Let me say before I get to far into this that I have nothing but sympathy for all the families that have lost loved ones and will lose loved ones in the current war in Iraq. But something that has been going on the past couple days bothers me.
It came out a few days ago, maybe even yesterday, that Matt Maupin's remains have been located and identified. The man has been missing since 2004 if I recall correctly and I can completely understand the sadness, but likely relief to know the truth for the first time in years, that his family must be feeling right now. We all want our loved ones to return to us safe and alive. But the outpouring of support and love for this one family seems, and I might get flammed for this, unfair. What about all the other families that have lost people that are just as important to them? Are there flags flying at half staff for them? Are there these huge memorials and thousands of yellow ribbons tied to telephone poles for them specifically? It seems to me the answer is no. Let me say again that I understand that the Maupins have been waiting for years for the news that their son has been found, dead or alive, and the fact that their community has come out to support their son, a true hero (like every other soldier), is wonderful. But in the end it seems like it short-changes everyone else that has given their life in the name of freedom in the exact same war.
Let me step to the other side of the line now though. It's wonderful that we live in a far different world now than when my parent's generation was going off to Vietnam. Young men who were literally forced to go off to war were treated as pond scum, called baby killers and far worse things. Today, people have learned to not blame the soldier who is simply following orders and go after the people that sent him there in the first place. I think it's wonderful that even when many don't support the war people are still calling people who have returned from Iraq, dead and alive, heroes. I think that's a wonderful thing.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Something to complain about
This blog is no longer a requirement for Urban lobbying class, but since I want a place to put my political opinions out there I'm keeping it :)
A friend on my personal journal made a post talking about some relatives of hers that she finds to be very smart people, but mainly take their news from Fox, outwardly refusing to listen to NPR even when my friend was going to be on the air reciting something she had written that was completely and utterly politically neutral because they say NPR is liberally biased.
Note this isn't a rant against two people that I've never met in my life but more one towards people who don't know how to look to multiple media before they form a real opinion. Let's face it, people who say the news media are biased are probably right, but different media are biased in different directions. Fox news is fairly notorious for being conservative, but a lot of the other news networks are liberal. NPR is generally seen as being biased liberal, but low and behold, most talk radio is generally conservative. So let me see, what is one to do to make sure that they hear both sides of the argument? Oh yeah, LISTEN TO BOTH!!!
I think I've mentioned before that it is more a duty to me than a right to vote. I think being a well-informed citizen falls into those duties as well. Issues, candidates etc. are far too important to walk up to the voting machine and pick the name you recognize or simply vote against an issue because it will cost you money. If an informed citizen would read the stuff with that issue they would find out that they have just voted about giving medication to someone that lives next door to them that has a terminal and highly contagious disease and can't afford it themselves. The same person who voted against it would then be asking why no one did anything about it, why no one told them. The answer is simple, we tried, we asked you for money and you said no because you wanted to keep your premium cable and watch 3 football games at the same time rather than 2. Just an example mind you, I have no clue if that happened.
I guess my point is this, in order to be able to say you definitely think X, you need to have heard liberal and conservative opinions on it, not just one or the other.
A friend on my personal journal made a post talking about some relatives of hers that she finds to be very smart people, but mainly take their news from Fox, outwardly refusing to listen to NPR even when my friend was going to be on the air reciting something she had written that was completely and utterly politically neutral because they say NPR is liberally biased.
Note this isn't a rant against two people that I've never met in my life but more one towards people who don't know how to look to multiple media before they form a real opinion. Let's face it, people who say the news media are biased are probably right, but different media are biased in different directions. Fox news is fairly notorious for being conservative, but a lot of the other news networks are liberal. NPR is generally seen as being biased liberal, but low and behold, most talk radio is generally conservative. So let me see, what is one to do to make sure that they hear both sides of the argument? Oh yeah, LISTEN TO BOTH!!!
I think I've mentioned before that it is more a duty to me than a right to vote. I think being a well-informed citizen falls into those duties as well. Issues, candidates etc. are far too important to walk up to the voting machine and pick the name you recognize or simply vote against an issue because it will cost you money. If an informed citizen would read the stuff with that issue they would find out that they have just voted about giving medication to someone that lives next door to them that has a terminal and highly contagious disease and can't afford it themselves. The same person who voted against it would then be asking why no one did anything about it, why no one told them. The answer is simple, we tried, we asked you for money and you said no because you wanted to keep your premium cable and watch 3 football games at the same time rather than 2. Just an example mind you, I have no clue if that happened.
I guess my point is this, in order to be able to say you definitely think X, you need to have heard liberal and conservative opinions on it, not just one or the other.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
More on race in the presidential race
This Blog a requirement for Urban Lobbying II- Politics and the Media and is written by Dennis Beyer.
I just read this article from Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080318/pl_bloomberg/a4cseozj3mxu;_ylt=Ap6IP78jI80QyY9Fu4kkLzGs0NUE
I've said it on here before that race should have no room in politics. Yet I keep seeing it just the same. I'm not trying to imply that if we ignore the problem it will go away, far from it. But when we allow people of influence in the world make it an issue it makes me feel like it will never go away. If you can't leave race out of your campaign, then maybe you don't have a place running for office. The part I liked about the article goes all the way back to the beginning of our nation. The framers of our constitution actually talked about abolishing slavery. I would imagine one of the reasons it was decided to not do it was that race lines were so strong that it could destroy the new nation. Taken from that viewpoint we've come a long way. But just the same here we are more than 200 years later and some of the same issues are on the table. Granted slavery is gone in the US, but some of the lines between the races are the same. I would imagine if you interviewed enough people you would find individuals that still believe that African Americans and women shouldn't vote... give me a break. All men are created equal, and in this case I believe that men is speaking of mankind in general; all sexes, colors, ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs, sexual preferences... huh, sound familiar? Oh wait, that's in the constitution too.
In closing I'd like to mention something that my dad said to me years ago, it didn't hold much value at the time but it really has given me something to think about since then. Is there really such a thing as race? He told me that he believes there is only one, the human race, In the end I get the feeling that God would want us to feel that way. Maybe some day everyone will think like that, hopefully that time will come sooner rather than later.
I just read this article from Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080318/pl_bloomberg/a4cseozj3mxu;_ylt=Ap6IP78jI80QyY9Fu4kkLzGs0NUE
I've said it on here before that race should have no room in politics. Yet I keep seeing it just the same. I'm not trying to imply that if we ignore the problem it will go away, far from it. But when we allow people of influence in the world make it an issue it makes me feel like it will never go away. If you can't leave race out of your campaign, then maybe you don't have a place running for office. The part I liked about the article goes all the way back to the beginning of our nation. The framers of our constitution actually talked about abolishing slavery. I would imagine one of the reasons it was decided to not do it was that race lines were so strong that it could destroy the new nation. Taken from that viewpoint we've come a long way. But just the same here we are more than 200 years later and some of the same issues are on the table. Granted slavery is gone in the US, but some of the lines between the races are the same. I would imagine if you interviewed enough people you would find individuals that still believe that African Americans and women shouldn't vote... give me a break. All men are created equal, and in this case I believe that men is speaking of mankind in general; all sexes, colors, ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs, sexual preferences... huh, sound familiar? Oh wait, that's in the constitution too.
In closing I'd like to mention something that my dad said to me years ago, it didn't hold much value at the time but it really has given me something to think about since then. Is there really such a thing as race? He told me that he believes there is only one, the human race, In the end I get the feeling that God would want us to feel that way. Maybe some day everyone will think like that, hopefully that time will come sooner rather than later.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Racism in the Presidential race
This Blog a requirement for Urban Lobbying II- Politics and the Media and is written by Dennis Beyer.
One of the big things flying across the battlefield right now between the democrats is that Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he weren't black. This bothers me more than a little. African-Americans are a minority, especially when it comes to the voting public. If only black people were voting for Mr. Obama he would have been out of the race a long time ago. To add to that, not every black person is going to vote for him, just like not every woman is voting for Hilary Clinton. A few female friends of mine that generally vote republican were actually considering asking for a democratic ballot simply so they could vote against Mrs. Clinton. In the end the problem I have with an accusation in either direction is that simply having the support of your own sex or ethnic background does not a winner in the primaries make, let alone the presidential election itself. If that were the case then we would likely not be seeing these two as possible nominees. The larger amount of the voting public as far as I know is still white males over the age of 30. If voting lines were only drawn in this fashion, neither of these candidates would have even been a thought. But here we are, close to a nomination and we have two minorities as viable candidates for president. That makes me think accusations like this are total bullhockey.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; we are witnessing a very important election that is of historic significance. None of the current candidates has even been vice president, one could be the oldest president in the history of our nation, one could be the first African American president, another could be the first female president. Either way something that has never happened before is going to happen. Let's make another first, put the bull aside and elect the person that we think is best suited to do the job, not because they're old, young, black, white, purple with green polka dots, male, female, whatever. Let's be the nation that we want the world to think we are, forward-looking, progressive and color-blind when it comes to races.
One of the big things flying across the battlefield right now between the democrats is that Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he weren't black. This bothers me more than a little. African-Americans are a minority, especially when it comes to the voting public. If only black people were voting for Mr. Obama he would have been out of the race a long time ago. To add to that, not every black person is going to vote for him, just like not every woman is voting for Hilary Clinton. A few female friends of mine that generally vote republican were actually considering asking for a democratic ballot simply so they could vote against Mrs. Clinton. In the end the problem I have with an accusation in either direction is that simply having the support of your own sex or ethnic background does not a winner in the primaries make, let alone the presidential election itself. If that were the case then we would likely not be seeing these two as possible nominees. The larger amount of the voting public as far as I know is still white males over the age of 30. If voting lines were only drawn in this fashion, neither of these candidates would have even been a thought. But here we are, close to a nomination and we have two minorities as viable candidates for president. That makes me think accusations like this are total bullhockey.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; we are witnessing a very important election that is of historic significance. None of the current candidates has even been vice president, one could be the oldest president in the history of our nation, one could be the first African American president, another could be the first female president. Either way something that has never happened before is going to happen. Let's make another first, put the bull aside and elect the person that we think is best suited to do the job, not because they're old, young, black, white, purple with green polka dots, male, female, whatever. Let's be the nation that we want the world to think we are, forward-looking, progressive and color-blind when it comes to races.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The big day has come and gone
This Blog a requirement for Urban Lobbying II- Politics and the Media and is written by Dennis Beyer.
So the battleground in Ohio lies temporarily empty, and much to my surprise, Clinton emerges victorious. But in the no surprise column is McCain's win and Huckabee finally conceeding and admitting defeat. To be honest though I think this brief rally on the part of Clinton will be short lived. I believe that Obama's lead will continue to slowly grow, the arm is raised to drive the nail into the coffin, it might be a bit longer than people were saying it would be, but eventually I think he'll beat her out for the nomination. The good news for the Republican party is that it can now unite behind 1 candidate and fully put their sites on November. It will prove to be a distinct advantage I think.
It will be interresting to see what the polls say about the match-ups by then. As strong as the Democrat nominees are, it appears that a different republican is close enough to change for the nation. The attitude seems to be anyone but Bush at this point. But, fasten your seatbelts, if this chance of victory is realistic, it will mean that come 2010 a republican will have been in the office for 22 of the 30 years (Regan, 8 years, HW Bush 4 years for a total of 12, W Bush, 8 years for a total of 20, McCain for 2 for the first half of his term, for a total of 22) ... that's a lot, not to mention that if McCain is re-elected it will mean the same party has held the presidency for 16 consecutive years... it would interresting to see if that has ever happened before.
So the battleground in Ohio lies temporarily empty, and much to my surprise, Clinton emerges victorious. But in the no surprise column is McCain's win and Huckabee finally conceeding and admitting defeat. To be honest though I think this brief rally on the part of Clinton will be short lived. I believe that Obama's lead will continue to slowly grow, the arm is raised to drive the nail into the coffin, it might be a bit longer than people were saying it would be, but eventually I think he'll beat her out for the nomination. The good news for the Republican party is that it can now unite behind 1 candidate and fully put their sites on November. It will prove to be a distinct advantage I think.
It will be interresting to see what the polls say about the match-ups by then. As strong as the Democrat nominees are, it appears that a different republican is close enough to change for the nation. The attitude seems to be anyone but Bush at this point. But, fasten your seatbelts, if this chance of victory is realistic, it will mean that come 2010 a republican will have been in the office for 22 of the 30 years (Regan, 8 years, HW Bush 4 years for a total of 12, W Bush, 8 years for a total of 20, McCain for 2 for the first half of his term, for a total of 22) ... that's a lot, not to mention that if McCain is re-elected it will mean the same party has held the presidency for 16 consecutive years... it would interresting to see if that has ever happened before.
Monday, February 25, 2008
McCain's huge lead; good or bad?
This Blog a requirement for Urban Lobbying II- Politics and the Media and is written by Dennis Beyer.
One of the requirements for my class is to follow a particular political interest for at least 2 weeks in the print and electronic media. Obviously the big one that sticks out to me was the presidential campaign. The media I picked were what I felt would represent each of the media in the most broad way; well known, and well established media. Something that has really stood out to me though, is the balance of the number of articles there are right now for the left side of things versus right.
It's pretty much accepted at this point that McCain is going to get the Republican nomination for presidential candidate, but in a way as far as press coverage anyway, this early lead compared to the Democrats is turning out to seem like a bad thing. Almost all of the headlines are about Clinton and Obama, McCain has few in comparison to even one of them. I don't necessarily see this as intentional bias on the part of the news media, as many would, but it seems like it's just a lack of worthwhile information to publish.
In a way this really turns out to be bad for the Republican party in my opinion. How can you keep the name of your candidate out there if the Democratic candidates are pounding each other like crazy and you are forced to stand back and wait for one of them to be knocked out before you will be noticed? In some ways then, the republicans are powerless to do anything about it. It will be interesting to see if the scales tip back to being more even after the democratic nomination is more solid for one candidate or the other.
One of the requirements for my class is to follow a particular political interest for at least 2 weeks in the print and electronic media. Obviously the big one that sticks out to me was the presidential campaign. The media I picked were what I felt would represent each of the media in the most broad way; well known, and well established media. Something that has really stood out to me though, is the balance of the number of articles there are right now for the left side of things versus right.
It's pretty much accepted at this point that McCain is going to get the Republican nomination for presidential candidate, but in a way as far as press coverage anyway, this early lead compared to the Democrats is turning out to seem like a bad thing. Almost all of the headlines are about Clinton and Obama, McCain has few in comparison to even one of them. I don't necessarily see this as intentional bias on the part of the news media, as many would, but it seems like it's just a lack of worthwhile information to publish.
In a way this really turns out to be bad for the Republican party in my opinion. How can you keep the name of your candidate out there if the Democratic candidates are pounding each other like crazy and you are forced to stand back and wait for one of them to be knocked out before you will be noticed? In some ways then, the republicans are powerless to do anything about it. It will be interesting to see if the scales tip back to being more even after the democratic nomination is more solid for one candidate or the other.
Friday, February 22, 2008
More important time in history than usual
This Blog a requirement for Urban Lobbying II- Politics and the Media and is written by Dennis Beyer.
An important point has been made a lot in class this past few weeks and it really hits home. For several reasons this presidential elections is a more important time in history.
If nothing else it's for the pure fact that this election has awakened the younger people to get off their butts and try to have an influence on this election. It seems they are suddenly aware of the fact that they do have some power in the way things go and they are coming to the polls in droves to show it. To be honest the last time this happened is way back when JFK was running for president... it's been too long and even though I wasn't alive for that I think it's about time that people my age have decided to do something other than complain. Finally people seem to be noticing that if you haven't voted for our president then you have no right to complain about what he (or soon maybe she) is doing.
Even if you don't consider the larger voter turnout, especially of younger people, there's one other thing that is huge for this election. At this point it seems rather obvious that the Democratic Party is going to be nominating a minority for their presidential candidate. I've spoken on here before that as one of the most progressive nations in the world that it's about time this happened. As a age group we can stand back and tell our children, grandchildren, maybe even great-grandchildren that we were alive to see a black person or a woman make a viable run for president, maybe even be elected. It's a big deal, and personally I'm proud to be here to witness it.
An important point has been made a lot in class this past few weeks and it really hits home. For several reasons this presidential elections is a more important time in history.
If nothing else it's for the pure fact that this election has awakened the younger people to get off their butts and try to have an influence on this election. It seems they are suddenly aware of the fact that they do have some power in the way things go and they are coming to the polls in droves to show it. To be honest the last time this happened is way back when JFK was running for president... it's been too long and even though I wasn't alive for that I think it's about time that people my age have decided to do something other than complain. Finally people seem to be noticing that if you haven't voted for our president then you have no right to complain about what he (or soon maybe she) is doing.
Even if you don't consider the larger voter turnout, especially of younger people, there's one other thing that is huge for this election. At this point it seems rather obvious that the Democratic Party is going to be nominating a minority for their presidential candidate. I've spoken on here before that as one of the most progressive nations in the world that it's about time this happened. As a age group we can stand back and tell our children, grandchildren, maybe even great-grandchildren that we were alive to see a black person or a woman make a viable run for president, maybe even be elected. It's a big deal, and personally I'm proud to be here to witness it.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why is Huckabee still holding on?
This Blog a requirement for Urban Lobbying II- Politics and the Media and is written by Dennis Beyer
Just in case you've been living under a rock, Huckabee is pretty much the only person standing between McCain and a Republican nomination for the presidential race. But for more information here's a link to a article I found on Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080212/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee;_ylt=Agdte1ZPQFlHJg8v06zjwFms0NUE
I support the idea that he's sticking with it until the final nail is in the coffin. My main reason is that when it comes to elections I want more than one choice. Little disappoints me more at an election than looking at a ballot and seeing one choice for a political position. When somebody runs unopposed, if I'm not mistaken, they only need one vote to win, everyone but the candidate himself could leave that part of the ballot completely blank and they would be elected. I realize this is a primary, and technically winning it means nothing other than the fact that the political party will support the unopposed person in the run for president. But just the same, when I ask for a republican ballot in our primary I'd love to see more than 1 option for a presidential candidate.
If Huckabee pulls out before the Ohio primary (and without McCain locking in the necessary number of delegates he likely wont), I may be more inclined to ask for a Democrat ballot just so I can feel I have more influence over who runs for president in the coming months. A number of my friends seem to be taking the same attitude. So more power to him, I hope he can stick it out to the very last primary.
Just in case you've been living under a rock, Huckabee is pretty much the only person standing between McCain and a Republican nomination for the presidential race. But for more information here's a link to a article I found on Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080212/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee;_ylt=Agdte1ZPQFlHJg8v06zjwFms0NUE
I support the idea that he's sticking with it until the final nail is in the coffin. My main reason is that when it comes to elections I want more than one choice. Little disappoints me more at an election than looking at a ballot and seeing one choice for a political position. When somebody runs unopposed, if I'm not mistaken, they only need one vote to win, everyone but the candidate himself could leave that part of the ballot completely blank and they would be elected. I realize this is a primary, and technically winning it means nothing other than the fact that the political party will support the unopposed person in the run for president. But just the same, when I ask for a republican ballot in our primary I'd love to see more than 1 option for a presidential candidate.
If Huckabee pulls out before the Ohio primary (and without McCain locking in the necessary number of delegates he likely wont), I may be more inclined to ask for a Democrat ballot just so I can feel I have more influence over who runs for president in the coming months. A number of my friends seem to be taking the same attitude. So more power to him, I hope he can stick it out to the very last primary.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Is the US ready for an African American president?
This Blog a requirement for Urban Lobbying II- Politics and the Media and is written by Dennis Beyer
An interresting subject came up during one of the speaker's presentations last week in my Urban Lobbying class, Lincoln Ware (a local radio personality) was asked the very question that is my subject: In the US ready for an African American President?
From Mr. Ware, being an African American, I had expected the obvious answer of yes, of course. Imagine my surprise when he said no. He didn't think as a nation the US is ready for a president that is not a white person, essentially saying that the very person he supports to be president was not going to win the election. When asked when he thought the nation would be ready his reply was fairly simple (I'm paraphrasing here of course), that when race could be left out of campaigns completely, then the nation would be ready.
I agreed with a lot of what Mr. Ware had to say, obviously not all, but I don't agree with everything that either major political party thinks. So, it kind of sent me on some evaluation of where I think things are headed. We are supposed to be one of the most progressive nations on the face of the planet. How is it that we've never had any leader for our nation that wasn't white and male? What comes into my mind was mentioned in class. We can never know if we are ready if we don't try. It's rather obvious that at least some of the nation is ready, the man is kicking some major butt on the campaign trail. I think in the least this is a step in the right direction, if people of "minorities" continue to make the run for president, maybe things will happen sooner than Mr. Ware had imagined.
So to set my opinion in black and white, yes, I do think that the nation is ready for an African American President. If we're supposed to be one of the most progressive nations on earth, let's prove it. Let's show that we can set our prejudice aside and simply elect the best person for the position, if that happens to be Obama then so be it, skin color, sex, sexual preferance, religious background, whatever has no place in it.
So for the few readers that I have: Is the United States ready for a African American President? Why or why not?
An interresting subject came up during one of the speaker's presentations last week in my Urban Lobbying class, Lincoln Ware (a local radio personality) was asked the very question that is my subject: In the US ready for an African American President?
From Mr. Ware, being an African American, I had expected the obvious answer of yes, of course. Imagine my surprise when he said no. He didn't think as a nation the US is ready for a president that is not a white person, essentially saying that the very person he supports to be president was not going to win the election. When asked when he thought the nation would be ready his reply was fairly simple (I'm paraphrasing here of course), that when race could be left out of campaigns completely, then the nation would be ready.
I agreed with a lot of what Mr. Ware had to say, obviously not all, but I don't agree with everything that either major political party thinks. So, it kind of sent me on some evaluation of where I think things are headed. We are supposed to be one of the most progressive nations on the face of the planet. How is it that we've never had any leader for our nation that wasn't white and male? What comes into my mind was mentioned in class. We can never know if we are ready if we don't try. It's rather obvious that at least some of the nation is ready, the man is kicking some major butt on the campaign trail. I think in the least this is a step in the right direction, if people of "minorities" continue to make the run for president, maybe things will happen sooner than Mr. Ware had imagined.
So to set my opinion in black and white, yes, I do think that the nation is ready for an African American President. If we're supposed to be one of the most progressive nations on earth, let's prove it. Let's show that we can set our prejudice aside and simply elect the best person for the position, if that happens to be Obama then so be it, skin color, sex, sexual preferance, religious background, whatever has no place in it.
So for the few readers that I have: Is the United States ready for a African American President? Why or why not?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Same-sex marriage
This Blog a requirement for Urban Lobbying II- Politics and the Media and is written by Dennis Beyer
I'm in a Urban Lobbying class in school, so a lot of my subjects are likely to stem from things that are discussed in class or pop into mind during presentations. One of the papers we had to write was an op-ed peice. Just writing your opinion on what you think is one of the most important political issues today. I wrote about same-sex marriage, here's the gist of the paper.
To say that people of the same sex can't marry one another is the same as telling people that are of opposite sexes can't in my opinion. We don't have any influnce over who people fall in love with, so why would we be able to tell them who they are allowed to stand in front of their loved ones and one another and profess that they plan to spend the rest of their lives together? Lots of people site the moral implications, that it's just wrong to marry someone that is the same sex as you. When asked who decides that it's immoral a lot of people would quote something like religion. My answer to that is we want religion to have no place in our government, if that is to be the case it's not even marriage, it's a civil union, and sice religion has no place in our government the moral aspect of the argument looses a lot of it's influence.
I also tend to think that our nation seems to see itself as a beacon on the hill, the example of what the world should be like. When people are truly free, wouldn't they be free to marry whoever they choose? There are other nations out there that allow civil unions of people of the same sex that we are supposed to be better than. What kind of message does that send?
I'm not a homosexual, but if I can marry whoever I want then I shouldn't be able to tell someone else who they can or can't marry. In the end love is love, who am I to define it?
I'm in a Urban Lobbying class in school, so a lot of my subjects are likely to stem from things that are discussed in class or pop into mind during presentations. One of the papers we had to write was an op-ed peice. Just writing your opinion on what you think is one of the most important political issues today. I wrote about same-sex marriage, here's the gist of the paper.
To say that people of the same sex can't marry one another is the same as telling people that are of opposite sexes can't in my opinion. We don't have any influnce over who people fall in love with, so why would we be able to tell them who they are allowed to stand in front of their loved ones and one another and profess that they plan to spend the rest of their lives together? Lots of people site the moral implications, that it's just wrong to marry someone that is the same sex as you. When asked who decides that it's immoral a lot of people would quote something like religion. My answer to that is we want religion to have no place in our government, if that is to be the case it's not even marriage, it's a civil union, and sice religion has no place in our government the moral aspect of the argument looses a lot of it's influence.
I also tend to think that our nation seems to see itself as a beacon on the hill, the example of what the world should be like. When people are truly free, wouldn't they be free to marry whoever they choose? There are other nations out there that allow civil unions of people of the same sex that we are supposed to be better than. What kind of message does that send?
I'm not a homosexual, but if I can marry whoever I want then I shouldn't be able to tell someone else who they can or can't marry. In the end love is love, who am I to define it?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
My first post
This Blog a requirement for Urban Lobbying II- Politics and the Media and is written by Dennis Beyer
I just wanted to make a quick post so my blog actually has something. I'm not sure what I'm going to be writing about, maybe a little of everything. Basically it'll be about whatever I want, what else is a blog for after all?
Subjects might include abortion, gay marriage/civil unions, the current presidential election... and whatever else strikes my fancy. Feel free to put your opinion if you agree or disagree, I like a nice debate.
I just wanted to make a quick post so my blog actually has something. I'm not sure what I'm going to be writing about, maybe a little of everything. Basically it'll be about whatever I want, what else is a blog for after all?
Subjects might include abortion, gay marriage/civil unions, the current presidential election... and whatever else strikes my fancy. Feel free to put your opinion if you agree or disagree, I like a nice debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)