Proposition 8

I decided to look up articles on Proposition 8 on the economist website and PBS website. Both gave interesting information in different ways. I found that the PBS article was biased and informed you of the benefits that everyone gets if same sex couples get married and how we all lose out if they do not. The economist article surprisingly tried to stay unbiased. It gave you the history of Proposition 8, and talked about the options the court has and how those options will change society.

In 2008 the Supreme Court of California overturned a gay marriage ban in California. Five months later the state decided to put it to a vote to whether they should ban gay marriage or not. Though the California Supreme Court overturned a gay marriage ban years earlier, California citizens still put it to a vote and 52% did don’t want gay marriage. The result was Proposition 8, the first same sex marriage case to get to the US Supreme Court. California officials won’t defend Proposition 8 in court though, Protectmarriage.com will. From this site I learned of the options the court has. I was surprised that one of them was not to legalize it in every state but to ban it in all states was (this being the 50-state solution).  The other three options were, the 9 states solution, California- only verdict, and to just let California voters decide for themselves (that would mean Proposition 8 WOULD stand).  The 9 states solution would overturn marriage bans in California and eight other states. They would have to recognize same sex unions but not marriages. The California- only verdict would overturn Proposition 8 and only make same sex marriage legal in California. Whatever the outcome maybe, according to this site, we will have to wait until June for the court’s decision.  Based on polls the author of the article predicts that no matter what happens Ballot Box would soon overturn Proposition 8 anyway.

The PBS site only focused on the money opportunities that allowing same sex couples to marry would bring. The author points out that same sex couples do not get the same benefits making it so that many are uninsured because they can’t go under their spouse’s healthcare. If they can’t pay when they are ill then taxes go up to cover what they cannot pay.  An Economist Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office along with the author believes that state and federal budgets will improve. Their point is that spending on benefits would be outweighed by saving from lower cash assistance and Medicare spending, plus tax revenue will increase because of the marriage penalty in our tax system.  The site also goes on to say that same sex marriage will help businesses and put more money back in the economy. Big name stores are in favor of the marriages because they feel that if it is legal, then their workers who are in same sex relationship can focus on their job instead of worrying about if they have the option to get married. The convincing argument the author makes is about money going back into the economy because there is proof this will happen. If gay marriage is legal then there will be more weddings, more money spent on vacations, gifts, dresses, flowers and etc. The proof that this would occur can be found actually in the economist article.   “Some 18,000 couples took the opportunity to get married before Proposition 8.”  That is 18000 couples in one state within five years. That is 3600 weddings a year.     

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21574510-same-sex-marriage-reaches-highest-court-first-time-justices-may-rule

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/03/the-economic-benefits-of-gay-m.html

                   

We get up, but we fall, we come back up, but...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/supreme-court-hears-second-gay-marriage-case-on-defense-of-marriage-act.html


The first article that I read with regards to the Supeme Court was in the New York Times site. It's been days with so much info about marriage equality because there's still conflict and disagreement within the states and in the Supreme Court about this issue. As I was reading this article, it definitely reminded me of the article we read in AP last week with regards to the nine justices and Mr. Cooper. If you read the article, you'll definitely think about the appellate jurisdiction questions from study guide 2. I know when I read the article, I definitely remembered about those questions, like the Supreme Court only hearing 85 cases out of 8,000 a year. As you read the quotes from the justices, you'll get a message about if this case is necessary. These were some questions I asked as I read: Is it necessary to argue about gay marriage now? If so, why? Why don't people truly understand equality? Why wasn't this conflict an issue ten years ago? Why can we just be nice to each other?

In the second article on the PBS site, I was very amazed at the picture of the married couple (colored husband, and white wife) holding a marriage equality sign. I thought about the day I helped Ms. Athon in her class just a week ago and the freshmen were talking about the segregation in the south or Jim crow states. In one moment of the class, the students were talking about how marriage wasn't equal, like a white man could not marry a colored woman, because it was against the law. Now I see why those couple on the picture are standing up for marriage equality because they want history and justice to be made. Those two people are probably blessed to be together today, so why should others be thrown away?

I truly believe that the author in the first article is moderate just because of the mixed reviews and quotes from the justices. When you read, you can tell that the author is uncertain. The author tried to make a point that divided government is going to hold our country still. However in the second article you can tell that this person supports marriage equality because of the picture and even when you read about the Supreme Court tackling DOMA. These articles can resemble and reflect towards you and many people, but it can also just represent one person.

I'm going to keep this plain and simple. I know biblical beliefs are pervading across the country with regards to marriage equality and I've experienced in person. I'm a Christian and yes I know that in the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, but we all must understand that yes it says that, but doesn't mean we disrespect them. Remember, "YOU are the only one who can take charge of YOU." Allow others to be in peace. In reality, if Christians or Catholics were being discriminated here in America and people didn't want us, then how would we grow our seed?

When will America be on the same page? Why suffer others when we've been suffered already?

Too Much Conflict, Too Little Progress

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175580938/martin-recalls-the-supreme-court-34-years-ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/cold-wet-wait-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases.html

When I typed "Supreme Court" into the search bar of both NPR.org and The New York Times, I found numerous articles, many of them being recent. And, about the same topic: same-sex marriage. That's the hot topic of the Supreme Court recently. I first read this editorial from NPR's Michel Martin, which explains how   seeing photos of people standing outside the Supreme Court in cold March weather brought back memories of when she and her friend did the same thing, but for a different issue: affirmative action. She goes on to explain what the scenario they were taking action against was. Also, she talked about how it relates to the world today, and that there are still issues with affirmative action. But the problem that is being focused on today is same-sex marriage, while there are still race-related issues. The quote that sticks with me most is: "the jury is still out on how to rectify the centuries of exclusion from the basic opportunities to be a part of the American dream", which I believe means that many people are still, as she said, excluded from basic opportunities, in this case, marriage. Opportunities that many people have come here for but have not gotten. Opportunities that many people have been seeking for their whole life, but just keep slipping away from them for whatever reason. One thing's for sure: we, as a country, have A LOT of work to do.

The other article I read, this one on New York Times, was about the advocates for same-sex marriage and the hardships they have to go through to try to get their message to the Supreme Court. Because we're just coming out of winter and into the Spring, temperatures are still cold at night, there is still snow and rain, all of which create a very messy and uncomfortable situation for everyone. But guess what? That's not stopping people from standing by the issues they care about. No, not at all. While it may be difficult to deal with these conditions, it can still be done. The article then goes on to explain some of the details about these protests, such as the fact that all electronic devices are banned from inside the Court, about some of the different groups attending the event, and a lot of other relevant information.

So as you can see, these two articles are quite different from each other in terms of their focus. The first one is more like a story, whereas the second one is more factual but has somewhat of a story element to it as well. But they both focus on the same-sex marriage issue, just in different ways. They both have a sense of bias, however the editorial from Michel has much more bias then the NYT article.

To me, as the title indicates, there is too much conflict in our political world, and not enough progress. I personally believe that all states should allow same-sex marriages. I understand the arguments that people have against it, but my main point is that America is a diverse country, perhaps the most diverse country in the world, in terms of race, religion, and sexual orientation. So, whether people like it or not, we need to accept the fact that times are changing. As President Obama said in his speech: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law". And I agree with that 100%. We are spending too much time on issues like this, that shouldn't have been issues in the first place. These issues have been going on for far too long, and it's time for something significant to get done.

So what do you think? Is same-sex marriage like modern-day civil rights? Is conflict in the political world natural, or is it excessive at this point? Can anything really be done to speed up the process? Do you believe that gay marriage should be legalized in all states, or should the decision to recognize it be up to each individual state? Do biblical values matter in this changing world?

Gun Control: A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma Inside a Riddle with a side of Perplexity

Lately I've been thinking a lot about gun control. Yes I know pretty much everyone and there mother has too, but I've been trying to look at the issue from another perspective. Maybe gun violence is the result of some deeper problem. In the book :Better Angels of Our Nature" psychologist Steven Pinker points out that we currently live in the most peaceful time in all of human history. Now before you reach through your computer screen allow me to make my point.

There was a time about 100 years ago that seeing someone get mugged and stabbed was very common and forensics was limited to nothing because no one cared enough to investigate. In today's society we are constantly scared by the news we watch. Although the Aurora and Newton massacres were awful tragedies we need to understand that these were isolated events. In my own personal opinion we do not need any kind of legislation on gun's. I personally don't like guns, and I will probably never shoot a gun, but I also don't like sushi. Does that mean that we need new legislation on sushi, no. All joking aside if we look at other countries that allow their citizens to buy guns, we see that they have a lot less gun violence than our country. Why is this? I think that I may have an answer. Drugs. Now bear with me as I explain this thought.

 a large chunk of gun violence in America is directly related to gangs. What do gangs fight for? power? control of an area? while all of these are true, the biggest reason is to distribute drugs.  Think about this for a second in the 1920s America tried to ban alcohol. Many bars became havens for bootleggers that illegally made and distributed alcohol. It also brought about the classic era of gangsters like Al Capone. When the Prohibition Act was repealed the alcohol black market more or less vanished overnight. If we just made recreational drugs legal we could essentially make gangs a thing of the past. Back on the subject of gun control. Banning assault weapons may save some lives temporarily but it will inevitably create a black market that will end up spreading gang activity even further here in the states. Finally I know I've been defending gun owners throughout this but I feel I need to address one more thing to people who argue that assault weapons are alright for hunters to own. If you need AR-15 Assault rifle with a night vision scope and 100 round magazine in order to hunt, you're a shitty hunter. the deer doesn't shoot back.

Link to Mr.Pinker's website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

Homework Due Monday, April 1, 2013

There is so much in the news media about the Supreme Court.  In order to make continued connections between what we are learning and what is really going in in politics and government, please spend some time reading about the Supreme Court on a credible and challenging news site.  Please choose two of the sites below and find one related article on each of the two sites:

• The Economist:  http://www.economist.com/
• National Public Radio:  http://www.npr.org/
• The New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/
• PBS Newshour:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
• The Wall Street Journal:  http://online.wsj.com/home-page

Write a brief review of the two articles you find, including takeaways and critical questions.  Then, compare and contrast the information and bias/lack of bias you find in each of the articles.  What does your comparative analysis tell you about the similarities and differences between the two news sites you analyzed?  Post your links and analysis on the blog.  You will respond to each other's posts for homework later in the week.

Will 'Sea Change' in Public Opinion Matter in Same-Sex Marriage Ruling? | PBS NewsHour

For extra credit on your homework grade, respond to the article below.  Add your opinion and/or key takeaways.  I love how this article merges our study of public opinion back in the fall with our current study of the Supreme Court.  Government and politics in action!

Will 'Sea Change' in Public Opinion Matter in Same-Sex Marriage Ruling? | PBS NewsHour

Learning Log—Judicial branch

The courts are in place for justice. They punish people for their crimes and settle disputes between people or parties. The Supreme Court plays a major role in which laws we follow because they interpret the constitution and have the power of judicial review. (Judicial review- being able to strike down any laws or executive actions that are unconstitutional). The Framers decided that the courts will get their independence from other branches by giving federal judges lifetime terms. They did not touch on the issue of judicial review because they couldn't agree whether or not the Supreme Court should have that power, considering many wanted them to be the weakest branch. The only reason it gained power was because John Marshall became the chief Justice and a Mr. Marbury was cheated out of his job as a judge. Marbury took the case to court (Marbury v Madison). The Supreme Court thought that Marbury should get his job but they believed that if that was their decision, then the president would ignore their ruling and undermined them. They decided that Marbury deserved his commission but that they could not give him his job because that was unconstitutional. It was the first of many times that they declared something unconstitutional throughout the years and in the decision Marshall established their right to judicial review. What I don’t understand is why everyone listened to them and let them declare that they have the power to say if a law is unconstitutional, if they were supposed to be so weak and the constitution didn't touch on the power? It doesn't make sense; they won’t give Marbury his job because they fear the president will undermine them by ignoring the decision, and then they flat out declared something unconstitutional for the first time and gave themselves the power of judicial review.  Did they also declare that they had the final decision, and what they say goes, in Marbury v Madison?  If that rule was already put into place before the case then there would not be the issue of questioning if the president would honor their decision. The President may not like it and try to put it off but there would be no way around not giving Marbury his job.          

Helpful Link

Hey guys I was searching up supreme justices and I found this great website that lists all the justices in our U.S history and give quick details about them if you click on their name. Please check it out it will help you a lot on the homework!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx

Senate Passes First Budget in 4 Years!

I woke up to this on the radio and in my email inbox.  It is BIG NEWS (even though the Senate and the House will most likely not be able to reconcile their budgets.)  They stayed up all night to do this.

If you are still making an effort to understand how Congress works, it is important that you read about Congress' current work.  Read this article, make connections to our study of Congress and comment below for extra credit.  

BREAKING NEWS Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:30 AM EDT

Senate Passes $3.7 Trillion Budget, Its First in 4 Years After an all-night debate that ended close to 5 a.m., the Senate on Saturday adopted its first budget in four years, a $3.7 trillion blueprint for 2014 that would fast-track passage of tax increases, trim spending gingerly and leave the government deeply in debt a decade from now. The 50-49 vote sets up contentious — and potentially fruitless — negotiations with the Republican-dominated House to reconcile two different visions for dealing with the nation’s economic and budgetary problems. No Republicans voted for the Senate plan, and four Democrats, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Max Baucus of Montana, also opposed it. All four are Red State Democrats up for re-election in 2014. In contrast, the House plan ostensibly brings the government’s taxes and spending into balance by 2023 with cuts to domestic spending even below levels the automatic “sequestration” levels roiling federal programs now, and it orders up significant changes to Medicare and the tax code. READ MORE » http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/politics/senate-passes-3-7-trillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html?emc=na

Get to Know the Filibuster In Real Time

Republican Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky filibusters the Obama nomination of John O. Brennan as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Link to filibuster video:  http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Link to article:  http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination/

Questions to Consider:

1. What does this political update tell you about the roles and responsibilities of Senators?
2. According to the article, why does Senator Paul oppose the nomination of Brennan?
3. Using evidence from the article, identify what is noteworthy about this filibuster.

Share your answers in the comments below for extra homework/classwork credit.