My Response to Same Rights For Same Sex Couples

  I am in agreement that same-sex marriage should be legalized in all states, the fact that it has not is disappointing.  The states that have legalized it are sure to see an increase in support soon as that seems to be how the general consensus is going.  This would allow all religious affiliations to marry as their morals allow them to, rather than having some people sacrifice something they are morally o.k. with for someone else's belief.  Marriage between same sex couples is vehemently denied by certain religious groups on the basis that their morals are more valid than the homosexuals who want to get married.  I for one would like to see this diminish in a true show of acceptance, toleration, and freedom that we are assured as citizens of this nation.

  But I am disagreeing that homosexual couples should be given time off to be married.  It’s being treated like an issue with a time limit.  And it is not.  If a couple gets married in a state, that changes its laws to no longer allow homosexual marriages to be valid, than those marriages that were already performed become void, or if you are married in a legal state, and travel back to another state your marriage will not be recognized.  This takes away from the idea that letting military employees leave for their marriage is an issue of time.  And if there are no inherent risk of truly losing out on something because they missed a small window of opportunity, then how can one say it is fair for them to be exempt from their job, when others aren't.  The military will have to rearrange workers to fill in these scheduling changes, while refusing to allow straight couples the same reprieve, which is in itself reverse discrimination.

Rape Culture Prevalent in U.S. Court Cases and Impact on Our Society

 America undoubtedly has an unadmitted rape culture problem.  In the past years there have been numerous cases thrown away, or retried because of some archaic law still being used, or what the girl was wearing.  Despite age, young and old victims get blamed for their own rape.  It is rarely the person who entraps them, abuses them, violates them while conscious or unconscious; it is the person who is victimized that takes the blame. 

  Continually the act of rape as a legitimate case is demeaned because of the clothing the victim wore, how they supposedly acted, or for being unconscious.  This way of looking at blame in rape cases affects how one will report a case, and who will commit the crime.  If it is decided by society that someone may get away with holding down, beating, violating, and distributing pornographic evidence of the act, and that the victim shall be ridiculed, harassed, and ostracized for it, then where is the reason for the assailant to restrain?  If society holds it up to their morality to stop them, then it can not be trusted to raise children in a society that accepts this and teaches them treatment of others is not important if they are of another sex, or they choose to dress the way they would like that does not correlate with their opinion of modesty.

  A popular punishment in the instance of rape court cases is community service, or minimal jail time, usually about 30 days, for a rapist who beats, and violates their victim/s, while the victim is forbidden from speaking to anyone about the crime.  In the last few years this has incited many angry protests at judges for essentially giving a gag-order to someone who has already been forcibly over powered to begin with.  The idea of making a victim refrain from letting anyone know about their assault is an insult to anyone who has ever been taken advantage of, or who wishes to protect their family.

  This is seen in how our culture views sexuality at all times, if something starts off just a bit sexist, but generally harmless, rather than outright sexually aggressive, and something “just happens”, it is often just ignored.  If it is not a rape in some dark back alley, by a masked man wielding a weapon, the situation suddenly becomes a question of the victim’s outward appearance, which should not be a factor in any case once non-consent is stated.  The idea that victims live by is that they should be forced to just accept what happened to them, despite the trauma because it is so commonplace.  Why should this be acceptable, to demean, restrict, and label victims?  In the U.S. cases of social acceptance of all genders, and lifestyles should be upheld as long as they are following the constitution and laws, but for some reason this is being ignored, and retried again, and again in our courts with laws that must change.

Minimum Wage Increase, Necessity or Economic Mistake?

  The debate over minimum wage has been an on-going one for years.  People argue that with so many Americans living under the poverty line, it is inevitable to bring the average salary up to meet the rising cost of living, while others believe that this would only put more American citizens out of work.  This controversial issue, caught my attention because of its impact not only on the people, and businesses affected, but also government spending.

  The author argues that "higher wages translate to higher spending, and less need for government subsidies" this is good for us as a whole as it will cause less of our citizens to demand as much from the government, which allows for more to be spent on education, to create a well based country.  The downside of this from the perspective of the other side is that labor costs are approximately two-thirds of the product costs.  This majority spending on employees would have to be decreased in some way if labor wages went up.  But as the author states, the costs are down compared to the corporate profits.  This means that businesses wouldn't be losing to much profit if the wages were raised slightly, and the increase would be more spending of their employees spreading the wealth, that eventually comes back to them.

  The author’s comments on McDonald's attempt to make suggestions for living on their minimum wage salary show how laughable it is to try to get by on this payment.  There is no room for food, gas, or other necessities to survive, even accounting for having a second job after your 40 hour work week there.  His comparison to the country with the lowest unemployment rate in the developed world, show a direct comparison to our inability to survive by ourselves on minimum wage and their ability to thrive even dealing with the new labor costs.

  This comparison using the different studies of the living arrangements for both our current minimum wage, and a raised one, show the authors credibility behind his argument while he explains concisely the absence of cons to raising the price.  The main argument of those opposing his idea has been diminished.  This shows the voters who can make this change, a valid reason to try and raise minimum wage, regardless of their own income level, as it is beneficial to a multitude of levels.  The minimum wage workers, business owners, and middle class employees all benefit from the increase in spending and buying.

Abortion Rights in the United States, Controversial but Compromisable?

  This article is written for well-educated citizens who are choosing their side of the argument, is abortion a justifiable action, this is a current controversial argument in the United States..  Polls are taken of men and women, who have been surveyed on very specific considerations, trimester restrictions, exceptions of health, rape, or incest, and economic options.  The author’s researched statistics on the subject lead to her credibility, and effectively enforce the idea of combining the two most passionately debated ideas.

  The author validates the idea that there is more support for Pro-Choice, than Anti-abortion support, while offering a third option, a restricted abortion policy, which in theory will satisfy both opinions.  This would mean that in cases the majority of voters feel should be an exception, like in cases of rape, incest, and health concerns, should be allowed.  Additionally, abortions would be restricted after the first trimester.

  This would not satisfy those who believe that a child is a human being deserving of life the moment it is conceived, but it would satisfy all of the voters in the middle grounds who wish to give choice in extreme circumstances, and those who wish to give choice to all income levels, and life situations before the cost of aborting a child is too high.  This seems to be a fair combination as it includes the majority of voter’s opinions from the polls, with the minority choosing to decide for everyone that there should be no choice.

  What the article lacks is a major belief that is often ignored when discussing abortion.  There is mention of rights to privacy, and right of the state to protect the "potentiality of human life", but there is no mention of a right to practice your religion of your choosing.  Those who believe strongly in the idea of reincarnation, or that the soul, or entity of the unborn child will be born somewhere else, into a better, more responsible home, are ignored.  The argument that is debated so heavily for these polices is the idea that a child is either conceived at birth, or it is conceived at conception.

  This may not seem pressing to most people who follow the most prominent of religions in the United States, but they are in no way the only religions.  Mostly it is too controversial to even mention, on an already highly controversial debate, but its relevance to though who decide whether or not to abort their child, for any reason, be it income, consequences, abusive life situations, age, rape, incest, or any other variable that would make someone consider this option, would find it relevant to them.

Supreme Court Ruling on Case Debating DNA Sampling

The Supreme Court has another case debating our rights, with the Maryland v. King Case; the justices had to decide whether collecting DNA without a warrant could be admissible with the Fourth Amendment.  Ultimately the court ruled that the taking of DNA samples is no different from any other "legitimate and routine police procedures".  Any person arrested of a serious crime, regardless of their guilt, shall be unable to hold on to their right to the privacy of their DNA.

This article was worth reading, because the court didn't decide the way that is expected.  My assumption was a vote in favor of privacy, as in other cases where evidence is obtained by invading rights, such as the article about thermal imaging devices, or tracking without a warrant.  Instead, allowing those wrongly convicted to be taken advantage of.  Those wrongly convicted will have been invaded in a way that could never be rectified.

This infringement on the people’s rights to a fair trial first will affect the lives of the innocent falsely targeted.  This article opens eyes to the changing rights you are facing, especially as few people have considered the possibility of having DNA taken as an American Citizen.