Sunday, Dec. 25, 2005 | 9:11 a.m.
Editor's note: About 1,000 students from high schools throughout Southern Nevada participated in the 50th annual Sun Youth Forum on Nov. 22. The students were divided into groups to discuss a variety of topics. A spokesperson was chosen from each group to write a column about the students' findings. Alex Anderson of Green Valley High School writes about issues covered by his group, "America."
Politics can draw the ugly side of decent people into a discussion. Luckily, the students participating in the Sun Youth Forum recognized the importance of their actions. By contributing insights to domestic affairs, my peers and I took progressive action toward understanding the issues that directly affect our lives.
Our first discussion on discrimination segued right into a debate on same-sex marriage. Instantly, the room polarized.
Arguing from the perspective of what is natural, one student brought up that same-sex couples cannot conceive a child.
To that, another young lady asked, "Should sterile people be denied the right to marry?"
The discussion then moved to whether same-sex marriage should be a state or national issue. Most of those opposed to same-sex marriage said it should be a state issue.
My contention stems from the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. States must recognize certificates, like marriage, in other states. Because of this, I believe that same-sex marriage is a national issue.
While I understand the right of a religion to deny marriage in a church or a temple, I believe the government has two choices: Recognize both forms of marriage. Or recognize none.
The national government must allow same-sex marriages because there are privileges and benefits of marriage under the state that cannot be denied to anyone. Many argue that homosexuals have the right to a civil union, but I seem to remember that there was a time when our country believed that separate could be equal. We were wrong.
When the issue of immigration came up, many students had different perspectives. Our group was very diverse.
In fact, a handful of students were born in foreign countries. They came to America with their families to escape hardships.
Many of their relatives are still in foreign countries waiting for a guest visa to immigrate here. The wait for a visa often extends past 10 years!
Many students said that even though the wait is long, immigration control must increase. These same students proposed the infamous Wall to block immigrants from entering the country. This frightens me.
Listen, folks, America cannot afford to send the message of isolation to the international community. I presented a different solution: Build a bridge across the Rio Grande. Welcome immigrants to America.
As a world power, we have an obligation to provide a safe haven to anyone from any country. One student argued that immigrants do not pay the same taxes and therefore should not receive the benefits of the American government. Allow me to respond.
Not only are all immigrants subject to the same sales tax as any American citizen, but many of them also are paid on the books by legitimate employers. This means that they contribute to payroll taxes and FICA. However, because they are not citizens and do not have a Social Security number, they can never receive the benefits of their contributions.
Although other issues were discussed, these consumed the debate. I was glad to see that our group was able to address important issues.
We understood that in disagreeing with someone's opinions, we were disagreeing with their ideas, not who they were. The civility in the discussion was something to be proud about.
Although we rarely had an overwhelming majority opinion, we had a group of students who knew what they believed and why they believed it. It is reassuring that we have students who will contribute to our community in the future.
As a recently registered voter, I have many new perspectives to take into consideration before I go to the polls. For that, I am grateful.
archive
