Final Comment on Proposition 8 and Equality

I strongly agree with what Katrina has to say about same sex marriage in her post on her blog. She supports the fact that proposition 8 was overturned, believing that the action protects the rights of many citizens. I particularly like how she states that “Many are enraged that one judge was given the right to overturn the votes of millions of people. I feel like the judge simply gave to millions of people the right they should have already been given a long time ago.”

She also points out how the founding fathers meant for the constitution (which some believe does not support same sex marriage) to be able to be amended to keep up with the times. In my opinion, she is spot on about this issue. Lets face it, as smart and well intentioned the founding fathers were, there is no way we could possibly base all of our laws and rights on what they said over 200 years ago. Sure they covered the basics that will last for ages to come, but do you really think they had same sex marriage on their mind when then decided this country’s laws? I wouldn’t think so. As homosexuality continues to become more prevalent in our society as it has been doing over the past 50 years, our laws will naturally have to adapt to protect the rights of this growing population.

On a slightly different note, I will end by saying what I have said for many years about how discrimination can only honestly be eliminated from a society and equality among everyone is truly achieved. Such methods as affirmative action for minorities and overturning a proposition like proposition 8 are helpful, but does it truly help everyone be viewed as equal? In my opinion, no, these things only reinforce the fact that minorities and homosexuals are existent, and that they are indeed different in the eyes of society. Only the day when these facts become completely meaningless to people, so meaningless that race is not asked on job or school applications and sexual orientation not a thought in the military or on anyone else’s mind, will true equality be achieved. 

Final Thoughts on Politics

As I look back at all I’ve read, thought about, and wrote this past month studying national government, I realize that there have been three constant things present in each issue: disagreement, argument, and controversy. Each topic always seems to have two, and only two sides arguing, and seemingly fighting to the death, over what they think should be decided. These sides consistently trace back to one of the first things we were asked to determine in this course: our political ideology and party.

It has become apparent to me that the existence of two dominant ideologies and a bipartisanship has torn our country’s national government in two, both sides seemingly destined to disagree on everything they possibly can. Both politicians and citizens are constantly judged, favored, or disliked purely by which side of the spectrum they claim to identify with. Furthermore, I think these people also feel much pressure to stay in line with their particular ideology. Even since the start of this course less than a month ago, I have felt confused and unsure when I learned that my first gut instinct on an issue was not in agreement with my determined and supported ideology and party affiliation. It is very hard to come to grips with the fact that you may agree with the opposing party on an issue, particularly when loyalty is such a prevalent characteristic in politicians.

For example, recently New York representative Anthony Wiener gave a speech in which he scolded his fellow representatives for voting a certain way regardless of how they felt about the issue, but because they felt the procedure of the legislation was wrong. Behind the scene, political party undoubtedly played a huge role here. The pressure on politicians to vote within the line of those of their fellow party often makes them lose site of what their gut tells them is truly right.

What I am about to suggest may be one of the most uneducated suggestions that could easily be rejected by anyone with more knowledge of the subject of political parties, but is it possible that the US would have been better off without the creation of a bipartisanship? In such a government people would have no choice but to agree with what they think is right, and they would have no predetermined party that they might feel pressure to side with against their better judgment. Instead of their only being two sides of the argument, there could potentially be many more that just two opinions. But just maybe the opportunity could arise for people realize that they all actually want the same changes and decisions to be made, without controversy. Sure, it could be very farfetched, but it could also possibly limit the disagreement and argument that currently persists in the government every day. 

Colleague Response

I completely agree with Kmearite in her article Setting Stage 5 for Right v. Wrong. She argues that politicians these days are much too concerned with procedure, and that because of this they often lose site of what they think is right. As a result, they will vote one direction on a bill when in their hearts they feel the other direction would be in the better interest of the country.

Many things could possibly attribute to why some politicians don’t follow their heart and what they think is right. However, I think the primary reason people vote a certain way against their gut is to stay in line with their particular political party. In some ways, parties have become an obstacle in our political system as the ties to those within their party have made some politicians, and possibly citizens, forget what Government’s role as a whole is. The existence of different parties and ideologies puts pressure on people to choose a side. Once a side is chosen, they receive further pressure to stay in line with that side. Even since the start of this course less than a month ago, I have felt confused and unsure when I learned that my first gut instinct on an issue was not in agreement with my determined and supported ideology and party affiliation. It is very hard to come to grips with the fact that you may agree with the opposing party on an issue, particularly when loyalty is such a prevalent characteristic in politicians, if not the human race.

I cannot offer much of a solution to the problem, only encourage people not to worry when they think outside the lines of their party. They should indeed just do what they think is right. We really cannot ask for much more than that.