create a new word just
to describe something that already
exists as a “hat”???? Toque isn’t
even French, which, if it was,
would make complete sense, con
sidering most Canadians speak
French. No, they have to go and
throw a big ol’ monkey wrench
into the works, make up a new
word, and call it a toque.
Beanie. No, 1 am not talk
ing about the catatonic friend of
Patch Adams, who perpetually was
raising his hand, telling the world
which way heaven is, where the
birds fly, and how you say hello to
Hitler (to name but a few of the
questions asked by Patch; see the
movie, it’s a classic). No, I am
talking about another name for that
God-forsaken hat-toque-toboggan.
I have heard the term bandied
about a bit, but I would have to
say that it is the least popular of
the names. However, this is what
I think a beanie to be:
Yes,
that’s right. A baseball-cap-ish hat
with a propeller on top of it.
Is it a hat? A toque? Toboggan?
Beanie? Knit Cap (which I didn’t
even get into; it sounds way too
formal and antiquated to even war
rant discussion)?? Who knows,
and in the grand scheme of things,
who cares? All I know is that
when it is cold outside. I’ve got
my hat, and my head will be
warm.