Gay Marriage week 7

            The fight for gay marriage has been an incredibly treacherous one that has caused many people to be shunned from society, from their families, and even caused some to lose their lives. With Massachusetts being the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004, with many that followed soon thereafter. In 2015 the Supreme court ruled that same sex marriage was no longer a state by state issue and that same-sex marriage would be legal in every part of the United states. Many feel that homosexual marriage ruins the sanctity of the holy union, while that is exactly the opposite as gay couples want their love to be seen as equal.Also to help back up this decision is that  public support on gay marriage has increased dramatically over the past 20 years, as in 1996 acceptance was around 27 percent, now that number is around 60 percent. Allowing same-sex couples to marry shows incredible progress in our legal system,  being more accepting of different types of lifestyles is a huge leap in the right direction towards tolerance especially in disagreeing states where tolerance is low to nonexistent.
              The original concept of marriage as most people believe, comes from the Christian Bible, and that holy union is to be between a man and a woman, who are marrying to create new life and continue on for generations and generations. Same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because marriage is a state issue, at least until this supreme court decision was finalized it was up to the state and its residents to decide if they wanted to allow gay marriage. We cannot be changing the constitution, as the laws and specifics of marriage have been spelled out perfectly clear, and if we continue to keep changing history as it was written that will induce complete anarchy.
              Pretty much everything I said in the second paragraph was completely painful to type out, it baffles me that people still in 2015 are intolerant of gay people. Homosexuality is present in every species and is seen as a completely natural thing, where homophobia only exists in one species; human. We must stop the intolerance and stop all of the hate that will get us nowhere. Everyone's love deserves to be validated and love between two men or two women is no different, that that of a man and a woman. It doesn't matter if your religion is against it or if your personal values disagree with this decision. Same sex marriage is legal in every state now and there isn't a thing anyone can do to prevent two people from marrying each other based on their sex. This case ruling is incredibly important and helps show how we are becoming a more progressive nation.

     

WEEK 6

The most basic definition of 9/11 would be; “On September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two of the planes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.”(History.com) these planes were all hijacked my members of the extremist militant Islamic group known as Al Qaeda. Since we have the largest military in the world, Al Qaeda didn’t have the power to take our troops down in large quantities, instead they attacked a national landmark to provoke widespread fear and confusion to untimely spread their voices and opinions on how our lives should be lived.

                Many people, especially republicans want to respond to this violence with more violence. Our own people have crossed over and joined such terrorist groups like ISIS, as it is being glorified in many recruiting videos along with propaganda against the U.S government, mixed with angst and hatred for their own homeland; it’s very easy to see how this is quite possible. Right Wingers would say that we actually have not done enough to keep this country safe and must do more, even if that means sacrificing certain things. "It's fair to say that we face more threats, coming at us from more places, involving more individuals than we have at any time since 9/11," (CNN) These such situations would terrify just about anyone. Republicans would argue that while we are safe(ish) today, more could be done if everyone had a gun and the upmost ability to defend themselves.

                9/11 was a worldwide tragedy, many, many lives were lost and it affected just about every Americans life on that day. Everyone knows someone who was affected by that day. We as a country did not overreact to 9/11. As a government however we did. Islamophobia is very present today and it’s an incredible problem. “We must keep Al Qaeda in perspective. It’s a small band of fanatics who have alienated the vast majority of Muslims.” (Yale Global) When extremists only make up an incredibly small population of Muslims. We are safer today, of course we are safe our military is incredibly vast and we have so many precautions set in place now. No one is “winning” the War on Terror, and no one is losing either. It is just draining for both sides physically and mentally, and it needs to stop. I know world peace is a long shot, but I feel as if we would just learn to understand each other in other ways instead of using violence, things could get solved. Though neither side is willing to negotiate or listen to reason, so as of right now we are at a standstill.

Week 4

Citizens United is a conservative not for profit organization that wants people to claim the power back from government. Citizens United believes in limited government and believes that to have a working democracy, the people must be in charge because that might just be what a democracy is. Super PAC’s or a Super Political Action Committee on the other hand gathers funds from various corporate donors and distributes them to a political campaign. Corporate speech is defined as corporations having the same, but not the entirely same amount of legal rights that belong to humans, which includes free speech. With SuperPACS, and giving these huge corporations the same human rights given to citizens,  creates the undeniable truth that our voices are being taken away, or rather incredibly silent compared to those with such a high volume of disposable income.

Campaigns require money, and sometimes the money donated by regular working class citizens isn't enough to completely fund a successful campaign. This is why we have Super PACS, so corporations that agree with the ideals of a candidate can do their part and attribute large funds to help. Luckily in 2010, it was ruled that corporations have no exact limit on how much they can send. So that's very good news for potential presidential candidates who would probably not get much money from private parties. As stated in an article from usnews, “ Super PACs also increase competition. In 2010 Democratic candidates and party committees outspent Republicans by approximately $200 million, but super PACs offset approximately $100 million of that.”. Everybody loves competition, right? So that leaves the best man standing, the one most worthy will take home the gold, survival of the fittest. Giving corporations unlimited free speech would actually also help dispel some lies, as the allowance of saying whatever they wanted would also include bad things and not only the positives. Super PACS are also required to report who their donors are, and cannot directly fund a campaign.

A democracy is supposed to be a system of government by the whole population, typically through elected representatives. Now what if those elected representatives don't have our best interests in mind, and despite the fact that they are supposed to be serving the people, are actually just serving themselves and their own agendas? This is the problem with our system currently, and it is considerably broken and must be fixed. As stated in the video “The story of Citizens United v. FEC” it is stated “ Manufacturers have gut product safety and shipped jobs overseas, and what people really want is being pushed aside because these large corporations have a much larger voice. The amount of money that a corporation can attribute is unlimited. 85% of Americans feel that corporations have too much influence in our democracy.” 85 percent seems like a pretty considerable amount. We must stop giving huge conglomerates priorities over the everyday citizen. These huge corporations do not have our best interests in mind and only have dollar signs in their eyes.

I feel that this case was incredibly biased, in saying that I mean that the people who voted for unlimited amounts of money being spent on campaigns probably had an incredible influence from politicians to pass that, after all who doesn't love free money? However the other end of this in my mind is, if a corporation can donate all of this money to a campaign, what will they expect in return? Obviously they want their man in office but in reality is there  an underlying reason to all of this? I feel as though the way this works is incredibly unfair to most people who aren't incredibly rich. Those everyday people that want to donate money to a candidate they support will not even make a difference even if they donated their entire week's paycheck. Money corrupts so many, and currently our society is broken in countless ways, this just adds to the immense problem of greed we have in society today. We must give power back to the people and away from these heartless corporate machines.