Blog Stage Six

Response to "Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau" by Danielle Zamora

When viewing the world of politics and law, it is imperative for an individual to leave their own personal convictions and values at the door. The individual must base their choices solely on an interpretation based on how the laws are written, the constitution that this nation is founded upon and remember to always place the greater good of the nation and others above what your own values and beliefs may be telling you to do.

I recently read the blog commentary written by Danielle Zamora titled “Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau” and I feel that she has failed to keep this in mind. The final outcome of her article is against the legalization of same sex marriage. I agree with that final outcome but I believe that the logic that led her to that conclusion is flawed and my view on why the definition should be untouched at this time comes from a different prospective.

The majority of the article uses religion as a basis of decision for argument against same sex marriage. Her commentary even states that we are a Christian nation. The United States was founded as being ambiguous towards religion. We do not have a state religion and have purposely separated state from religion and cannot let religion define our interpretation and creation of law.

The author is correct in that the definition of marriage as being between a “man and woman” was defined as coming from religious interpretation. If we open up marriage to interpretation and change where is the end point or stoppage to change. If we open up and allow same sex marriages then we should open up to the idea of polygamy. If marriage is no longer between man and woman who is to say that a man cannot claim that he is now married to his goat or an inanimate object? Doesn’t that individual have as much as a right as the same sex couple that want to change the definition of marriage to what they deem fit as being proper or what a valid marriage is in todays world?

If claiming that holding onto the definition of marriage as being between man and woman is discrimination and imposes upon the freedom and rights of others then I ask who is to set the boundary or deny the rights of all other groups other then just same sex couples?

If you are to base your decision solely on religion then you have now crossed the line of separating religion from state and are allowing religion to dictate policies. You are basing an interpretation on a personal belief. You also crossed the line of denying the rights of and infringing upon the rights of other citizens of this nation.

I believe strongly that there is no problem unless there is a solution. The solution to this issue? I believe that the governments involvement in using marriage as a defining characteristic of an individual should be removed. Being defined or given different treatment based on your marriage status creates a society of division and inequality. Citizens are taxed differently, given different rights and treated differently based on this one characteristic.

Since marriage is a definition and institution created by religion it should stay within the confines of religion itself and out of national state matters and policies. If same sex couples or other citizens of this nation want recognition of their unions as official marriages then it is up to the religion they follow who defined marriage to discuss the topic of same sex marriages and whether or not they are authorized or deemed “moral” in their eyes. Yes it would require reworking of current laws but the establishment of an unbiased nation of equality would be worth the time and effort.

Through this choice everyone is equal and the same in the eyes of the law. There is no discrimination, nobody is forced to abide by a law they do not believe in or was written based on a personal biased view of the world. It is up to the individuals religion to decide the moral and ethnical implications of their lifestyle choices and whether or not to recognize those individuals choices.

Blog Stage Five

New Abortion Laws in Ohio by Scott Cameron

Imagine. You are hungry and so you enter a restaurant to have a cheeseburger. After you place an order you are escorted outside where you are forced against your choice and will to first met and become familiar with the cow you are about to digest in the burger. You ask why you have to do this. The reply of the staff state it is now policy due to a change in law that granted an interest group, Vegans, power over and control of a portion of your civil liberties and privacy.

Sound like a far fetched idea? In the state of Ohio it can soon may become a reality. Recently a series of laws were passed dealing with the issue of abortion with some of those laws as intrusive and trampling of your personal freedoms as the idea posed involving the vegan group. In one instance, before you receive an abortion you are required to undergo an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the unborn fetus.

The founding fathers of our nation based the development of this country on the idea of the Law of Nature by Locke. The belief is that everyone has a law of reason in which individuals will reframe from causing harm to another individuals own life, liberty, or property. Locke also was strong in the separation of the church and state. In this nation, with its founding, some rights are extended to the government for protection of others and to prevent the rule of the tyranny of the majority/minority over others as laws passed for a special interest or group may be good for one but not the other and the focus is of the greater good of the nation and its citizens.

In the instance of Ohio the law of nature and the position of the government in those citizens life have failed. The rule of a special interest group has overruled and infringed upon the rights and liberties of another group of individuals. The law makers that passed this law were influenced upon their own beliefs with many coming from their religious beliefs and passed the law due to personal interest over the interests of their constituents and the better of the nation.

I see the future. When you go to use a piece of paper you must first be escorted outside where you sit under the shade of a tree and look at it five minutes prior to your use of paper to appease new laws passed in the interest of environmental groups concerned with the life and death of plant life in the world. This future is the direction this nation is heading thanks, in part, to the recent law passed by Ohio and the framework it has provided for future laws to deprive individuals of their liberties and rights.

Assignment # 5

Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

Deadline: April 5, 2010

Write a substantial (250-500 words) and original editorial or commentary about U.S. national government. Post this article to your blog.

Send me the direct link to the post you’ve written using Blackboard’s Assignment feature before the deadline.

>> View/Complete Assignment: Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1