Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Equality Across America


Our nation is made up of a diverse group of people from different cultural backgrounds, different religious views, and even different educational backgrounds. However, I personally find it odd that people of different same sex sexual preference is not something that is very well accepted by our government. Same sex couples should have every right to marry who they choose. I take this position on this topic because I am aware of the differences that can be found in America. That is the one great principle about America that makes it so diverse, yet we can not be accepting of a simple difference of sexual preference. It seems as if what is not part of the majority is not accepted among Americans, but I believe that learning about differences is what has allowed our country to grow into what it is today. The majority of same sex couples found in our nation should not be treated any differently. They are simply citizens just as many of the other heterosexual couples in our society. They contribute to our nation in similar ways through their taxes, payments to other government programs, and the services that they provide through their jobs. There is no scientific evidence that states they can not function among society in any way different that a heterosexual can. The large population of same sex couples in America is far too large to be ignored. Millions of people can not be denied of what they desire for their personal lives. Our government needs to learn to step back for a second and govern what needs to be governed, and not waste time interfering with people’s personal lives. It is understandable for our nation to want to interfere with the lives of our citizens in regards to safety, educational rights, job security, and health care availability. I completely agree with these issues. However, our government interfering with a individual’s ability to choose who they want to form a marriage with seems far too much. Our government is trying to tell individuals what they can and can not do because of their sexual preference. That appears to be a government that is only thinking one sided. It seems to be a government that is stubborn and can not think outside of old principles that were placed hundreds of years ago. Our government claims that it refuses to allow gay marriage to be enacted all across the nation because it would interfere with government funded programs such as those already in place for heterosexual couples. These programs include the manner in which taxes are handled, retirement benefit programs for couples, and other federal funded benefits. On the contrary, I say that if these issues can not be dealt with, then how are even larger issues that are currently facing our nation going to be dealt with. Even if there was no solution to these government funded programs, government can still allow same sex couples to be married under different circumstances. It even seems unconstitutional to not allow same sex couples to marry. It is as if our nation is has completely turned its back on such a large population of the same sex couples that fill our nation. Our current president always emphasizes the idea of hope and change. We regard our nation as the greatest nation on Earth. We as a nation brag about our military force and national defense teams. We are a nation looked at by others as being all mighty and powerful. We are a nation that sends troops to fight for our safety and well being. We are a nation that persevered against terrorism attacks on September 11, 2001, yet we can not seem to solve a simple issue such as same sex marriage. This issue is not to be over thought and allowed across our nation at once.

Displayed clearly on my blog are two political speeches that are delivered by two different men for different audiences, both with completely different points of view. The first video of Clint Eastwood’s speech clearly reaches out to voters who are against Obama considering that most of his speech pokes fun at the president. It seems to be very republican influenced and mocks many of the president’s so called false promises. It attacks many of the political issues that deal with our nation and tries to persuade the audience into believing that president Obama has not yet solved these issues. The intent of Clint Eastwood’s speech is to simply belittle the president’s past efforts running our government, and stating a sense of dislike for the president’s actions. The entire idea behind the speech is to persuade the audience into disliking what our president has done so far for our nation. On the contrary, the President’s speech where he is accepting his re-election has the entirely opposite meaning. It intends to persuade its audience that his past efforts and accomplishments have been a good starting point for our nation, so that many of the unresolved political issues we face can be solved with time. He uses persuasive language in order to ease the audience and let them believe that he is still capable of fixing many issues. He glorifies any past accomplishments that he has had, so that he can make the audience believe he will only continue to do the same in our future. While both videos are entirely different in the message they get across to the audience, they are actually similar in the sense that they both use ethos, pathos, and logos to get across their ideas. For example, Clint Eastwood’s speech uses pathos by appealing to the emotion of frustration and dislike for the president and his actions. He uses words to make fun of the president so that he can appeal to the audience’s emotion of dislike and distrust. He presents his speech in a very comedy oriented manner, which appeals to the emotion of the audience. He is also not necessarily a man of credibility in regards to politics, but uses his celebrity status to appeal to his credibility. This falls into the idea of ethos. The speech is well organized ,so it leads into logic such as logos also. President Obama’s speech contains all three of the same subject areas. He uses his high ranking power as president to establish ethos. He makes it seem that everything that he says must be correct since he is the president, so therefore he is a man of credibility. His speech is completely filled with the idea of pathos. He appeals to emotion throughout the entire speech. He uses words such as hope, change, faith, and perseverance to create emotion within the audience. His speech is structured so that everything said flows well with logic. Logic is also very well described. While both videos are entirely different in their themes, they are similar in the manner in which they are delivered using ethos, pathos, and logos.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

                               Lets Start to Look at Marriage for What it Means

Marriage is a worldwide concept that is looked at and treated differently depending on people’s culture and moral values. However, the concept of marriage in itself is not very complex and is fairly simple to take part of in our American culture. However, marriage is one topic that has been taken by our politics and converted into a economic issue for Americans. Marriage has lost its basic principles and has ben regulated by government through tax regulations for couples, and several government benefits that pertain to people once they are married.

One major issue regarding marriage in terms of political issues would be whether same sex couples should have the right to get married. Why would we take away two people’s ability to marry away from them? Gay couples are simply humans that in my opinion should be treated the same as everyone else. Who are we as a nation to say who can marry who. Our American government has become far too involved in people’s personal lives. They have gone too far as far as regulation of certain ideas and are interfering with the happiness of certain people. Many people would argue that the way our government has been handling this political issue has been unconstitutional.

We must allow gay couples to marry all across America. Gay couples have no control over their sexual preference and are being mistreated by the public. Many gay couples contribute to our government similarly as straight couples by also paying taxes. They contribute to our society in similar ways through their jobs and ability to function in society. There should be no reason to treat them any differently. They should not be looked at based upon their sexual preference but rather by what they do as a whole. Some would argue the contrary and say that the government does not condone gay marriage due to financial reasons regarding tax laws and other government benefits. I feel that compromise can be made within these regulations over something as simple as getting married. Our government has tackled far greater financial issues and im sure it can solve this particular one rather easily. The same argument could be said about straight couples. Who is to say that their sexual preference is correct. Why should their sexual preference not be looked down upon. Why does government not tell straight couples that the sexual preference they have is not correct. Gay couples are having a basic function of their lives being taken away.

Monday, March 4, 2013

Press Release of Recent Issue


Press Release
Contact Bill Mears                                                                       For Immediate Release

Web Site: www.cnn.com


Obama Urges Court to Overturn California Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Washington, DC March 1st 2013- The Obama administration has always supported the general idea of same sex marriage in California. In a bold and brief instant, the Justice Department asserted gay and lesbian couples of the state to have "equal protection" to wed and that voters do not have the power to ban it. " Use of a voter initiative to promote democratic self governance can not save a law like proposition 8 that would otherwise violate legal protection", said the department. California’s 2008 proposition 8 revoked the right of same sex couples to wed after lawmakers and the state courts previously allowed it. Currently, forty one states still define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Attorney General Erik Holder stated, " The government seeks to vindicate defining the constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law. There are approximately 120,000 legally married same sex couples in the United States. However, the administration stated that so called " civil union laws in California to be unconstitutional. A 1996 law states that for federal purposes marriage is only defined as between a man and a woman. This converts to same sex couples not being able to retrieve federal tax, social security, pension, and family medical leave benefits. Obama has already faced strong opposition from republican lawmakers and social conservatives. He faces many difficult divisions such as how much money to spend in the upcoming months on expressing his views to the executive branch. He has obviously received strong support by gay rights groups and other democratic lawmakers. Many advocacy groups that represent both sides of the issue have dealt the high courts with briefs supporting their cases. California state governor Jerry Brown has stated that he is opposed of proposition 8. In February, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled California’s measures unconstitutional. It stated that proposition 8, " Works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians by denying their marriage." President Obama stated in his inaugural address, " Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are like everyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." The justices will hear oral arguments in the proposition 8 case on March 26, and ruling will be determined by the last week of June.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

My blog will discuss political issues regarding some of our nation's most controversial topics. Its main purpose is to inform readers and allow them to make their own decisions. It will allow for further discussion among those that read it. I will have a position taken on certain topics but am also aware of other people's opposing views. Our nations political issues are filled with controversy and I intent to explore some of these issues.