For my last post, or at least my last REQUIRED post, I wanted to end on what could be some sign of hope for the belief in the good of our fellow man.  In the Deseret News on September 18, 2012 there was an article published called, "Libyans tried to rescue ambassador".  The article was written by Maggie Michael.   It gives an account of Libyans who attempted to save Chris Stevens who was the Ambassador of Libya.  They found him alone in a room and close to death.  They attempted to get him medical care and were reportedly very frustrated that no medical personal was available on scene to help him.  They put him over one man's shoulder and carried him to a car but he died not long after he was found from smoke inhalation.  You can never fully be sure that what you read is what really happened but since I've taken the position that the articles I've read are based on facts I am going to give credit to this article as well.  A big "Thank You" would appropriate in this situation.  Life is not fair but when bad things happen to good people I would like to think that we would all do the right thing regardless of who it is that needs help!  So, Thanks!

In USA TODAY there was an article by Jim Michaels, "Pentagon:  Joint Afghan ops paused for now".  It was published on September 19, 2012.  There's been a suspension in the joint operation between the U.S. and Afghan forces.  Army Col. Tom Collins says there will be no backing off and it's temporary!  Fifty-one coalition troops have been killed by Afghan security forces or people posing as Afghan troops.  The suspension is part of the effort to secure the safety of the troops.    The article said that about 25% of the insider attacks are linked to the Taliban which I am sure comes as no surprise to anyone.  At this point I think pulling the troops out of there is the only way to secure their safety!

"Militants claim Afghan attack is revenge" published in the Daily Herald on September 19, 2012.  A suicide bomber killed 12 people in Afghanistan and Islamic militants are claiming that this was revenge for the film that has been circulated through the world in which the Prophet Mohammad was mocked.  They are also calling for attacks on additional U.S. diplomats.  It would seem that murder is the least of the sins when it comes to the subject of this film.  How is it that mocking someone is a  far greater sin than murdering innocent people?  Is this really about the movie or just about taking advantage of a situation so they can do what they have always wanted to do?  It makes no sense to me!

"Iran nuke chief harshly criticizes atomic agency" (no author listed) was published in the Daily Herald on September 18, 2012.  Fereydoun Abbasi, Iran's nuclear chief insists that "terrorists and saboteurs" have infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency!  They have been investigating allegations that Iran is making nuclear arms. He revealed that 2 sabotage attempts have been against his country's nuclear program and they welcome new attacks!  Apparently they learn how to better protect their countries endeavors through such attempts.  It would be interesting to know which statement is the bigger fib.....that the IAEA is filled with terrorists or that his country has had 2 sabotage attempts against it's nuclear program.  Who can tell where the truth is when dealing with Iran on this issue!

In the Salt Lake Tribune on September 17, 2012 there was an article written by Heidi Vogt and Mirwais Khan with the title, "Afghan insider attack kills four U.S. troops".  Four U.S. soldiers were murdered, yes I said murdered, when they came to the aid of the Afghan soldiers.  This is not the first time that our military has been attacked by those they were trying to protect.  The security has taken a nose dive as NATO prepares to remove military from Afghanistan and while everyone is working together to try to tighten the security it leaves our soldiers vulnerable to attacks like this one!  Something tells me things are going to get worse before they get better, if better ever happens at all!

"Pakistan disowns bounty on filmaker"  written by Rebecca Santana and  published on September 25, 2012 in the Deseret News.  Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour offered a $100,000 bounty for anyone who killed the man behind the film that mocked the Prophet Mohammad.  The government issued a statement that  the statement was Bilour's personal view and not the country's.  I'm not sure I believe that but I suppose that would be the politically correct thing to do, but given how they feel about the whole "free speech" thing I'm surprised that only a statement was issued and not an arrest warrant.  I mean if a person made a public statement against the wishes of the Pakistan government I thought there would be some sort of penalty.  I guess we are not the only country whose citizens speak their minds...although I believe we have laws against inciting people to commit violent crimes.  Hmmmm!

On September 25, 2012 the Deseret News published a story by David Stringer and Ron Depasquale called, "U.N.:  Syria war is threatening region".  International  envoy Lakhdar Brahimi  addressed the United Nations about the bleak situation in Syria but also announced he was formulating a plan that could help end the troubled country's war, BUT would not give any information as to what that might be or when it would happen.  The fact that he might have a plan is not necessarily the real news in this article but the fact that he refuses to believe that "reasonable" people do not see you cannot go back in time to a Syria of the past.  What is reasonable about any of the people who are waging war in Syria?  Seriously, there are people dying and he's worried about people being reasonable.....not a good sign by my mark!

In The Salt Lake Tribune on September 17, 2012 an article titled, "Pakistanis storm U.S. Consulate".  It was written by Adil Jawad and Bassem Mroue.  The Hezbollah militant leade, Sheik HassanNasrallah, is not only encouraging followers to "express our anger" but wants leaders to act on the issue surrounding the film that has sparked world wide conversations...the mocking of their Prophet Mohammad!  In a televised speech the Sheik says that the United States must be held accountable for the film mocking their Prophet.  Okay, I get that it's insulting to have your religious leader mocked but seriously are you going to ask that an entire nation suffer because of the acts of a few?  Especially since they know that in America Free Speech is the standard and no action can be taken against any of those individuals living here for exercising that right?  In Pakistan protesters broke through the barricade near the American Embassy where one of the protesters was killed.  Are we to be held responsible for that death or the dozens injured during that protest?  We cannot be held responsible for every act that happens in the world just because an American was involved any more than we can be responsible for the death of someone protesting at or near our embassy!

In The Salt Lake Tribune on September 19, 2012 there was an article titled, "Egypt wants 7 Copts, U.S. pastor on trial".  It was written by Sarah El Deeb.
What's better than doing nothing at all?  How about sending out warrants for the arrest of individuals NOT in your country and whose custody you cannot obtain.  The general prosecutor of Egypt issued warrants for seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and an American pastor from Florida.  Why?  The charges are linked to the anti-Islamic film that sparked the murder of an American Ambassador in Lybia and riots all over the Arab world. Non of the individuals are believed to live in Egypt and not likely to appear in court BUT that does not stop the prosecutor from trying....which is really all he can do.  With a country, or two, demanding justice over the  mocking of their Prophet Mohammad, this is just a small way to say that the government is working on some sort of justice!  Good luck....especially since the penalty could be the death penalty.  I don't see any of those individuals take a plane ride to Egypt anytime soon!

ISLAMISTS VYING FOR POWER THROUGH EMBASSY PROTESTS

On September 17, 2012 an article was published in USA TODAY with the above title.  It was written by Oren Dorell.  Fourteen minutes!  Fourteen minutes is all it took to upset the apple cart.  The Yube Tube video mocking the Prophet Mohammed is only 14 minutes long but has had an extremely far reaching effect all the world!  More than a dozen countries across the Middle East have experienced riots that are linked back to this video.  Well, that's what is being said officially.  The article talks about the struggle for control in the Middle East and that with the U.S. pulling their forces out of Iraq a "massive source" of "grievances for ultra-conservative Muslims called Salafis, who have been leading the charge in the recent protests" must essentially find something else to fight about!  Tamara Wittes, who served as deputy assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs until just recently was quoted as saying, "Now they're left trying to gin up anti-American feelings over this campy movie.  If Salafis groups are left having to troll the Internet for a pretext, I think we're in pretty good shape."  It's an interesting article that gives additional facts about the Salafis'.  I'm struggling to understand why anyone needs a reason to continue the fighting!  In today's world I guess it's better to bitch about something than to focus on solving the real problems around you!  Good luck to the Salafis and the others who would wage war rather than focus on solving their own problems at home!

On September 13, 2012 I read an article on the Financial Times online news feed titled, "Unease as Libyan Islamic militancy grows".  What I specifically pulled from this article was the believed connection between the timing of the Embassy attacks with both the anniversary of the September 11th attack, the release of the You    Tube film and the death of Al-Qaeda top leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi.  Other articles have focused on the anger over the ridiculing of the Prophet Mohammed, and this article brings other factors into the equation.  It seems to me that it was a well planned attack in Libya.  I cannot see, from what I read, that the film alone was responsible for the anger that lead to the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.  Al-Qaeda doesn't need a reason to attack the U.S. as they seem to find plenty of them without any of the recent issues being factored in.  What might be a coincidence, or a well planned attacked, or just the anger of a beloved religious leader being mocked.....it adds up to disaster and just another reason to justify their actions.  This is an issue that will burning for a long time to come!

I found an article on the online "Financial Times" news feed.  On September 13, 2012 the Financial Times "Reporters" wrote and published an article titled, "Protests spread across the Muslim world".   The article revolved around the recent attacks on U.S. embassy's that were provoked, more the Muslim's view point than mine, by a recent amateur film that was seen all over the world.  Muslims were offended, as are many of us when someone trash talks the spiritual leader we love, that such a film had been made much less aired on You Tube.  Okay, I do understand that they would be offended.  In my own religion I have heard, read and seen many offense stories and speeches made about the LDS Church leaders.  However, I cannot see how KILLING anyone, especially those who have no connection to the film, could be called following a righteous cause.  Embassies in Libya, Yemen, and Cairo were attacked because they were American.  Other countries had rallies against the film.  Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, and Tunisia are predominantly Muslim.  In Afghanistan they shut down the You Tube site.  Protests in Cairo have hurt the building up of a relationship between the U.S. and Egypt.  Giving a voice to your frustration, anger and hurt is one thing, but attacking and murdering innocent people is never okay.  It's time for those countries to put on their big boy underwear and put a stop to this dangerous temper tantrum!

On September 4, 2012 in The New York Times an article was published titled, "Syrian Children Offer Glimpse Of a Future Of Reprisals".  As though the slaughtering of civilians is not enough the children caught up in the middle of their country's war have learned, apparently, more about how to hate than to survive.  One child was quoted as saying, "We are going to kill them with our knives, just like they kill us."  This is said while children and adults stand by nodding their heads in agreement.  This child is 11 years old and has learned to hate ALL Alawites and Shiites because they are of the same minority offshoot of Shiite Islam as President Assad.  It's not surprising that they would be angry, afraid, traumatized or even distrustful but these children are being encouraged to hate others in a way that makes you wonder if NO ONE in that country gets that there will never be an end to the senseless murdering as long as that mentality exists!  I know it's not that simple nor have I any idea of what it is like to live that way.....however, hate breeds hate.....how is that mentality any better than the ones of those who would seek them out and murder them.  Does it end, ever?

In the Salt Lake Tribune on September 4, 2012 an article titled, "ASSAD: No dialogue before rebels crushed" was published.  It reported that the Syrian regime has no intention of trying to open up the lines of communication but will instead continue it's assault on it's own country.  In fact according to Muhieddine Lathkani, an opposition figure, the only chance that talks could take place would be if President Assad were to leave and his security agency taken with him.  Information Minister al-Aoebi warned that any intervention by foreign powers would be met with "no red lights to our retaliation.....We will cut the such a hand and make them pay a high price."  But don't worry the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that if President Assad resorts to the use of chemical weapons that their response would be, "massive and blistering".  If you have the French on your side what more do you need right?  Sorry, sarcasm isn't going to solve the Syrian civilians problems but certainly we need to look at the situation and decide at what point do we opt to help them out.  We cannot fight everyone's war but it is hard to watch as people are slaughtered and not want to help.  What's a world to do??

InThe New York Times on March 22, 2012 there was an article titled "Court Appears to Be Wary Hearing Free-Speech Case".  Steven Howards, was arrested by Secret Service agents after approaching Vice-President Cheney and making critical remarks about the Bush administration's war policies.  Mr. Howard also touched the vice-president.  The Supreme court agreed that the secret service agents need to have some lattitude when protecting their charge, especially when placing their own lives in danger.  The issue before the court was whether or not secret service agents who are prepared to take a bullet for the vice president must also be prepared to a retaliatory arrest lawsuit, even when they have probable cause to make an arrest.  Mr. Howard sued the agents saying they violated his First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech!  It's an article worth reading.  Pesonally, if they feel threatened and justified in arresting someone....I would go with their instincts any day!

The New York Times had an article on March 22, 1012 with the following title, "JUSTICES EXPAND RIGHT OF ACCUSED IN PLEA BARGAINS".  The article centers around the Supreme Courts decision to expand the judges' supervision of the criminal justice system.....specifically, in this case, plea bargains which have been routinely negotiated within the system and the new ruling recognizes the rights of adequate representation during the plea bargain process.  There are concerns that ineffective counsel will be the cry from defendants who are convicted but say after their conviction they would have taken the plea agreement.   Justice Kennedy has suggested methods to help reduce the risk of that happening.  Personally, I believe that the rights of the accused are given more consideration than those of the victims...however, this seems to make sense.  Once an agreement is offered it should be the defendant who decides if they want to take it AND it should be done with proper representation.  That way there is little room for them to try to cry "Unfair" or "Unconstitutional".  We cover our own butts at the same time!!

Deseret News on April 19, 2012 had an article titled "Ex-officer accused of using database to commit burglary".  Ben M. Murray, former police officer with the Vernal Police department is accused of using a drug database, the Utah Controlled Substance Database, to track prescriptions that were filled by two Vernal residents.  His intent was to steal the medications when they were filled and he actually entered the victims homes while they were home on the pretense of counting the pills to be sure they were not being over prescribed.  His actions have caused the victims to file a suit seeking $2 million dollars for violating their 4th Amendment rights!  The 4th Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  Officer Murray certainly abused his position to obtain drugs for whatever purpose.  Certainly he should pay the price for his actions.  The only issue I have is that I find it difficult to believe it will take $2 million dollars for these victims to feel they have been put back to the state they were in before Officer Murray stole their medications.  They do appear to have had their 4th Amendment rights violated, but $2 million.....that's a stretch!

In the Deseret News on March 22, 2012 there was an article titled "Options considered on new abortion law."  The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah wanted Governor Gary Herbert to veto House Bill 461.  The bill, which was signed into law, is the creates the nation's longest waiting period for an abortion.  The organizations are concerned about the constitutionality of the law.  I realize that the right of a woman to have an abortion should be hers to decide, and whether or not I agree with that, is immaterial.  Waiting 72 hours before being able to have an abortion doesn't seem too much to ask!

In the USA TODAY on April 13, 2012 there was an article titled "1st Amendment bars retaliation."  This is an opposing view of the same subject as the article "Marine's Facebook rants earn ticket out of the military."   The article was written by Sgt. Gary Stein's attorney David Loy, legal director for the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial counties.  He argues that Stein's comments were less offensive than other military individuals previous comments.  He also argues that he really didn't mean it the way it sounded...hmmm!  It's there in black and white and if he hadn't wanted it to be mis-interpreted then he shouldn't have written it without first clarifying EXACTLY what he meant!  This is the President we are talking about...let's be clear if we want to insult the President so that there is no misunderstanding.  He was fully aware of the rules and he broke them!  Take your punishment and learn from it!

There was an article in the USA TODAY on April 13, 2012 titled "Marine's Facebook rants earn ticket out of the Military".

The article is really the opinion of the paper.  It has to do with Freedom of speech and the rights of a military man to express his political views freely.  Sgt. Gary Stein has come under fire for having a Facebook group called “The Armed Forces tea party”.  Actually it’s what he posts that has him in hot water.  He’s not a fan of President Obama and essentially said he would not follow any orders from him, nor would he salute him.  He, in fact, says that Obama is the enemy.  There is a Defense Department directive that explicitly bars active-duty members from doing that very thing. Now if I’m not mistaken the President is his Commander-in-Chief, so why would you publicly bad mouth your boss?  Certainly he cannot be surprised that someone noticed his comments and disciplinary action may be taken.  Sgt. Stein’s lawyer argues that he was within his free speech rights and that the military rules are vague enough to be considered unconstitutional. Hmmm!  I think there are some lines that shouldn’t be crossed and bad mouthing your boss could be career suicide!

In the Deseret News on April 13, 2012 there was an article titled "Steven Powell evidence in dispute".  Steven Powell is the father of Josh Powell, who is suspected of killing his wife Susan.  Mr. Powell claims that his Fourth Amendment were violated when the police searched his home and seized evidence unrelated to the warrant's purpose of searching for evidence that related to the disappearance of Susan Powell.  Personally, I say "Boo Hoo" to Mr. Powell.  The fact that he had child pornography seems to be lost on him! I know everything is set into place for a very reason but I think he's reaching a little too far on this one!  Evidence is evidence and there's no claims that he wasn't the owner of the pornography, just that it shouldn't count.  Whatever!

Interstate commerace

In the Deseret News on March 29 2012 an article titled "Interstate commerce' is a magic term that can justify anything".  The article addresses the issue of  the use of the Interstate Commerce and more importantly what it sees as the misuse of Interstate Commerce.  It cited the case of Wickard v. Filburn in which the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Filburn for growing too much wheat even though the extra was purely for the farmer's use and never intended it to be sent into public circulation.  The article suggests that since virtually everthing can affects everything, even slightly, that Interstate Commerce can "justify virtually any expansion of government power".  This is an over simplification of the article but the basic idea is that, if it wanted to, the government can justify the use of the Interstate Commerce when it suits them and such "power to regulate indirect effects is  not a slippery slope.  It is the disastrous loss of freedom that lies at the bottom of a slippery slope."  I'm no expert on this subject but it does seem that the use of Interstate Commerce can appear to be used as it suits the government's needs.

March 1, 2012 in the Deseret News there was an article written by Clifford J. Rosky with the title "Religious Liberties and gay rights".  The article centers around a piece of legislation that has been rejected for times.  The bill would require the Statewide employment an housing laws to be altered to reflect the idea that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the employment and housing market would not be permitted.  Many cities and counties in Utah have already adopted similar policies so it makes a person wonder why the state would be unwilling to pass this bill when it's already supported by more than two-thirds of Utahns.  The article gives you a possible answer....would this affect or threaten our religious liberties?  The article does contain more information and expounds on those concerns as well as who would be affected by this in the business community.  I would like to just stop at this basic concept of discrimination.  I realize that discrimination occurs everywhere and our ability to control that discrimination can be difficult.  However, why wouldn't you want to encourage a bill that helps guarantee rights to a specific class of individuals that has already been given to others?  I know it's not quite as simple as that, but if it's reasonable and well thought out, which this appears to be, why hesitate?  Times are changing and we need to learn to adapt!

In the New York Times on March 1, 2012 I found an article entitled, "Free-Speech Argument In a Lawyer's Appeal" written by Colin Moynihan.  It's an interesting article.  Lynne F. Stewart, a disbarred attorney, was convicted in 2005 on 5 counts of providing material aid to terrorism and of lying to the government.  She was originally sentenced to 28 months in prison, but was RESENTENCED to 10 years in prison.  Why the change in her sentence?  Apparently she ticked some people off when she publicly stated that she could "...do that sentence standing on her head."  When she was asked a few days later if she regretted her conduct she answered, "I might handle it a little differently, but I would do it again."   After these comments federal prosecutors appealed the sentence and asked for a new sentence stating that Ms. Stewart's comments lacked remorse.  She was re-sentenced to 10 years.  Ms. Stewart's lawyer, Herald Price Fahringer stated "One of the most cherished policies of this nation is that everybody should be allowed to speak freely.....This case puts that principle to a very great test."

So, here's the issue.  Did the prosecutor's appeal of the lower court's sentence come at the price of violating the right to freedom of speech?  She was already convicted and given a sentence so why does it matter what she says.  I'm not agreeing with her flippant attitude, but being punished further for speaking her mind doesn't seem all that right.  Is she being punished for her crimes or for her words?  What do you think?

On February 16, 2012 the Salt Lake Tribune had an article on page A11.  The name of the article is ""Papers Please" law would harm all Utahns".  The article was written by Chris Burbank, who is Salt Lake City's chief of Police.    The article centers around the HB497 "Papers Please" law that has been on hold since May of last year.  The proposed law would require immigrants to carry their paperwork with them or face the possibility of being arrested.  Chief Burbank makes some valid points when he stated that Salt Lake has such diverse communtity that would ultimately suffer from the federal governments inaction with regards to the inadequate immigration laws.  Police officers would end up spending their time chasing paperwork and as a result would spend less doing what is more important...protecting the community.  Not only would it strain the police departments resources but you take a huge risk that people would stop working with the police in fear of being questioned about their immigration status.  I know we need to do something about the immigration problem we have in this country.  It would be better if the federal government addressed the problem themselve, but since they haven't the individual states must now come up with their own solution.  I welcome anyone wishing to live in the United States.  What I have an issue with is the amount of illegal immigrants living within the United States.  If we were to visit any other country we would need to keep our passports etc. on hand...surely we could figure out some organized way to tackle this issue and make it uniform through out every state.  How hard would it be to go from one state to another and keep up with the changing laws?  It's not just something that one state has to figure out, but something the nation needs to solve and make uniform.  So, the constitutionality of this proposed law will ultimately be decided in court.  Good luck!

In the Deseret News on February 6, 2012 I found a small article on page A5.  The title is "Free speech rights, bully fight collide" by Rob Smietana.  The following information was taken from Mr. Smietana's article. The article is short but packs a bit of a punch. Senator Jim Summerville from Tennessee filed legislation this past January that would require schools to write bullying policies that would protect the First Amendment rights of those students who wanted to express their beliefs.  This version, as opposed to the one introduced by Senator Jim Tracy, does not specifically mention religion.  Apparently they want to protect the rights of the students who want to express their religious views on homosexuality.  Obviously there are others who see this as a license to bully.
I am all for debating and expressing one's opinions, regardless of whether I personally agree with someone's view.  However, we live in a world where we have watched the devastating effects of bullying.  There is a time and place for everything, but school may not be the best place to allow one child to publicly humiliate and demean another person's choice of lifestyle all in the name of "Free Speech".  Bullying is nothing new.  Trying to put a stop to it, and going to the extent of passing legislation to protect students, that's new.   Why would you want to take a step backwards and allow some wiggle room in an area that we know can produce such devastating results.  Bullying sugar coated as "Free Speech" is still bullying! 

I found an article in the Salt Lake Tribune on January 30, 2012.  The article can be found on page A9 and is titled "Candidate vows appeal after she is barred due to her limited English".  The title first caught my attention but it was where this took place that kept me reading.  I grew up in Yuma, Arizona and that's where this particular incident occurred!

Alejandrina Cabrera was not allowed to run for City Council because she lacked the ability to speak English fluently.  She lives in San Luis and this Arizona community has a large hispanic population where both English and Spanish are used!  The Mayor of San Luis filed a court action to ask for a determination of Cabrera's Enlish skills.  After an expert testified that the examination he conducted showed Cabrera lacked the necessary English skills to serve on the City Council the Yuma County Judge, John Nelson, barred her from running for office.  Cabrera states that she does need to improve her skills but, given the large hispanic community, feels that her English is adequate.  Cabrera stated, "He can't take away my constitutional rights, and if he takes away my rights, he takes away the rights of the community."

Having lived in that community for 18 years I can appreciate the usefullness of being bi-lingual.  I realize that the state law says that they need to be English speaking but I can also see the need for someone who also has the ability to speak spanish, and is who is also willing to learn English more proficiently.  I know it's a qualification for the position but it would seem that this is not a problem that cannot be solved.  Why not let her run for the office and place the condition that she continue to learn the English language and use an interpreter when necessary!  If she wins the election she will have further incentive to master the language!  Is it really fair to say she cannot run in a community that has a large portion of the population that speaks only Spanish?  Let every group be equally represented and give her a chance to learn the language.  I've certainly seen plenty of politicans that speak and write English and do it badly.....why not let her try!  I'm curious to know what others might think.

Gay Marriage: Should we or shouldn't we?

January 29th, 2012
In an article in the Daily Herald on January 26, 2012 I found an article on page A10 titled, "Gay marriage returns to political spotlight" by David Crary.  The article talks about the issue of gay marriage once again being brought to the forefront for several reasons including:  the upcoming presidentcial elections, bills proposed by Mayland, New Jersey, and Washington to legalize same-sex marriages and the possible referendums that would seek to overturn those laws.  In the second column, first paragraph it briefly mentions that proposed amendments seeking the constitutional ban on gay marriages will be on the ballots in North Carolina and Minnesota.  It's an interesting article and while it only briefly talks about the constitutional ban on these marriages, it is a hot topic of debate in the United States!
My personal view is that ,whether or not I agree with a certain lifestyle, to ban a particular class of people from having the same rights as anyone one else because of their sexual orientation is far from okay.  I debate this issue with everyone from my father to good friends and we always go the same route.  It comes down to more of a "religous" or "moral" question.  I believe that denying someone the right to marry because they are gay is no different than denying women the right to vote because they are female, or permitting the enslavement of African-Americans because of the color of their skin!  It's all based on a personal trait a certain class of people possess.  Who are we to say who should or should not be allowed to marry?  I get that it is an issue surrounding families and the institution of marriage as we have known it to be in the past.  However, this is 2012 and nothing stays the same!  We look at our past and realize that we made some mistakes and we went about changing them, and this subject is no exception.  Being gay does not make you less of a person and should not infringe upon your ability to "seek life, liberty and the persuit of happiness".  Now, where did I read those last few words?  Oh!  That's right....the Constitution of the United States!  What do you think?

January 18, 2012
 I found an article in USA TODAY's January 17, 2012 edition.  You can find it on page 8A under the "Today's debate:  Clemency".  The article is titled "Pardon us, governer, but what were you thinking?".    Let me tell you a little about the article.  I was unable to determine who had actually written the article or I would happily give them credit for their work.  I'll give you a brief idea about the article, please keep in mind that this is not direct quotes from the article itself, but is information within the article and is not my work.  Outgoing Mississippi governer Haley Barbour recently paroled 215 prisoners, including three rapists, a few armed robbers, drunk drivers who had killed with their cars, and even some murderers.  Barbour is a conservative Republican who recently finished his second and last term as governer.  The controversy centers around the facts that a large number of the parolees were violent criminals, he gave no public notice to the victims' families, and he did it in the last moments of his term.  Under the U.S. Constitution presidents have the authority to grant pardons, and under some state constitutions governers have this same power.  When someone is pardoned there crimes are essentially erased, and they are given back freedoms that were taken away upon their conviction.  Things like the right to vote, and the freedom to purchase a GUN.  As you can imagine people all over the nation are upset with his actions.  The only reason for his actions seems to be the fact that as Christian Barbour believes in second chances.  There is more to this story, but you can get a basic idea of what the controversy is about.

Okay, so this is the part where I tell you what I think.  If Governer Barbour has such strong religous convictions and believes that granting pardons to violent criminals is the right thing to do, why did he wait to the end of his term as governer to do this?  This is not really the constitutional issue, but it's what I want to know.  If you believe in something to that degree why not do it at the beginning of his career?  You all know why.  He would never have been re-elected and his political career would have been flushed down the toilet.  I do believe that pardons serve a great purpose but I am less sure that pardoning violent criminals is what it was intended for.  There are those who do earn the right to begin again.  I know I have read a few stories in my life and believed it was appropriate in some of the situations to support their pardon.  I do not think that it serves any great purpose to allow someone who murdered another human being to have their crime erased.  I think I agree with the writer of the article.  Pardons are powerful tools and when used judiciously they can make up for the mistakes that are bound to take place within the judicial system.  I just cannot see, from where I sit, that this is the case with these pardons.  It is sad that the victims and their families do not get a pardon and cannot start their life over again with everything made right.  They continue on with out their loves ones and no body even asks what they think....at least not Governer Barbour.  What do you think?