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?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)