Prop 8 = Hate

The issue of gay rights has been controversial for the last few decades. Many fight for gay marriage laws while others oppose them. Conservatives and religious forces fight for no legal recognition of unions between same sex couples. Liberals and civil rights activists fight for a clear recognition of this basic right of union. Proposition 8 is an excellent example of a current event that demonstrates this battle over same sex marriage. Proposition 8 is funded by both religious forces, such as the Roman Catholic Church, and conservative republicans, like John McCain. Proposition 8 fights for an amendment to the constitution that eliminates the rights of gay marriage.   

                Proposition 8 is a good example of why there should be a separation of church and state. Anyone can clearly see that religious motives are behind the proposition. These religious forces, predominantly the Catholic Church, invest much time and effort ensuring that gay people do not have the right to have a legal union and marriage. This seems like such a trivial issue; the government should not be allowed to take sides with any religion or discriminate against homosexual couples. Although Catholics dislike the union of gay couples, they do not have the right to dictate the way other people live their lives. In America, individuals should be free to make personal decisions without government or religion impeding on those choices.

                A poll taken by the Fox Network aimed to study people’s ideas about gay marriage. They discovered that there has been a continuous increase in the number of people who are supportive of gay marriage. More and more people are beginning to agree with the idea that people should be free to marry despite sexual orientation. It seems as though many people are straying from their previously-held, conservative views for the first time. If we look to the many cases of meaningless discrimination throughout the past, we can see a pattern of uprising and finally, the oppressed people are given the rights they deserve. Eventually, gay marriage will be broadly accepted and we will wonder why it was ever opposed in the first place.

U.S. Government with a Cup of Joe

The "Super" Plan for the Future

Lately in Washington D.C, eyes and ears have been focusing on the one group that can help us in this time of need. The group that will hand us the answers we all have been waiting for. The “super committee” has truly been an attention spotlight for the media lately. Even John Stewart of “The Daily Show” has reported on this committee and its obligation of budget salvation. The “super committee” was created 2 months ago, and met for the first time on September thirteenth. The “super committee” is supposed to be forming a plan to straighten out the U.S. government budget cuts along with revising its revenue. However, I would like to ask, what makes this committee “super?”

The committee’s plan has become greatly anticipated in the past few months. However, within ten days of their dead line the “super committee” has thus far been unable to agree on a plan. Not so surprisingly, the opposing Republicans and Democrats within the “super committee” have not been able to put their ideas aside and come to a compromise. The Republicans want permanent tax breaks on the wealthy because their current tax breaks are going to expire soon. On the other hand, Democrats fight for a plan balanced with spending cuts, increased tax revenues, and entitlement reforms.

This is a pattern shown in every other part of the United States government, the two party system is making a difficult puzzle even harder to solve. Granted, our system of government was created in such a way as to make it difficult to create, abolish, or change laws and policies. However, the useless struggle for dominance that defines the two party system needlessly slows the process. Clearly, there are multiple views that need representation and this is why we have the two party system. These differing views and political ideas eventually need to come together to create a compromise; otherwise they will continue to battle over nothing with no true point. In order for the “super committee” to be “super”, they must offer a solution to our nation’s economic crisis.

CNN
L.A. Times

Blaming the Gaming

Video game violence has been a topic of arguments and discussion for as long as I can remember. My fellow classmate blogged about this understated issue making interesting points on the subject.  Growing up, I remember being told I couldn’t play certain games, similar to the restrictions of movies. As a little kid I didn’t understand these restrictions, and thought they were unfair. However, with age comes a certain realization. I now agree that little kids should not play or experience certain overly dramatized graphic content. I also agree it makes things easier to categorize and control if there is some type of system or scale that can be referred to.

 However, I think that the government worries too much about public entertainment. Things start to sound kind of like, “Big Brother” when talk of government controlled entertainment comes up. If a game is too violent for a child, chances are the mother/father /guardian of that child will remove the extreme content from that child’s possession.  It is not the role of the government to determine what we do for entertainment, as much as it has no right to decide what we eat.  Entertainment time is recreational time; its time reserved for doing whatever a person wants to do.

Pointing blame is another action that I disagree with in full. Blaming others does nothing in the solving of problems. I think the reference that the author makes to Freddic  Wertham’s accusation of batman causing homosexuality  is hilarious and effectively makes a  point about needless accusations.  I am also in agreement with the author that being aggressive is in human nature; look at the multitude of wars that have occurred throughout history. Where was blamed placed for human aggression before all of the modern forms of entertainment came in to existence?  Where ancient people aggressive because they watched animals fighting for food and territories?

Authors blog