Same Sex Marriage

The institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history. For hundreds and hundreds of years males and females have come together into the institution of marriage. But same sex couples have also been recorded in history as well. The earliest recording of homosexuality is Khnumhotep and Niankhknum, an Egyptian male couple, who lived around 2400 BC.

In the last couple hundred years the institutions of religion and government have changed our views on the criteria of marriage. The criteria being a male and female. Religion saying it is a sin and government outlawing it.

People against same sex marriage say that the same sexes together are dysfunctional. The belief is that same sex couples could not possibly raise children to become productive members of society. In all reality though we see just as much, if not more, dysfunction is opposite sex marriages.

Since 2000, 11 other countries have legalized gay marriage. The problem is that the United States Congress cannot seem to agree on any one issue to every make anything happen. The states of Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington have all legalized gay marriage. The problem with it is that the states are going against to the national government. So in those states same sex couples might be married, but according to the national government it is null and void.

On May 9, 2012 President Obama put his support behind same sex marriage. Whether it was to get higher public ratings for the upcoming election, or that he actually supports it, we will never know. Either way having the backing of a president is a huge step for the same sex couple community.

It will be interesting to see the progress that the community makes in the coming years.

Commentary on First Time as a Blogger

I agree that there are many illegal immigrants in the United States. The problem with the illegal immigrants is that the government is not able to account for them unless they do apply for government assistance. Another problem with the immigrants is that they do jobs for less the minimum wage and the American employers exploit the illegals by paying them less. Immigrants are people as well as Americans.

If Congress would take the time to solve an issue as the immigration policies, then the problem of immigration would not be an issue at all. Instead of focusing on regional matters, they should try to come to a conclusion on one national problem. Just one ... It that too much to ask?

The reason the United States came to be is immigration. Without immigration from Western Hemisphere, the government of the United States would be nonexistent. America does have bigger problems than immigration to take care of like an energy or conservation policy.

Romney's Everchanging Stance on Abortion

Presidential candidate, Romney, has a very controversial view on abortion. He has time and time again considered himself as a Pro-Life candidate. Yet in the beginning of his political career, Romney was for Pro-Choice. During his campaign for governor in 2002, Romney said that "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard." Not honoring his word, ten years later Romney now states that he would be delighted to sign a bill for Pro-Life. For the nationality of the Republican party Romney changed his views.

The Roe vs. Wade case was a highly debated case over abortion in 1973. In discussion Romney has said that he would reverse the Roe vs. Wade case so that women could not have abortions. He has also said many times that rape, incest, or danger to the woman’s life would be an exception to his law. If elected, Romney has no jurisdiction to put the law into effect, until he can appoint a Supreme Court Justice. But in his luck Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79 and Anthony Kennedy is 76. Romney says that he will appoint justices who will interpret the Constitution “as written” not as they would like it to be written. The count is at 5-4 right now for Pro-Choice. One Justice in the Supreme Court of Romney's choosing could change all of that. But in all reality, where is abortion or a fertilized egg talked about in the Constitution?

Romney has also said that he will cut funding for places like Planned Parenthood. In reality, women will get an abortion whether or not there is a law to stop them. Just like drugs are illegal and are still everywhere, abortions will be too. Margaret Sanger opened the first Planned Parenthood because she had witnessed the terror of back alley abortions. Just because there is a law to prevent something from happening does not mean that people or women will not do it. Planned Parenthood is a safe and cleanly place, where women can make a decision whether to bring life into this world or NOT.

As a women I think it should be my choice whether to have a baby or not. There are many responsibilities involved with having a baby. At any age, I feel a woman should have that choice whether or not to have a baby. Why bring life into this world if I know for a fact that I cannot support that child?

Romney has gone back and forth on the issue of abortion. Whether or not he is elected, he is furthering the stance of Pro-Life. What would life be without choices? If a bill goes through banning abortion while Romney is in office, women will have to face that question.

Gun Control Laws in the Election

Published on October 18th 2012, The Issue That Goes Ignored is an editorial written by the New York Times. The issue that the editorial is assuming is ignored is the lack of gun control laws in the United States. The issue was brought up at the debate and very nicely skated around, the canidates saying that they would like to discuss the issue at a later time. Obama who said at the beginning of his presidency that he would renew the law that expired in 2004, has yet to hold up to that responisbilty. The author's intended audience being the general public (or public interested in politics) wanted to stir up emotions and views on the national gun control laws. The New York Times is one of the public information sights that has not succumbed to the infotainment industry and is definitely a trusted source of information. The author provides much evidence to about the control laws, saying that they are being loosened instead of stengthened. Though the author provides great facts about the nation's security, I do not agree with the author's views or standpoint. I feel that it is a person's individual preference to carry a gun or not. We live in a world where whether or not you have a gun license, a gun is easily accessible. There are certain rules and laws that govern who can own or buy a gun but it is still possible for people who do not qualify with those laws to get a gun. So instead of having laws where no guns are allowed, we should spend time and money enforcing the laws that are already in place to keep people who shouldn't have guns without them. I do agree that the topic should be talked about, but wasting our time in the presidential debate about guns is not necessary, nor relevant to who is 'fit' to be the president of our nation.

Mr. Romney's Goverment Handout

On October 1st 2012, The New York Times published the editorial titled Mr. Romney's Government Handout. The editorial page editor who wrote/approved this writing was Andrew Rosenthal. Rosenthal has worked for The New York Times since 1987, becoming editorial page editor in 2007. The content of the article is meant to hit home on for the general public. The Times has a reputation of being liberal, and Rosenthal is definitely holding up to that standard.

Rosenthal is arguing that Mitt Romney is not handing out things for the general public but using his powers to try to change the laws of taxes to benefit himself and the other wealthy elites. His argument is supported by showing the audience that Romney himself is using every possible loophole or flaw in the code to escape the amount of money that he has to pay on taxes. The evidence in the editorial is solid. Romney has used many different tactics explained in the editorial to get around paying the taxes that he should be paying.

Maybe Rosenthal doesn't like Romney or maybe he just needs to keep his audience entertained. Either way he has gotten the general publics' attention as well as mine. The article has altered my outlook at who I am going to vote for for the presidency. The editorial definitely makes me rethink my beliefs. I definitely don't want a money hungry person as president. (Even though, what else is there?) I would like someone who is going to do right by this country and help it, rather than hurt it.

The political significance of this article is huge. I believe if the majority of the working middle and lower class people in this country read this, then Romney wouldn't stand a chance or any other Republican. Politics can be a cruel and devious world. As much as the public would like, we will never be fully informed. This article lets the audience know that if Romney wins, so will the rich elite people. And the poor will be left paying just as much taxes as the rich. The effect of this editorial will probably not be large on the presidential election. There are so many different views and opinions, articles and editorials, names and critiques thrown around that, sadly, this article didn't scratch the surface.

Voter Harassment, Circa 2012

The link below is an editorial written by New York Times on September 21, 2012. This article was very informing in the sense that the same discrimination and set-backs that were happening over 50 years ago are still going on today. When we think of going to vote the thought that somebody, in this day and age, stopping us from doing so is incomprehensible. A Tea Party group called "True to Vote" was at the polls in 2010 claiming that citizens were providing false information to the government. They challenged the citizens and made the lines long and relentless. Many voters turned around and walked out. The fact that many people are not voting because others are harassing them is a huge problem. The government set up The Voting Rights Act in 1965 and they are still in use today, but it is hard to enforce them unless law enforcement is going to take a stand. This article definitely lets the reader know what to look for when going to vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/opinion/voter-harassment-circa-2012.html?_r=0