Theres this thing about opinions...

I’ll come right out and say what this blog is about, gay marriage. It’s a very touchy issue nowadays, and though it may not affect me directly, I too definitely have strong feelings about the issue. Just as a preface, this blog won’t involve too many concrete facts or figures, but more ideological arguments, as to why I feel homosexual Americans should have the right to be legally married.

Typing that last sentence, I realized this is a great place to start. Note the oh-so-important qualifier ‘legally’ up there. What churches allow their parishioners to do is completely their decision. What churches allow their parishioners to do also does not affect outside life anyone but the attendees. Marriage, though considered a sacred ritual in many religions, has become a legal term, and entered the realm of governmental oversight. If I recall correctly, this means it applies to everyone in the governance. This inherently (and legally) means that it should apply fairly to all Americans. The debate isn’t over allowing them to marry in churches or buy wedding rings, but to allow them, in the eyes of the State, to be in a binding union. A binding union that yields benefits to those involved. Doesn’t denying them this sound a bit like discrimination?

That because it is. Let’s play a little word game. Consider these few sentences.

Homosexuals should not have the right to marry because I feel it is morally wrong. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Don’t forget ‘straight’ is implied to the man and woman. Now let’s change three little things, only descriptors.

Homosexuals Interracial should not have the right to marry because I feel it is morally wrong. Marriage should be between a white man and a white woman.

Wee bit racist? I’d say so. Logically, the first statement is just as so. I still can’t comprehend how people can feel any other way.

There are countries starting with I?

A recent editorial by Ross Douthat of the New York Times made claims and points as to why he believes the average American would rather forget the war in Iraq. His article starts by mentioning a touching gesture by the prime minister of Iraq that most Americans don’t know about, the placing of a wreath on the tomb of the unknowns.

He blames the lack of care about going ons in Iraq on the large number of mistakes made by the administration in running it. The left and right both have different talking points on the matter, but the truth remains the same. Douthat brings up a few varied examples of generally agreed upon faux pas, but cites no exact numbers or detailed information. Citing the general sentiments after the end of WWII, the Korean and Vietnam war, he compares how Americans might view Iraq further down the line. Douthat also stresses that despite the happenings in Afghanistan and the planned withdrawl, troops still are and will be in Iraq for quite some time. He closes by reminding Americans that the only reason for the calm is the consensus in that we should leave and that political turmoil will surface again once it’s over.

Reading over the article, I can’t help but get the sense that it reads more like a blog entry than an editorial for the NY Times. I guess I might just be expecting too much though. Douthat does make some good arguments that I feel most people will agree with, however, he lacks much explicit detail, making his arguments seem to be focused towards the informed. He makes strong appeals to emotion in many points of the article that I feel contribute to the overall bloggy feel of it.

I keep my gun under my shirt. All the time.

A recent editorial in the New York Times brought a little measure known as the ‘Thune amendment,’ slyly attached to the military’s budget legislature. The effect of this amendment would radically reduce, if not eliminate, existing gun laws handled on a State by State basis. I feel that this amendment, just as this editorial claims, is a terrible idea. I’m actually quite shocked something like this would even be considered.

The main argument in support of the bill is that the increased ability to protect one’s self will yield a decrease in the amount of crime. The editorial counters that the ability to carry concealed will increase the number of concealed firearms in the hands of those irresponsible to use them. I can’t agree more. The Bill of Rights may guarantee our right to bear arms in protection of ourselves but the times, as well as firearms, people, and the nature of crimes have changed. A concealed weapon is an immense responsibility. It allows you to carry around the ability to at any moment cause immense harm to any individual around you, without anyone being the wiser. If I remember correctly, the existence of government is to protect individual’s rights from other individuals and groups, exactly what concealed carry laws do. They set a type of standard for who is considered acceptable to bear that responsibility. A standard that should be left to individuals living in common areas, say like States.

The editorial also argues that the amendment would cause difficulties in determining the legality of a gun. Interactions with police officers would then be greatly increased in danger for both participants. Officers would have to be more prepared to deal with firearms, leaving their safety in question (as if it isn’t in enough already) and the officer more on edge. Interactions with citizens would then be more pressured and dangerous for both parties.

In my opinion the article itself is very well prepared. The members of the NY Times editorial board did an excellent job of positioning the article in a way that targeted the average citizen while not alienating those concerned with gun rights. Their credibility is quite high (as a nationally read newspaper) and their argument’s points and organization support that. Much of the editorial is devoted to checkable facts and sound reasoning behind their case.

Maybe what he should do is run for Congress.

With health care legislation being a major issue looming before Congress and its August recess, it is no surprise that tensions can be running high on the congressional floor. A comment from the nonpartisan director of the Congressional Budget Office regarding the fiscal effects of the proposed legislation drew harsh some remarks by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The director had only pointed out however, that in his opinion, the drafted versions would contribute much to the ever growing national debt.

Surely these politicians could’ve been a bit more respectful in their responses; for in a matter this important, as rushed as they claim, other’s opinions are very valuable. When considering national health care regulations, the moral ties to protect life usually (though very rightfully) overshadow the fiscal effects of doing so. More important that the immediate action of the legislation is its ability to continue to provide services, without sound financial (as well as operational, of course) planning, that most likely wouldn’t be possible. This is an issue that will affect generations into the future; we should all keep an open mind a level head, and give the consideration what it deserves.

Hello world

This is my required blog for a summer class.

How delightful.