SWA #22 - 03/27/12 - Intro/Thesis for Paper #4

The lack of marriage equality in this country affects millions of Americans. It is an omnipresent issue in the news today, as the battle between gay rights activists and those who deny same sex marriage claiming they are protecting the sanctity of marriage presses on day by day. President Obama has made his position clear, which is that same sex marriage should be a state regulated issue. This proposal is the most logical one, as opinions vary by the different parts of the country. Although it would be ideal, the prospect of tackling the entire country on this issue is unrealistic and too final if it fails. Gay marriage needs to be legalized in a state-by-state effort using the resources of organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign. Groups such as the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) try to pass laws preventing marriage equality from ever happening need to be stopped. Any argument against the effort to provide marriage to all couples can be easily dismissed because when it comes down to it, no one has the right to say two people who love each other cannot get married. America has foundations that trace back to an effort to reach equality; it is in the Constitution. It is time the county reaches full equality.

SWA #21 - 03/24/12 - Questions on Student's Essay

Student #2:

            The issue in this student’s paper is how technology, specifically that of cell phones and social networking, affect us today and whether it is a positive or negative effect. The importance is briefly explained in that the author states how this is a far reaching issue that impacts most people in America.

            The four perspectives are easily identifiable and they are that of university professionals, parents of students, the students themselves, and the makers of these technologies. The thesis is very informative on show who the supporters of each perspective are; however, there is no indication of their views, although they are outlined in the paper.

            I think the introduction to the paper is very well done; however, in the conclusion I feel like it could’ve ended better with more wrapping up and more in-depth discussion of the author’s opinion.

            Overall, I do think the essay was effective because I myself learned a lot about different people’s views on the necessity of technology. If I had been peer reviewing this essay, I would have suggested that the author spent more time developing each perspective, especially that of the parents of young people.

SWA #20 - 03/20/12 - Research Paper Outline

Title: The Fervent Debate on Marriage Equality in America

Thesis: With so many different opinions on the definition of marriage and how one’s definition affects their position the issue of gay marriage, a highly contested debate emerges. Perspectives include those who simply believe marriage should be between a man and a woman in order to keep the sanction sacred and those who think God’s word forbids gays marrying both push to keep homosexuals from tying the knot. Other views include people who value marriage as one of the highest social institutions, and leaving gays out of it stigmatizes gay couples and basically goes against equality, democracy, and the constitution itself. Finally, there is the perspective that gays should be allowed to marry because there is no such thing as a traditional marriage anymore; it is a new time and one group denying the rights of others just seems wrong.

1.     Marriage by definition is a union between a man and a woman, and it should stay that way in order to keep the value of the institution high and provide the right type of environment for children.

a.     Traditionally, the purpose of marriage is to procreate.

                                               i.     Same sex couples obviously cannot do this naturally; therefore it is unnecessary for them to marry.

                                             ii.     October 15^th, 1971 Baker vs. Nelson court decision defined the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman involving the rearing of children.

b.     Gay marriage weakens institution of marriage.

                                               i.     Divorce rates are already high, and the tolerance of this behavior by allowing marriages would only further weaken the institution.

                                             ii.     Allowing same sex marriage could lead to other tolerances when it comes to marriage that would also weaken it, such as polygamy, incest, and bestiality.

c.     Parents of the same sex should not raise children.

                                               i.     Research shows children benefit significantly more when they have parents of the opposite sex, and preventing them from this would deprive them from an optimum upbringing.

2.     Marriage between couples of the same sex goes against God’s word/law and is not natural; therefore, it should not be supported.

a.     Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups.

                                               i.     Many Christians cite Leviticus 20:13 and Leviticus 18:22 of the Old Testament to justify their opposition to gay marriage.

                                             ii.     Other passages can also be cited to justify this position.

b.     Homosexuality is a sin.

                                               i.     It goes against the beliefs of many groups and therefore the people of those groups should not be forced to tolerate the act through the allowance of marriage between same sex couples.

c.     It’s a deviance from God’s norm.

                                               i.     It’s a societal responsibility to discourage homosexuality and allowing gay marriage does just the opposite; the Juedo-Christian philosophy’s clear.

3.     Marriage is one of the highest social institutions and leaving gays out of it goes against equality and the nation’s core values, and it stigmatizes the gay community overall.

a.     Gay Marriage is protected by the constitution.

                                               i.     Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment

1.     No state shall deny a person the equal protection of the laws

2.     Purpose when created was to prohibit laws that discriminated against African Americans

                                             ii.     Court Cases

1.     Cleveland Board of Education vs. LaFleur

a.     District judge wrote, “Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.”

4.     There is no such thing as a traditional marriage anymore, and denying gays the right to marry and therefore all the rights that come with marriage just seems wrong.

a.     No such thing as traditional marriage

                                               i.     Polygamy, prostitution, community child rearing, and several other practices are now considered common things in different parts of the world.

                                             ii.     Marriage is more degraded by heterosexual couples due to their high divorce rights, public obsession with cheating scandals, and instances of fake/publicity stunt weddings.

b.     Purpose of marriage is to have children is invalid.

                                               i.     If this were the case then infertile couples, older couples past their child rearing years, and couples who simply did not want to have kids all would also be denied the right to wed.

c.     Rights that come with marriage.

                                               i.     Heath and pension benefits

                                             ii.     Hospital visitation rights

Conclusion: Clearly there are several valid opinions and perspectives when it comes to the issue of marriage equality in the United States. Personally, I have learned a lot about this issue by digging through the different outlooks and genuinely trying to understand each position’s views. However, after looking at all of the different reasons each side provides, I think it is only logical to provide the gay community the same rights as every other American. To me, it just does not make sense to bring in religious values to policy making. It goes against the fundamental American value of separation of church and state. In addition, while the argument that traditional marriages have always been between a man and a woman is true, this country is all about evolving. If we were to always stay to traditions and never open our minds up to new ideas, then we would still undervalue African Americans and women. It makes no sense to me to be in the year 2012 and full equality across the board still not be established in a country as great at the one we live in. It is time for ignorance to be washed away, and it is time for change.

SWA - 03/13/12 - Two More New Annotations

"A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S." The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Pew Research Center, 9 July 2009. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. <http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/A-Contentious-Debate-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-the-US.aspx>.

            This article discusses the roots of the controversy over same sex marriage in America and how it has grown over the past few years to earn a national spotlight. It also devotes a section to talking about the different perspectives on this issue. I plan on using this piece in great depth, because it provides a lot of great information on the different sides of the issue. The article on the site also talks about the decisions made on the issue in Massachusetts in detail and briefly discusses other recent state action. It concludes by talking about what lies ahead in this debate. There is no bias in the piece, as it is completely objective and looks just to inform readers. I think this will be a vital thing I look back on in writing my essay.

Land, Richard. "A Deviance From God's Norm." Beliefnet. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. <http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2003/05/A-Deviance-From-Gods-Norm.aspx>.

            In his article, Richard Land expresses his opinion that homosexuality is an intolerable behavior that goes against God’s law and should not be celebrated by giving these people the right to marry. He uses an example in which Senator Rick Santorum was attacked for speaking out against homosexuality. Land says that pro-homosexual groups attacked Santorum, showing that they are the real bigots in this debate because, due to their lack of success in convincing the majority of Americans, they attack anyone who opposes them. Land expresses that everyone has the right to an opinion and it is absurd that pro-homosexual groups attacked Santorum for merely expressing his. He concludes by saying homosexual behavior is neither natural nor healthy and encourages Christians to keep fighting to withhold their religious values and “resist the bullying of radical homosexual-rights groups.” Clearly Land is very biased but his article provides information that I could use in my essay when discussing a side that is against gay marriage.

03/13/12 - Research

I decided to do a little more research on Ichiro Suzuki in order to get a better grasp on his impact on baseball. I learned that Suzuki was very successful, despite what many experts predicted, and he won various awards and honors for his success. His success made the spotlight on him even bigger, as more and more people wanted to learn more about this new Japanese immigrant who was dominating Americans at what many argue is their sport. This led me to do searches for more Asians who participate successfully in sports in America. Most things I found had to do with basketball star Yao Ming, who's towering stature and success in the NBA brought more attention to another Asian immigrant. The research I did helped me understand how the lack of Asian immigrants who get opportunities in American sports make the few who are successful that much more idolized. This relates to the author's point of how athletes can make us feel like we are part of something and can relate to them even if we have the most general thing in common.

03/12/12 - In Class Work

1. Kang argues that athletes make us generalize ourselves in an effort to fit in and relate to something we feel is cool or relevant. He does this by showcasing his experience with cheering for Ichiro, who is Japanese, simply because he is also a minority like the author, who is Korean, rather than his skill level.

2. If I were to write about the role of sports in life, racial, and ethical stereotypes I would use this article to show how, in the case of Ichiro, stereotypes about Asians were brought into the limelight because of his popularity. People, especially Asians who were generalizing, flocked to support him simply because of his race. The author's argument is effective in showing how Ichiro made Asians feel like they were a part of something, and this was largely due to stereotyping.

SWA #17 - 03/11/12 - Two New Annotations

Jost, Kenneth. "Gay Marriage Showdowns." CQ Researcher 26 Sept. 2008: 769-92. Web. 11 Mar. 2012.

            This article goes into depth about the battle for marriage equality in a variety of different states. The author presents different sides to the argument about same sex marriage and gives them both a fair amount of discussion. However, the reader can detect a slight bias in favor of the legalization of gay marriage, as the author choses to introduce his article with a story of a gay couples struggle to get their marriage recognized. The article discusses everything from the background on gay marriage and couples to the potential economic impact a nation wide legalization of same sex marriage would have. It also provides timelines on the progress and adversities the issue has faced in different states. Overall this is a great article that includes an ample amount of information I could potentially use.

Stone, Geoffrey. "The Defense of Marriage Act Is Unconstitutional." HuffingtonPost.com. 15 February 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/doma-is-unconstitutional_b_823480.html>.

            In his article, Stone calls into question the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The act itself essentially states that United States federal law will not recognize marriage unless it is between a man and a woman. Furthermore, it says that a state is not required to recognize a marriage simply because it is legal in a different state. Stone points out that this is a type of discrimination and goes against the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The whole point of this law that was passed during the Civil War was to prevent the discrimination against African Americans in federal law making. Stone argues that DOMA does exactly what the Equal Protection Clause goes against, which is discriminating based on an unpreventable trait. However, he realizes this is the core of the debate, whether homosexuality is a choice or if you are indeed born that way. The author of this piece is definitely biased, as he is in favor of marriage equality and does his best to dismiss some of the topic’s opponents’ basis of argument.