Marriage equality

I belong to the same school of thought as one of my US Government classmates that same-sex marriage is a “bedroom issue.”  I also agree with her opinion that the issue” does spill over into rights to access health insurance and the ability to invest together.”  I do not think that a citizen’s personal choice as to who they partner with has any place in politics because to me it does not matter who you marry.  However, citizens in same-sex relationships should have the same rights and benefits as straight couples.  Although it has been “two decades in which gay rights moved from the margin to capture the support of most Americans, opinion polls now show a majority of Americans favor marriage equality.”  “Defenders of Proposition 8 say their case raises the profoundly important question of whether the ancient and vital institution of marriage should be fundamentally redefined.”  Absolutely! The institution of marriage should be redefined!”  They said it themselves that the “institution is ancient” and the world in which we live in today is not the same as it was when the “ancient” parameters of a traditional heterosexual marriage were defined.  I hope the Supreme Court’s “actions do lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage in California” and hopefully in the near future all 50 states someday embrace same-sex unions.  “It’s time for marriage equality!” 

Coexist

I have a tendency to lean towards idealism when it comes to the foreign policies of our nation.  I believe that “values such as democracy, freedom, and cultural diversity” are major components of the American culture.  As American citizens, we are fortunate to have peace in our nation.  Not to say that we don’t have turmoil in our country but we are not launching rockets at our neighboring states unlike the people affected by the Israel-Gaza conflict that began mid-November 2012.  “After a week-long war between Israel and Palestine, a cease-fire was agreed upon”.   The idealist in me wants these nations to be liberated, peaceful and feel safe just like the majority of the citizens that live in the United States.  However, the realist in me does not want to impose any unwanted ideals on a nation and also recognizes that military force might be utilized in some situations.  Fortunately, for now due to the “temporary cessation of violence and President Obama’s hands-off approach to the latest strife over Gaza” the United States is limiting its participation in the conflict; although our presence was known.  “Among the comings and goings during the cease-fire negotiations were the UN Secretary General and the American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton." Will the cease-fire between Israel and Palestine last and what type of role will the United States Government play in the resolution to their conflict?  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced "in the days ahead, the United States will work with our partners here in Israel and across the region toward an outcome that bolsters security for the people of Israel, improves conditions for the people of Gaza and moves toward a comprehensive peace for all people of the region.”  The first goal to accomplish is a resolution that does not involve bombs, rockets, or deadly explosives of any kind.  My prayers go out to the innocent victims of these recent attacks in Israel and Palestine and I hope that no more violence errupts in this region.  They are facing a potentially volatile future in the next few weeks with “the anniversary of the United Nations vote on accepting the Partition Plan in 1947 which led to the founding of the Jewish State, the United Nations' International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People and the Israeli elections” all coming up. Hopefully, these events will not disrupt the cease-fire and as an idealist, I hope that over time the Middle East will find its peace.  

Recreational Marijuana

A fellow United States Government classmate of mine, Nicholas Dorset, posted a political blog about the "recent approved amendment that would allow for the recreational use of marijuana".  I highly recommend reading his thoughtful and very interesting post.  I completely agree with his position that "the legalization of marijuana is long past due."  Not only is marijuana less harmful than alcohol it is less lethal as well.  According to Dr. Lester Grinspoon at Harvard Medical School, "there are no deaths from cannabis use. Anywhere."  The health benefits of marijuana use can include pain and nausea relief, antidepressant, improved blood sugar, reduced blood pressure and intraocular pressure associated with glaucoma, and anxiety relief.  The legalization of recreational marijuana will reduce the number of citizens "being prosecuted for crimes such as possession" and as a result free up jail space in our nation's jails.  Another beneficial outcome to the legalization of cannabis is the boost to the economy "in that is allows for legal distribution and taxation of marijuana." The taxes collected on the sales of recreational marijuana could potentially generate "$2.2 and $6.4 billion per year".  I anticipate that several other states will follow suit of the legalization now that Washington and Colorado have started the end of the marijuana prohibition.  Once legalized, the sales of cannabis can be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco, and a new, legal market will open up, stimulating our economic slump and reduce unemployment by creating new jobs in the marijuana market.  The Texas Democrat party "endorses marijuana decriminalization."  We may just see this amendment in Texas some time very soon.

Above the Belt

“Today’s fighting words will be reduced to tomorrow’s interesting anecdotes but the true questions at the heart of every presidential election will remain.”  Yet the mud-slinging, finger-pointing, and blame naming always seems to be harsh, out of line, and of course extremely negative. A truly dirty and mean political ad usually has an adverse effect on me and the politician sponsoring it turns out to be the bad guy.  For example, “the Obama camp in a super-PAC financed ad blamed Mitt Romney for the death of a woman who lost her health insurance when Bain Capital closed a Kansas City Steel Plant.” Mitt Romney’s party is not completely innocent when it comes to “smear campaigns”, either.  Just recently, Romney advisor Richard Williamson suggested that the deaths of American diplomats in Benghazi might have been avoided if his man had been on watch.”  I have expressed that I do not have an affiliation to a particular party so both accusations seem like extremely low blows to me.  Although, this is not a new campaign tactic nor is it “unique” to the 2012 Presidential election.  Campaigning politicians have been slinging mud at each other since 1776 and in comparison to some elections in the past, “this contest has all the inter-religious animosity of a Lutheran versus Methodist slow pitch softball game.”  The negative advertisements, candidate bashing, and outright viciousness displayed during the course of an election makes the decision who to vote for even more complicated for me.  I understand that these candidates are doing everything they can to sway voters but can they not keep it clean?  Professor Melissa Deckman, a professor of political science at Washington College predicts that with the election still weeks away, “from an advertising perspective, this election could well be the most negative in history.” I do not support this type of political campaigning and find it very disappointing that this practice still occurs before elections.  Even more disappointing is that “brutal campaigns endure not only because they let off the collective steam of 300 million opinionated Americans, but because – unlikely as it seems – they work.”

Is this the nastiest election ever?

Office-seekers

One of the steps to take in achieving my goal to become a more politically active citizen is to be more aware of the politicians running for office (and not just the President). In the past, I have (shamefully) gone to the polls and voted for candidates based on very little, if any, information.  During my research for US Government 2305 and personal development, I came across an article about a” Legislative Arkansas candidate” by the name of Charles Fuqua. According to an article by the Huffington Post, , Fuqua believes not only that "a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," but he is also an "advocate  for expelling Muslims from the U.S., saying it would solve what he described as the "Muslim problem." This man is absolutely appalling and I would never vote for a person as offensive and insensitive as Charles Fuqua. Not only do I wonder who supports this type of leader and office-seeker but what if I voted for this type of politician simply due to my lack of knowledge regarding a candidate?  I realize now more than ever how important is it to be familiar with the nominees running for office.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candidate-death-penalty-rebellious-children_n_1948490.html