Obama Support

                In previous post I made an accusation saying that Obama wasn’t doing too much as far as supporting gay rights. I have to admit that I was wrong to say that because I didn’t do much research into that particular angle. In the process of doing more research into this topic I found a published document from The Hill newspaper. Amie Parnes talks about how Obama has always supported gay rights but didn’t actually do anything about it until his second term.

            Gay rights activists--some of whom donated vast sums of money to Obama's two presidential campaigns--say they were also disappointed by the president's efforts in the first couple of years of the administration. They felt as though the White House dragged its feet on repealing "don't ask, don't tell," which banned gays from serving openly in the military, and on other issues.

            It’s understandable that when Obama does something of this magnitude there’s going to be a mass resistance. Obama has made it clear in his campaigning and inauguration address that he will put more into assuring gay rights. But he shouldn’t be just starting this term; his opposition will only get stronger and his loyalty and standings will only get questioned. Obama accepted these funds from the LGBT and other supporters and while public office holders get lobbied all the time; this was something that was expected of him before. Now that he’s into his second term Obama is being more consistent in his support of gay rights and he has,

            offered an immigration proposal that would give the same benefits to heterosexual and same-sex couples, called on the Boy Scouts to open its membership to gays, and seen the Pentagon announce it would offer certain benefits to same-sex couples.

For a second term, it’s possible to say Obama is starting off with a bang.

Works Cited

Parnes, Amie. "President all in for gay rights." Hill 7 Feb. 2013: 1. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

Persecution... Again

I was reading my favorite news outlet again when i saw this, Londonderry mother seeks answer over son's death. It's your regular sob story, poor guy died. Not to sound heartless or anything but that's really starting to get cliche. Anyway, the article references how he's been persecuted and targeted in the past for being homosexual and now the guy showed up dead. While there's no proof that his death was a hate crime, it obviously wouldn't be too much of a jump to assume that it is. And after all; dead men tell no tale unfortunately.
The thing is, what happened to minding your own business and keep walking? Where does it come in that once someone spots a gay guy its open season to beat and even kill the guy? I think that once upon a time African Americans were targeted for persecution but now that rarely if ever happens. With that in mind, homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time yet they're still being persecuted and hated. Perhaps if we got a gay man or woman into office the persecution will lessen. What would it take to stop? I'm assuming its not some disease or mental disability. Then what? why is the fact that just becuase one person is different from another violence has to ensue? and i know this is getting past just homosexuality but the fact is; this stuff happens and half the time we don't have a damn clue why.


Works Cited
WEST, FOYLE. "Londonderry mother seeks answer over son's death." BBC (2013): 1. Web.

A Line

I currently have a best friend who is only weeks away from having her firstborn, I look at her and her fiance and how happy they are as a couple with a upcoming newborn; gay couples deserve that piece of happiness as well.

While, for obvious reasons, gay couples can't go through the traditional process of having a child, they go for adoption. Since gay marriage has been legalized, adoption agencies can't turn away gay couples because of that reason.

"They basically suggested that any law that distinguishes between same-sex couples and different-sex couples, whether it's for purposes of marriage or anything else, violates the Constitution if the government is doing it, (that) the government can't make those distinctions," Picarello said.

This article is aimed at the Catholic adoption agencies in particular and for this quote it's saying that even though the Catholic people obviously find gay marriage immoral, by law they are required to forsake their beliefs and allow gay couples to walk in and adopt a child. I feel like that a pretty big "Screw you"  to the churches face.

While i am in obvious support for gay rights, there has to be a line where other people and in this case religions are concerned. It's a pretty common fact that certain people are against gay marriage. Those people own businesses, work in the government, or are even realtors. Yet, by law, if they turn away someone just because of sexuality, they can be sued for discrimination. and in the case of the Catholic adoption agencies, they're forced to sit and play nice no matter how much they want to throw the gay couple out. Those people were raised and have believed their entire lives that homosexuality is wrong and immoral; yet because the government says it's legal, they're forced to acknowledge it.
 While we shouldn't condone persecution of gays, doesn't mean we can condone trampling on people's beliefs and values.


Works Cited
Sadowski, Dennis. "Religious Discrimination Occurs When Gays Are Allowed to Be Foster Parents." Gay Parenting. Ed. Beth Rosenthal. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Advance of Same-Sex Marriage Deepens Concern for Religious Liberty." 2011. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.

Defining "marriage"

I'm not exactly sure what to call my source that i decided to debate on, but it is listed in my works cited and i will refer to it as "the reading." Simple, easy, convenient.
  DOMA defines "marriage" as the legal union between a man and woman as husband and wife, it then talks about how no state is required to recognize gay marriage and how the federal government will refuse to give out federal benefits to gay couples. I personally don't understand how DOMA is still around when it's been declared unconstitutional at least 8 times. it was understood that when something is declared unconstitutional, its scratched out. erased, deleted or at least edited and revised so marriage could be redefined legally.
  I actually remember reading somewhere that the Supreme Court will finally have a hearing on it sometime in march of this year. In the reading, a big point raised was the equal protection clauses in the 5th and 14th amendments. It's fair to say the limiting marriage to only heterosexual couples is unequal towards  homosexual couples. DOMA shows how unfair and unjust it is being by allowing all states to not recognize gay marriage and then taking away what federal benefits such as: insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. This sounds like breaking the equal protection clauses to me and this alone should be enough to end DOMA.
   I feel like all gay and lesbian couples deserve a official apology by Obama stating how wrong the US was to treat their own citizens this way. This government is supposed to be for the people, not choosing favorites based on sexual orientation.