In case you hadn't heard, there is an openly gay man running for the House of representatives out of Rhode Island. According to an article published at CNN.com, the current mayor of Providence, David Cicilline, is the front-runner in the House race.
So why did this story make national news? It is probably not because the mayor of a large, capitol city is now furthering his career by running for a seat in Congress. In fact, men and women run for office and move up the chain of politics all the time.
The article is published simply because the front-runner candidate happens to be homosexual. And if you read the article, you will quickly learn that his homosexuality is not preventing him from gaining supporters.
"Ultimately, voters vote for candidates who are going to help improve their lives, said Robin Brand, deputy executive director of the non partisan political action committee, Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. "It doesn't matter if you're gay or lesbian," she said. "If you've demonstrated that you've helped improve people's lives on the issues they care about, our research shows that being openly gay or lesbian is really secondary to that."
I find it so interesting how this article seems to be defending not only Mayor Cicilline but every other gay politican running for office. Throughout the article, there are incorporated quotes from political supporters who have no issue with the candidate being gay. Well isn't that obvious?
If Mayor Cicilline is up by double digits in the polls, isn't it obvious that his homosexuality is not preventing him from getting supporters. It is as though the author of the article is defending something that needs no defending. And If sexuality really isn't an issue when it comes to electing a politican, then why bring it to light by publishing an article that's only purpose is to point out the fact that the man is gay?
It's quite clear that the issue of gay rights is trending right now in all aspects of society. But, is it really necessary to publish an article entirely based on a man's sexuality just because it fits in the category of a trending topic?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Excited Soliders Getting Ahead of Themselves?
If you walk through The University of Texas at Austin campus today, you may notice a little more purple than normal. You might wonder to yourself why everybody seems to be confused into thinking they go to TCU all of a sudden. So where did all the burnt orange go?
Well if you log into your facebook account, you will probably get some answers. In fact, I would bet that you have a few friends whose status' say something to the extent of "Wear purple today...support gay rights."
It is pretty apparent that gay rights is a hot topic right now. Students all across the University are wearing purple to support the cause. Many are reaching out in response to recent nationwide suicides by young, gay students. But the issue of gay rights is also being addressed in the military. A New York Times article discuss recent changes pertaining to the armed forces.
Federal Judge Virgina A. Phillips made a controversial, landmark ruling last month that overturned the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Her ruling overturned the policy on grounds that it violates the equal protection and First Amendment rights of service members.
Judge Phillips' ruling is a huge success for those who have been working hard to get the policy overturned. These policy opposers are finally seeing real political action to support their goals.
But ever since the ruling, it has been widely known that the Department of Justice would likely submit an appeal. This appeal will take time. Thus, since Judge Phillips' ruling, armed forces have been ordered to stop enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Many ex-soldiers who were honorably discharged because of the policy are taking advantage of the recent ruling and are attempting to reenlist. This must be very exciting for these men and women who have the opportunity to work in the field they love again. But, they should be cautious not to get ahead of themselves.
If the Department of Justice's appeal is successful and the supreme court's ruling is reversed, it is possible that the newly enlisted soldiers could find themselves in the very position they were in a few years back.
I'm not saying that these soldiers shouldn't get excited about the possibility of being able to openly serve their country. But the fact is that for the time being, it is just a possibility. And I believe that being discharged from service on two separate occasions would be difficult for anyone to handle.
Well if you log into your facebook account, you will probably get some answers. In fact, I would bet that you have a few friends whose status' say something to the extent of "Wear purple today...support gay rights."
It is pretty apparent that gay rights is a hot topic right now. Students all across the University are wearing purple to support the cause. Many are reaching out in response to recent nationwide suicides by young, gay students. But the issue of gay rights is also being addressed in the military. A New York Times article discuss recent changes pertaining to the armed forces.
Federal Judge Virgina A. Phillips made a controversial, landmark ruling last month that overturned the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Her ruling overturned the policy on grounds that it violates the equal protection and First Amendment rights of service members.
Judge Phillips' ruling is a huge success for those who have been working hard to get the policy overturned. These policy opposers are finally seeing real political action to support their goals.
But ever since the ruling, it has been widely known that the Department of Justice would likely submit an appeal. This appeal will take time. Thus, since Judge Phillips' ruling, armed forces have been ordered to stop enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Many ex-soldiers who were honorably discharged because of the policy are taking advantage of the recent ruling and are attempting to reenlist. This must be very exciting for these men and women who have the opportunity to work in the field they love again. But, they should be cautious not to get ahead of themselves.
If the Department of Justice's appeal is successful and the supreme court's ruling is reversed, it is possible that the newly enlisted soldiers could find themselves in the very position they were in a few years back.
I'm not saying that these soldiers shouldn't get excited about the possibility of being able to openly serve their country. But the fact is that for the time being, it is just a possibility. And I believe that being discharged from service on two separate occasions would be difficult for anyone to handle.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
A Continuous Debate of Gun Rights
I recently stumbled upon an article while scrolling through the New York Times politics section online. It was titled "More States Allowing Guns in Bars." (http://nyti.ms/bjAS3l)
To summarize, the article says that due to two recent Supreme Court rulings, there are now four states with laws that explicitly allow loaded guns in bars (you must still have a permit). The states include Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia and Virginia. The rulings overturned handgun bans in both Washington and Chicago. This ruling certainly stirs up continuous debate about the topic of gun control.
As a University of Texas at Austin student, the article's title alone quickly caught my attention, given the incident that occurred on campus a few weeks ago. For those who are not familiar, a lone gunman came onto campus with an AK-47 and committed suicide on the 6th floor of the Perry-Castaneda Library. For a more in depth summary, see this article: http://lat.ms/bAOM0b
Interestingly enough, the New York Times article references Texas' Governor Rick Perry's opinion about guns on The University of Texas at Austin's campus. Not only does he believe that guns should be legal on campus, he goes as far to argue that armed bystanders might have stopped the gunman.
But stopped the gunman from doing what? Killing himself? So instead, an armed bystander would be the one responsible for the young man's death? I understand that this is a very controversial subject. Gun rights/gun control in general is a very controversial subject. But, Governor Rick Perry's stance on the issue really caught my attention.
I think it is important for all University of Texas at Austin student's to be informed of the current Texas Governor's stance, especially with the upcoming elections. Would students being allowed to carry handguns on campus make you feel safer or more threatened? And depending on your answer to that question, is this issue alone enough to make you question your vote for Governor on Nov. 2?
To summarize, the article says that due to two recent Supreme Court rulings, there are now four states with laws that explicitly allow loaded guns in bars (you must still have a permit). The states include Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia and Virginia. The rulings overturned handgun bans in both Washington and Chicago. This ruling certainly stirs up continuous debate about the topic of gun control.
As a University of Texas at Austin student, the article's title alone quickly caught my attention, given the incident that occurred on campus a few weeks ago. For those who are not familiar, a lone gunman came onto campus with an AK-47 and committed suicide on the 6th floor of the Perry-Castaneda Library. For a more in depth summary, see this article: http://lat.ms/bAOM0b
Interestingly enough, the New York Times article references Texas' Governor Rick Perry's opinion about guns on The University of Texas at Austin's campus. Not only does he believe that guns should be legal on campus, he goes as far to argue that armed bystanders might have stopped the gunman.
But stopped the gunman from doing what? Killing himself? So instead, an armed bystander would be the one responsible for the young man's death? I understand that this is a very controversial subject. Gun rights/gun control in general is a very controversial subject. But, Governor Rick Perry's stance on the issue really caught my attention.
I think it is important for all University of Texas at Austin student's to be informed of the current Texas Governor's stance, especially with the upcoming elections. Would students being allowed to carry handguns on campus make you feel safer or more threatened? And depending on your answer to that question, is this issue alone enough to make you question your vote for Governor on Nov. 2?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)