While reading "Say "I Do" to Marriage Equality" by classmate Sydney Spencer, images of what my future wedding might look like immediately started fluttering through my head. What will the dress look like? What flowers and color scheme will I have? What flavors will the cake consist of?! Then as I read on I quickly began to imagine what it would be like if I had finally found the Prince Charming that everyone is always fussing about and was on my way to my happy ending, only to be stopped in my tracks by the ignorance of someone who does not agree with my choice in a partner.
Then I began thinking of a recent fight my boyfriend and I had had over a controversial movie that I watched for the first time a couple of weeks ago. The notorious, "cowboy love story" Brokeback Mountain. My boyfriend had immediately reacted with disgust when I notified him of the fact that I was currently watching the movie. I, with my anti-discriminatory views, became really mad with his ignorance. I questioned him, "If a cowgirl and a cowboy fell in love one summer on a mountain and they met up periodically throughout their lives at that same mountain, would that be a sweet timeless love story?" "Yes!" he replied. "Then why is it not same in the instance that it is the same situation only with two cowboys?" I further question. He couldn't give me an answer, but in turn apologized for his rude reaction that had offended my personal beliefs.
I greatly admire Spencer's choice of the words "Marriage Equality" in place of the frequently used alternatives "defense of marriage" and "gay marriage". And, I also love that she gives the issue a personal feel by saying,
"Imagine you and your fiance go to the county courthouse to get a marriage license. You pay the fee, but the clerk refuses to issue the license. Why? Well, they don't approve of who you plan to marry. And, the law says you can't marry the person you've chosen, and who has chosen you."
This is exactly the point was I was trying to get across to my boyfriend! I doesn't matter whether it's an opposite-sex, Biracial, or same-sex couple. Love is love! The Declaration of Independence assures that all men and women are ensured certain unalienable rights. We've all heard the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" spiel. So is marriage not the pursuit of happiness with another person? I believe it is. That is why I stand by my classmate's opinion of marriage equality. "I am not willing to give up any of my rights, which is why I support marriage and religious equality for all Americans!"
Friday, March 7, 2014
Friday, February 28, 2014
If You Show Me Your Friends, I'll Show You Your Future.
The United States Government may be making a HUGE leap toward the support of gay rights through their new evaluation of the nations that they have relations with. The standards of our foreign policy may soon be changing.
The country of Uganda's President, Yoweri Museveni, is under international criticism from the United States and many other countries after he approved a law imposing cruel punishments for homosexuality. Some are even as severe as punishing same-sex relations with up to life in prison. Republican Senator John McCain has responded by saying, "It's outrageous. It's wrong. And it ought to, and I'm sure it will, affect our relations with that country." He has even been sited as calling the law a violation of human rights. Another well-known political figure, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, has made his opinion known by calling the law "abhorrent" and saying the country "took a step backward" with the law as he urged it's repeal. Still there are some U.S. law makers that are reviewing the law more closely before they make their judgement calls. When pressed for a reaction to the law South Carolina Senator, Lindsey Graham, stated "Africa is a continent in peril. The problem in Uganda with AIDS and, you know, kids starving: Do we deny economic aid to the developing world in Africa, which could be an ally, over an issue like this? I'm not so sure that is the right answer."
Regardless of the countless opinions on this event, a review of the relationship with the country has already been confirmed by State Department Spokeswoman, Jen Psaki.
"Now that this law has been enacted, we are beginning an internal review of our relationship with the government of Uganda to ensure that all dimensions of our engagement, including assistance programs, uphold our anti-discrimination policies and principles and reflect our values."
What's that old saying our parents drilled into our heads as children? "Show me your friends and I'll show you your future." The United States needs to definitely stand by the policies and values that our country has set. We should make sure that the countries we involve ourselves with and invest our efforts in countries share the same ideals as us. The U.S. has been making amazing advances in the support of gay rights and anti-discrimination support. Continuing to have foreign relations with countries that are imposing laws that support opposite effects would be a tremendous loss on our part. Uganda may be in need of support from a major donor like the United States (a reported 1.6 billion a year from in total financial assistance), but that is no excuse for the views points that the country is spreading throughout it actions.
If the country really wants to continue to have the alliance with the U.S., it will change its policies. Otherwise, the decision to cut ties can just benefit our country by showing its citizens that it is willing to make changes to protect them from the distorted values of foreign countries.
The country of Uganda's President, Yoweri Museveni, is under international criticism from the United States and many other countries after he approved a law imposing cruel punishments for homosexuality. Some are even as severe as punishing same-sex relations with up to life in prison. Republican Senator John McCain has responded by saying, "It's outrageous. It's wrong. And it ought to, and I'm sure it will, affect our relations with that country." He has even been sited as calling the law a violation of human rights. Another well-known political figure, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, has made his opinion known by calling the law "abhorrent" and saying the country "took a step backward" with the law as he urged it's repeal. Still there are some U.S. law makers that are reviewing the law more closely before they make their judgement calls. When pressed for a reaction to the law South Carolina Senator, Lindsey Graham, stated "Africa is a continent in peril. The problem in Uganda with AIDS and, you know, kids starving: Do we deny economic aid to the developing world in Africa, which could be an ally, over an issue like this? I'm not so sure that is the right answer."
Regardless of the countless opinions on this event, a review of the relationship with the country has already been confirmed by State Department Spokeswoman, Jen Psaki.
"Now that this law has been enacted, we are beginning an internal review of our relationship with the government of Uganda to ensure that all dimensions of our engagement, including assistance programs, uphold our anti-discrimination policies and principles and reflect our values."
What's that old saying our parents drilled into our heads as children? "Show me your friends and I'll show you your future." The United States needs to definitely stand by the policies and values that our country has set. We should make sure that the countries we involve ourselves with and invest our efforts in countries share the same ideals as us. The U.S. has been making amazing advances in the support of gay rights and anti-discrimination support. Continuing to have foreign relations with countries that are imposing laws that support opposite effects would be a tremendous loss on our part. Uganda may be in need of support from a major donor like the United States (a reported 1.6 billion a year from in total financial assistance), but that is no excuse for the views points that the country is spreading throughout it actions.
If the country really wants to continue to have the alliance with the U.S., it will change its policies. Otherwise, the decision to cut ties can just benefit our country by showing its citizens that it is willing to make changes to protect them from the distorted values of foreign countries.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
A Government Run By Criminals
The article "Holder: Felons should not lose their voting rights permanently" on the Daily Kos political blog really caught my attention as I was frantically searching for a piece to write my next blog assignment about because it was something I was not even aware of. This particular blog site is written more towards the Liberal spectrum of the political ideas and I tend to lean more toward conservative point of view of things, but nevertheless, I still found this post very insightful.
The article by Timothy Lange (alias "Meteor Blade"),a sixty-eight year old blogger from San Francisco, California, starts out by describing the Criminal Justice Conference address by Attorney General Eric Holder toward the issue of the recent states laws that take away the voting rights of convicted felons forever. "It is time to rethink the laws that permanently disenfranchise people who are no longer under federal or state supervision," says Holder to the Leadership Council on the Civil and Human Rights Criminal Justice Forum in the excerpt of his address that follows Lange's introduction into the controversial topic of choice. Holder also states "These restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust..... By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit future crimes." Following the except, Lange describes the various laws throughout various states that pertain to the subject matter listing instances from states such as Florida and Virginia. He states "In Florida, felons must appeal for a clemency ruling from the governor to get back their franchise." He also mentions that Virginia requires that felons convicted of non-violent offenses now have their voting rights automatically restored. Next, Lange allusions to a 2012 article in the University of Richmond Law Review about felony disenfranchisement in Virginia that quotes Dori Elizabeth Martin. Concluding the article and revealing his take on the subject, Lange writes "If the goal of temporary incarceration is rehabilitation, as supposedly is the case, how can a person be fully rehabilitated if he or she cannot exercise one of the basic rights of an American citizen.......can you truly say you are represented if you have no opportunity to choose your representative?"
Now for my opinion, I completely disagree with the idea that felons should be able to vote. Yes, it is a basic right for an American citizen. But once you commit a crime that is so bad that it is considered a felony and hinder the rights of other citizens in America, I believe you forfeit your own rights. I mean honestly, if someone has made the decision to commit a crime out of poor judgement should we really allow them to use that poor judgement to impact OUR country. NO! We definitely should not! I believe that a process of appeal after several years with proof of better judgement could be set in place for citizens that are no longer incarcerated, but other than it is not in the best judgement of our country to allow people who have committed felonies to make choices that impact America.
Now for my opinion, I completely disagree with the idea that felons should be able to vote. Yes, it is a basic right for an American citizen. But once you commit a crime that is so bad that it is considered a felony and hinder the rights of other citizens in America, I believe you forfeit your own rights. I mean honestly, if someone has made the decision to commit a crime out of poor judgement should we really allow them to use that poor judgement to impact OUR country. NO! We definitely should not! I believe that a process of appeal after several years with proof of better judgement could be set in place for citizens that are no longer incarcerated, but other than it is not in the best judgement of our country to allow people who have committed felonies to make choices that impact America.
Friday, February 7, 2014
He Did What?!
"Can Obama write his own laws?" This is the title question posed by Charles Krauthammer in his editorial article for the Washington post. This article really caught my eye because after study chapter two of the text the idea of someone, especially the president of all people, ignoring the system and creating his own rules seems absolutely absurd!
Opinion Writer Charles Krauthammer begins the article by telling of the strict mandatory sentences that federal drugs laws carry due to the 1980s crack epidemic. He says that these have "stirred unease in congress and sparked a bipartisan effort to revise and relax some of the more draconian laws." Then Krauthammer states "Traditionally - meaning before Barack Obama - that's how laws were changed: We have a problem, we hold hearings, we find some new arrangement ratified by congress and signed by the president." It sounds to be conducted exactly how we learned it, right? Then what's the problem? Well, according to Krauthammer, our president is participating in such things as unilaterally waiving an Obamacare cap on a patient's out-of-pocket expenses because it stood in the way of his administrative agenda, directing a 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congress and their personal staff, and even passing "the DREAM act" (despite the fact that it was refused by Congress) just because the approaching election could hinge on the Hispanic vote! Krauthammer explains "The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM act. Or mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing healthcare premiums...The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will." HE expresses his opinion on the point with the remarks "Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution," and "It mocks the separation of powers."
Krauthammer is not the only one that feels this way. After becoming aware of this information, I find myself wholeheartedly standing behind this stranger's political opinion. It is definitely NOT OKAY if the man who is supposedly jointly running this country with Congress just decides to enact things that are solely for his own interest and the interests of his implications without abiding by the processes that were sanctioned with the purpose of making our government system honorable and unprejudiced.
Just as Krauthammer proclaims "At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether the president gets to write his own."
Opinion Writer Charles Krauthammer begins the article by telling of the strict mandatory sentences that federal drugs laws carry due to the 1980s crack epidemic. He says that these have "stirred unease in congress and sparked a bipartisan effort to revise and relax some of the more draconian laws." Then Krauthammer states "Traditionally - meaning before Barack Obama - that's how laws were changed: We have a problem, we hold hearings, we find some new arrangement ratified by congress and signed by the president." It sounds to be conducted exactly how we learned it, right? Then what's the problem? Well, according to Krauthammer, our president is participating in such things as unilaterally waiving an Obamacare cap on a patient's out-of-pocket expenses because it stood in the way of his administrative agenda, directing a 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congress and their personal staff, and even passing "the DREAM act" (despite the fact that it was refused by Congress) just because the approaching election could hinge on the Hispanic vote! Krauthammer explains "The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM act. Or mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing healthcare premiums...The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will." HE expresses his opinion on the point with the remarks "Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution," and "It mocks the separation of powers."
Krauthammer is not the only one that feels this way. After becoming aware of this information, I find myself wholeheartedly standing behind this stranger's political opinion. It is definitely NOT OKAY if the man who is supposedly jointly running this country with Congress just decides to enact things that are solely for his own interest and the interests of his implications without abiding by the processes that were sanctioned with the purpose of making our government system honorable and unprejudiced.
Just as Krauthammer proclaims "At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether the president gets to write his own."
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Our Tech-Savy Government
I use technology everyday. I use my cell phone to connect with people. I use my laptop to access the internet. I'm even using this website to express my opinions on our government!
So it shouldn't have shocked me so much when I read the article "Solid Gains for White House's SOTU Web Effort" by The Wall Street Journal. This article is aimed at describing the impact the White House is making with their website and broadcasting President Obama's State of the Union address. It tells of the massive amount of tweets that were written during the speech and the graphics, charts, and data used to back up the President's remarks. It was really interesting to me that our government is actually pushing so hard to be involved in social media, but it does make much more sense after the food for thought provided by the author. This was more relevant to me than most other articles because as a student I usually don't have time to sit down to watch the news. Consequently when I do have time to relax and rest my feet, I'm not really apt to spend my "me" time watching a president that I'm not very fond of discuss his plans for our government. It is really much more convenient to be able to tune into the address while doing class work on my laptop from the comfort of my desk.
Despite the numerous articles available from the mainstream sources, this article rally caught my eye because it emphasizes the impact that social media is having in our world and it brought to light the fact that it is even starting to influence the processes of how governmental information is spread throughout our country.
So it shouldn't have shocked me so much when I read the article "Solid Gains for White House's SOTU Web Effort" by The Wall Street Journal. This article is aimed at describing the impact the White House is making with their website and broadcasting President Obama's State of the Union address. It tells of the massive amount of tweets that were written during the speech and the graphics, charts, and data used to back up the President's remarks. It was really interesting to me that our government is actually pushing so hard to be involved in social media, but it does make much more sense after the food for thought provided by the author. This was more relevant to me than most other articles because as a student I usually don't have time to sit down to watch the news. Consequently when I do have time to relax and rest my feet, I'm not really apt to spend my "me" time watching a president that I'm not very fond of discuss his plans for our government. It is really much more convenient to be able to tune into the address while doing class work on my laptop from the comfort of my desk.
Despite the numerous articles available from the mainstream sources, this article rally caught my eye because it emphasizes the impact that social media is having in our world and it brought to light the fact that it is even starting to influence the processes of how governmental information is spread throughout our country.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
If I Knew What I was Talking About...
I will be eighteen in two short months. I'll finally get to vote, but the idea of voting when you have no idea what path you are choosing for the future of the place you call home is pretty scary.
In all honesty, I do not really know very much about our government, how it functions, or the way it all affects my life. I know the basics. I know that there are three branches in the United States government. I know that there are different processes that politicians must go through to influence the government. I know that according to the Time quiz the was posted in the announcements section on Blackboard that I am 73% conservative and 27% liberal because I favor cats to dogs, but I like my desk to be neat. I am a little confused because the "Political Typology" quiz told me that I am a libertarian and I only just learned what that was.
I hope that taking this class will help me more fully understand how my government works and make it easier for me to choose the candidates that support my view of how the country should be run.
In all honesty, I do not really know very much about our government, how it functions, or the way it all affects my life. I know the basics. I know that there are three branches in the United States government. I know that there are different processes that politicians must go through to influence the government. I know that according to the Time quiz the was posted in the announcements section on Blackboard that I am 73% conservative and 27% liberal because I favor cats to dogs, but I like my desk to be neat. I am a little confused because the "Political Typology" quiz told me that I am a libertarian and I only just learned what that was.
I hope that taking this class will help me more fully understand how my government works and make it easier for me to choose the candidates that support my view of how the country should be run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)