Hello everyone,
This blog is going to be the final blog that I will post regarding gay marriage. I will incorporate some articles to show the progress of the movement and, hopefully, make the argument that you should ultimately support gay marriage. As I mentioned in my introduction at the beginning of the summer session, I support gay marriage and I hope that through this blog opened a different (and unbiased) perspective on the issue. Some media related videos are posted in previous blog posts for your enjoyment. Some material I will post again to reinforce the history and some of the issues and other articles I hope you will take with you to help fight for equality, not only for the gay community and other minority groups in the United States and possibly the world.
First up is the article that I previously found at the Human Rights Campaign organization. They are a group that fights for the equality for the GBLTQ community. According to their website, they provide an in depth timeline of the gay rights movement based on court decisions. The link is http://www.hrc.org/justice/resources/justice_timeline.pdf from 1965 to 2006. In addition to this, 6 total United States have legalized gay marriage and at least 3, including California, currently banned gay marriage. One notable thing is that the courts and psychologists have considered homosexuality as mental disorder and later was taken off of “mental disorder” list. I consider this an interesting because many people who oppose this find homosexuality is a choice or a mental disorder (although these ideas are outdated). The reason why this was taken off of the list as well as being an outdated idea is because science shows and believes that homosexuality is more biological. According to The Toronto article, “Gayness linked to brain; Study finds similarities in MRI scans of gay men and straight women; lesbians and straight men” by Joseph Hall he says, “A new Swedish study showing important similarities between the brains of homosexual men and straight women provides important new proof that people are born gay, a top Canadian researcher says” (Hall 1). This supports the claim that homosexuality is biological rather than a choice or a mental disorder. In this section, the aim is to show the long history of this movement and has made huge strides since then. In the future, I hope all discrimination is eradicated and taken away from everyone’s heart.
The Associated Press contributed to the next Fox News online article. In the article entitled, “Miss California Sparks Furor With Gay Marriage Comments on Miss USA Telecast” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html), it says, “When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said ‘We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised’” (AP 1). This shows that there is a lot of prejudice regarding same sex marriage. One flaw in Carrie Prejean’s argument (shown by the above paragraph) that you do not “choose” your sexuality, but homosexuality is biological. The next issue is that this answer caused a huge controversy that probably lead to her termination from the pageant. By this answer, it still shows that people still believe that a “marriage” is only between a man and a woman. This goes to show that there are many people are still closed minded to the point where they are unable to be open to other possibilities; that couples can go beyond what they believe as traditional and what has always been to the point where they cannot be open to what will be.
As we know, Massachusetts was the first state in the United States to allow gay marriage. According to the article by the Associated Press on Fox News online entitled, “Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough”, it says, “Massachusetts lawmakers must give gay and lesbian couples full and equal marriage rights, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday” (AP 1 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110432,00.html). With this ruling, it allowed, for the first time, to allow gay marriage to become legal in the United States and gave way for 6 total states in the United States to allow marriage to allow the GBLTQ community to wed. This is a part of what the community wants. All the group wants is to be equal, including under the United States law, to be equal as straight couples. To this community, this was the beginning of what they were striving for. On the other hand, when the events regarding California’s Prop. 8 was upheld by the California’s Supreme Court, the gay community there will fight that proposition. According to the AP’s article on Fox News online entitled, “Gay Marriage Fight to Return to California Ballot”, it says, “Within minutes of the Supreme Court's 6-1 ruling, gay leaders said they were moving into campaign mode with an eye toward trying to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box as early as next year” (AP 1 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-fight-return-california-ballot/). When the community sees injustice being done, they will do everything they can do to correct it. All they are fighting for is equal rights that straight couples have including, but not limited to, marriage, seeing their partners in hospital, joint tax returns, etc.
Finally, the last, but certainly, an important subject that should be talked about is violence against gays and lesbians. According to an article found at the Human Resource Campaigns article entitled, “Hate Crimes and Violence Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People” by Michelle A. Marzullo and Alyn J. Libman at http://www.hrc.org/documents/ResearchOverview_HateCrimes.pdf. According to them, they say, “Statistical information collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation consistently shows that lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and those perceived to be LGB, are attacked more than heterosexuals relative to their estimated population size in the United States” (Marzullo 5). By this that more so than not that anyone who is gay, or at least perceived as gay, is more likely will be attacked in a violent crime. There are many interesting statistics in this article. But a vile story includes the story of Lawrence King. He was a student in a High School’s computer room in the head just because he was gay. It is stories like this that involve under age kids that make this issue tragic. Not that the child is gay and expressed it, but was killed over his sexuality. It is part of the reason why the gay community is pushing for equality. They do not want to be victims of crimes that often go unnoticed. This is why gay community wants state and federal recognition those crimes against homosexuality as hate crimes because they are a minority and there are many violent crimes against gay people.
There is a lot of information here that you should really consider. All the articles I provided here in this blog and all my blog entries I really do find persuasive because they were insightful and informative.
Now in this section, I will express my personal views on this movement. You can agree or disagree with my argument in part or in whole. Regardless of your personal opinions on gay rights, I feel that from the local to federal governments and everything in between, gay couples should have every right that straight couples have. Here’s my opinion on the marriage aspect of this movement: either everyone can marry or no one should marry. Regardless if you look at this as a religious and/or state ceremony, what is going on is that 2 people making an agreement with each other to stay truthful together and not see anyone else. Plain and simple. If you can provide marriage to heterosexuals plus marital rights, you can do so for homosexuals. It also works the other way, if you CANNOT provide marriage plus the marital rights to homosexuals, heterosexuals SHOULD NOT have it either. Technically you DO NOT NEED a marriage to be monogamous and love the person of your dreams. I feel that equality is in order and should be recognized not only nationally, but globally as well. Furthermore, my opinion has not changed over the course of the semester. In fact, I'm even more for the support of gay marriage, before the course began.
I hope that you have enjoyed my blog.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Sources:
The Toronto Star
http://www.hrc.org/justice/resources/justice_timeline.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110432,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-fight-return-california-ballot/
http://www.hrc.org/documents/ResearchOverview_HateCrimes.pdf
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Hot topics: Gay Marriage: Wednesday assignment #4
Hello everyone,
In this blog, the focus will be on terrorism. It will focus on the idea that there is a certain strategic logic behind it. Robert Pape’s article “Blowing up an Assumption” and Charles Tilly’s article “Violence, Terror, and Politics as Usual” argues this point. The point also extends to the idea that no matter how random violence appears, the violence is not always random. I will also apply these ideas to gay marriage.
One note that Pape strongly makes is that the Muslim extremists is that they want what they consider their “homeland”. In his article, he says, “What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause” (Pape 1). According to this, the Muslim groups in the Middle East are only fighting for what they believe is theirs. The religious forefront is only the face that they are showing. Now the religious face of is not a complete fraud. Since their religion is based off of the Judeo- Christian religion, the homeland that they claim they are fighting for is Jerusalem (as where Jews and Christian believe there holy homeland is as well). They, therefore, will use extreme tactics; including using a twisted version of their religion, to obtain what is current Israel as their country. They also use this twisted version of their religion to recruit new members and keep them as long as possible. Another aspect to this is that they want to be free from foreign influence especially from democratic Western influences. In the case, of all things, Americans being in Iraq and Afghanistan (and possible Pakistan and Iran), a main reason of the violence is to try to get the U.S. and their allies out of the region. Their religion dictates their life and do not want to modernize especially with the influence of the western nations like the U.S. and Britain.
In agreement, Tilly says, “In 1999, then, the State Department anticipated a distinction that took on enormous political force after Muslim suicide squads crashed packed passenger jets into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in September 2001: on one side, terror affecting U.S. interests; on the other side, essentially local and regional conflicts” (Tilly 6). He argues through this point, like Pape, is that terrorism affects everyone. After September 11, 2001, obviously it affected the U.S. and its allies by going into a war in the Middle East. The other side of this is that the perpetrators want national attention of their local and regional conflicts. They wanted, through the war that they got the attention that they want. From there, the terror extremists in the Middle East are continuing their actions by attacking American troops in the region that they, ironically, do not want Western influence and democracy in the region. They feel that western influence is wrong and twisted that it should be influencing the Muslim world in the Middle East.
I would like to explain my position. I do agree with the authors. When it comes to violent extremists for any protest movements, wherever they are, there are reasons and motives for them beneath the surface. Now regarding gay marriage in the United States, these ideas can be applied as well to the gay rights movement. Keep in mind here that the objectives of gay marriage are definitely more transparent than terrorist’s objectives. All that gay rights activists want is equal rights under the law. They use many different kinds of tactics, not including violent tactics. The most aggressive I’ve seen this movement is is a protestor of Prop 8 in California on November 4, 2008. In the video (where I’m sure you can find it on YouTube.com), that this protestor was heckling an elderly women who voted in favor of Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in a constitutional amendment. It stirred up some media attention (I think from CNN). With this kind of attention and tactics are highly questionable and should not be engaged in. On that note, tactics should only be applied if they are tasteful, respectful, and in such a way that does away with negative aspects of the gay movement, but, most importantly, enhances the positive aspect of the gay rights movement. I think that one day, marriage will be for everyone.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
In this blog, the focus will be on terrorism. It will focus on the idea that there is a certain strategic logic behind it. Robert Pape’s article “Blowing up an Assumption” and Charles Tilly’s article “Violence, Terror, and Politics as Usual” argues this point. The point also extends to the idea that no matter how random violence appears, the violence is not always random. I will also apply these ideas to gay marriage.
One note that Pape strongly makes is that the Muslim extremists is that they want what they consider their “homeland”. In his article, he says, “What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause” (Pape 1). According to this, the Muslim groups in the Middle East are only fighting for what they believe is theirs. The religious forefront is only the face that they are showing. Now the religious face of is not a complete fraud. Since their religion is based off of the Judeo- Christian religion, the homeland that they claim they are fighting for is Jerusalem (as where Jews and Christian believe there holy homeland is as well). They, therefore, will use extreme tactics; including using a twisted version of their religion, to obtain what is current Israel as their country. They also use this twisted version of their religion to recruit new members and keep them as long as possible. Another aspect to this is that they want to be free from foreign influence especially from democratic Western influences. In the case, of all things, Americans being in Iraq and Afghanistan (and possible Pakistan and Iran), a main reason of the violence is to try to get the U.S. and their allies out of the region. Their religion dictates their life and do not want to modernize especially with the influence of the western nations like the U.S. and Britain.
In agreement, Tilly says, “In 1999, then, the State Department anticipated a distinction that took on enormous political force after Muslim suicide squads crashed packed passenger jets into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in September 2001: on one side, terror affecting U.S. interests; on the other side, essentially local and regional conflicts” (Tilly 6). He argues through this point, like Pape, is that terrorism affects everyone. After September 11, 2001, obviously it affected the U.S. and its allies by going into a war in the Middle East. The other side of this is that the perpetrators want national attention of their local and regional conflicts. They wanted, through the war that they got the attention that they want. From there, the terror extremists in the Middle East are continuing their actions by attacking American troops in the region that they, ironically, do not want Western influence and democracy in the region. They feel that western influence is wrong and twisted that it should be influencing the Muslim world in the Middle East.
I would like to explain my position. I do agree with the authors. When it comes to violent extremists for any protest movements, wherever they are, there are reasons and motives for them beneath the surface. Now regarding gay marriage in the United States, these ideas can be applied as well to the gay rights movement. Keep in mind here that the objectives of gay marriage are definitely more transparent than terrorist’s objectives. All that gay rights activists want is equal rights under the law. They use many different kinds of tactics, not including violent tactics. The most aggressive I’ve seen this movement is is a protestor of Prop 8 in California on November 4, 2008. In the video (where I’m sure you can find it on YouTube.com), that this protestor was heckling an elderly women who voted in favor of Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in a constitutional amendment. It stirred up some media attention (I think from CNN). With this kind of attention and tactics are highly questionable and should not be engaged in. On that note, tactics should only be applied if they are tasteful, respectful, and in such a way that does away with negative aspects of the gay movement, but, most importantly, enhances the positive aspect of the gay rights movement. I think that one day, marriage will be for everyone.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
