NEBRATIONALIZE

[nebrationalize-blog]

Blogging Evaluation

I want to say that I liked blogging. In theory, I did. But for the kind of student and person that I am, I didn't. 

Blogging was the most convenient, flexible assignment that we could have been offered. The parameters didn't change over the semester, the guidelines were clear and the deadlines were constant. 

However, for some reason, I think that because I typically associate social media with less critical thinking, I found it difficult to dedicate to the posts as much as I would have anything genre of assignment. I am a paper-writing student. I like having a lot of time to lay out my thoughts, organize them, edit them and draw them out. I'm not as great at saying what I want in (what should be) a short amount of time. Furthermore, weekly blog posts were a lot easier to forget than a paper. My shortcomings in blogging were no one's fault but my own, and I don't think that there'd be a way to prevent it by changing the blogging system--I don't think that the blogging system could be much more convenient than it was. That being said, I don't think that I'm a unique student. Everyone is extremely busy: everyone has classes, jobs, extracurricular activities, families and (hopefully) friends. I'm not justifying my shortcomings with blogging, but I do think that they could be common ones, and if engaging with the course is the end goal, it might not be the most effective way to do so. 

I think that blogging for school sounds ideal, and probably works ideally for some students. But for students like me, who like to work hard and work well, but prefer to do so offline, it might not be best. I do already have another blog, for art and design, that I have kept since high school and will continue to do so. This blog, however, I likely will not continue. 

[nebrationalize-blog]

Best Post

This is my favorite post of mine from the semester, not necessarily because of the strength of its content or good writing, but because it set a guide for the rest of the semester. Looking back at the pot, I can see how I both agree and disagree with what I've written, based on what I've learned from the course, and I think that's especially important when working with philosophical ideas: to not just see how you define them, but to see how you've changed and how your worldview has been shaped after studying them.

In the post, I mentioned that I thought that the concept of "hero" was in decline. In some respects, I still agree with myself, although for different reasons. Now I see that heroism is not necessarily in decline, but instead that it is viewed differently. It isn't that fewer people are becoming "great", but they are being publicized differently. Before class, I hadn't considered a pre-requisite of heroism to be selfless action when the consequences could be harmful to one's sel; that information doesn't appear in my original blog post, but would fit there were I to rewrite it entirely given my new knowledge. 

Because it rhymes, here's some Best Coast to finish off the best post. 

[nebrationalize-blog]

It appears that the internet is back in Damascus after a two-day internet blackout. Beginning Thursday, 11/29, internet access was limited country-wide, which included making 84 IP address blocks unreachable. 

Conditions in Syria are becoming increasingly dire not only because of human rights violations and civilian massacres running rampant through the country, but now because both foreign and national journalists are unable to adequately and safely provide coverage about the conditions in Syria. 

The internet is vital not just for the spread of information and journalism surrounding the conflict in warring states, but also to the everyday lives of its citizens. 

At this point, I think that the complete restriction of internet access by foreign governments to its citizens (not to mention the gross human rights violations that it often accompanies) is grounds for international intervention. 

[nebrationalize-blog]

justice, capital punishment and the status quo

Wednesday night I attended a debate as part of the EN Thompson series titled, “The Death Penalty: Justice, Retribution and Dollars”. A preview detailing the event can be found here.

J. Kirk Brown, Nebraska’s Solicitor General, presented arguments in favor of the death penalty, while Michael Radelet, a University of Colorado-Boulder professor, presented arguments against the death penalty. For the most part, neither side presented a new, shocking argument. There were cases made by Brown from proportional punishment, retribution and constitutionality; Radelet presented the usual arguments about application failures of the death penalty (racial bias, the execution of innocent people), and moral arguments against the killing of any human, guilty or not. 

What I found most interesting, however, was a smaller debate that the two got into when arguing about justice itself. Brown was arguing that criminals of particularly heinous crimes needed to be brought to justice, when Radelet challenged him and the audience to define and contemplate what justice really meant. Radelet asked, do you define justice, or do you let justice define you? It was an interesting remark about how our conceptions of justice have changed over time, and prompts the following questions: should we regard an act as just or unjust simply because the status quo or history says it is so? Does justice require constant redefinition, at the risk of devaluing its merit as a consistent ideal? What middle ground seems workable?

[blossom90]

Well, must have been a rude awakening for those students to find out that words actually mean something, and they can have consequences. Especially when you post racist tweets about the president with your photo, real name, and even what sport you play listed in your bio. Some people in the comments think Jezebel took it too far by calling their schools… but I don’t. I think it’s reasonable considering a few of the schools have social media policies and certainly have policies against discrimination. The few students who left their Twitters up claimed to have been hacked. How ridiculous. 

Kinda reminds me of UNL Haters - it’s the same basic concept, only applied to high school students. I think public shaming is probably one of the best ways to deal with bigotry on social media, especially among young people. 

[kayabrams-deactivated20130114]

I agree completely with you. I actually can’t think of a single argument that would cause me to hesitate about this. It offers the students a great opportunity to learn the general rule that, when you say things, there are consequences. It offers the students an opportunity to rethink the specific prejudices that caused them to say the things they did in the first place. And though they are very young, and this type and magnitude of attention is uncomfortable, I don’t think the publicity will have long-term negative consequences. 

If there’s anything I’m undecided about in this situation, it’s the parents of the students. The ideas and and sentiments behind these tweets didn’t materialize independently in the mind of the student. They are all learned through the environment. In some cases, these attitudes are learned directly from the parents; in others, it’s important to remember that parents are ultimately repsonsible for the environment of their child. Exposing the students does, to an extent, expose the parents. But maybe the parents deserve even more direct attention.

To expose just the students themselves is to put the responsibility, at least partly, in the wrong place. 

[nebrationalize-blog]

Slate offered a different perspective on Jezebel’s outing of racist tweeters, going so far as to tweet their article with with the caption “snitches get stitches”. Slate says that “a difference exists between raising readers’ consciousness and being a rat”. Slate didn’t dispute the wrongness behind the tweeters’ words and actions, but instead took issue with Jezebel’s presentation of the material; Slate wasn’t upset that hate is being exposed, but instead reprimanded Jezebel for taking racism and Twitter as an opportunity to up ratings and page views, or basically, generating more publicity and popularity to the site without much thought to the consequences.

I was most intrigued by Slate’s accusation that in reporting hateful tweeters to their schools’ administrations, the offenders would be put at a disadvantage to succeed in life, and might actually prevent them from the very opportunities that would allow the tweeters to become more open-minded (ie- getting into a good college).

The dilemma thus becomes this: at what point to we draw the line (or at least identify an area) between rightfully exposing hate as a means to condemn and prevent it, and stunting the the success and personal development of a person (even a racist person)? As others have mentioned, this piece echoes what we’ve seen happen with UNL Haters. What should we want for our fellow classmates? Their exposure, embarrassment and judgment from their peers? Or would an a quiet reprimand and an explanation be more effective? 

[blossom90]

I’m having trouble understanding your argument that it’s mean to expose the students because they might not get into college or what have you because… I mean… they exposed themselves! All it would take is a quick Google search of the student’s name to find their Twitter account and their racist rants about the president. Calling attention to something that is already public information is not exposing someone. 

Also, I’m supposed to feel sorry for the poor racist white teenagers who won’t be able to get jobs/go to college? I’m sorry, no. I feel sorry for the black students who have to go to school with these ass holes. Do you really think a “quiet reprimand” would work? Would it actually make them stop being racist or saying racist things? I don’t think so, in fact I’m betting a few of them have already received one or two of those. 

[nebrationalize-blog]

I'm actually not making that argument, or any argument at all, just offering Slate's counter-perspective. Good discourse is advanced by ideas that seem unpopular or controversial. I thought it was especially interesting because Slate is also a liberal magazine and typically in agreement with what Jezebel has to say, especially when it comes to the public shaming of human rights violators, so I that's why I think that that article is especially intriguing. 

[upwithsteve]

[nebrationalize-blog]

Which voters waited on long lines to cast their ballots on Tuesday? According to a survey by the AFL-CIO, Obama voters were much more likely to wait on lines longer than 30 minutes than Romney voters, with blacks and Hispanics especially vulnerable.

The long lines were so bad, it took just two minutes for President Obama to mention them in his victory speech on Tuesday, with a rare flash of anger: “By the way, we have to fix that.”

I read this article last week that mentions that some voters were waiting up to seven hours in line at the polls, just to cast their votes. The Atlantic shamed Florida's voting system not just because of the time its taken to cast and count votes, instead offering an argument for why this is happening:

"This is happening not because of a natural disaster or breakdown in machinery. It is happening by partisan design. Alarmed by the strong Democratic turnout in early voting in 2008, Republican lawmakers, including Governor Rick Scott, reduced the number of early voting days from 14 to eight." The procedures were challenged by the Voting Rights Act (the same 1965 act that eliminated voting literacy tests and ensured that states with a history of racism would have their elections monitored by the federal government) but didn't hold up. 

It's one thing that it's still difficult to vote in 2012 and that lines and poor procedure might deter the democratic process. But the notion that we're doing this on purpose as a partisan-calculated moved to prevent votes, especially toward a certain minority or population sect, is super super super unacceptable. 

[blossom90]

Well, must have been a rude awakening for those students to find out that words actually mean something, and they can have consequences. Especially when you post racist tweets about the president with your photo, real name, and even what sport you play listed in your bio. Some people in the comments think Jezebel took it too far by calling their schools… but I don’t. I think it’s reasonable considering a few of the schools have social media policies and certainly have policies against discrimination. The few students who left their Twitters up claimed to have been hacked. How ridiculous. 

Kinda reminds me of UNL Haters - it’s the same basic concept, only applied to high school students. I think public shaming is probably one of the best ways to deal with bigotry on social media, especially among young people. 

[kayabrams-deactivated20130114]

I agree completely with you. I actually can’t think of a single argument that would cause me to hesitate about this. It offers the students a great opportunity to learn the general rule that, when you say things, there are consequences. It offers the students an opportunity to rethink the specific prejudices that caused them to say the things they did in the first place. And though they are very young, and this type and magnitude of attention is uncomfortable, I don’t think the publicity will have long-term negative consequences. 

If there’s anything I’m undecided about in this situation, it’s the parents of the students. The ideas and and sentiments behind these tweets didn’t materialize independently in the mind of the student. They are all learned through the environment. In some cases, these attitudes are learned directly from the parents; in others, it’s important to remember that parents are ultimately repsonsible for the environment of their child. Exposing the students does, to an extent, expose the parents. But maybe the parents deserve even more direct attention.

To expose just the students themselves is to put the responsibility, at least partly, in the wrong place. 

[nebrationalize-blog]

Slate offered a different perspective on Jezebel's outing of racist tweeters, going so far as to tweet their article with with the caption "snitches get stitches". Slate says that "a difference exists between raising readers' consciousness and being a rat". Slate didn't dispute the wrongness behind the tweeters' words and actions, but instead took issue with Jezebel's presentation of the material; Slate wasn't upset that hate is being exposed, but instead reprimanded Jezebel for taking racism and Twitter as an opportunity to up ratings and page views, or basically, generating more publicity and popularity to the site without much thought to the consequences.

I was most intrigued by Slate's accusation that in reporting hateful tweeters to their schools' administrations, the offenders would be put at a disadvantage to succeed in life, and might actually prevent them from the very opportunities that would allow the tweeters to become more open-minded (ie- getting into a good college).

The dilemma thus becomes this: at what point to we draw the line (or at least identify an area) between rightfully exposing hate as a means to condemn and prevent it, and stunting the the success and personal development of a person (even a racist person)? As others have mentioned, this piece echoes what we've seen happen with UNL Haters. What should we want for our fellow classmates? Their exposure, embarrassment and judgment from their peers? Or would an a quiet reprimand and an explanation be more effective? 

[nebrationalize-blog]

ANTIGONE AS TRAGIC, FEMININE HERO

Antigone is the first piece that we've read this semester with a female lead character. Antigone from the Iliad and the Odyssey as it is not a heroic epoch, and also differs from the rest of the philosophy that we've read. Instead, Antigone is a tragedy. From a literary standpoint, tragedies are evaluated differently from comedies or other genres. By Aristotelian definition (a "Poetics" argument that was the focus of one of my courses in high school), a tragedy should include a tragic hero with some flaw or error (called hamartia) often as a result of hubris (arrogance), a reversal of fortune (peripetia), a revelation (anagornisis) and at the end, a sense of pity and fear that lead to a feeling of purification in the reader/observer (catharsis).

   Justice is easily identifiable in Antigone, resulting largely from the death and subsequent circumstances surround Antigone's brothers. The injustice in Antigone lends itself to Aristotle's definition of tragedy. The brothers, Eteocles and Polynices each other in a duel based upon an argument about who could rule. Because neither of them could rule posthumously, their deaths resulted in the kingship of Creon, who determines that one brother will be granted proper burial rites while the other must rot (an injustice itself). The tragic heroine is Antigone, who makes a fatal error (hamartia) when defying Creon's decree not to offer burial rites to her brother. Creon sentences Antigone and when he changes his mind, peripetia occurs. The catharsis in Antigone is ultimately that we pity Antigone's unjust, gone-too-soon death, and fear the same happening in our own lives.  

 While it's easy to identify the injustice in Antigone, and the character of Antigone fits the Aristotelian definition of a tragic hero, I'm most interested in analyzing what OTHER heroic qualities Antigone might possess. Now that we've finally come to female central character to analyze as heroic in our reading, I thought back to blossom90's initial post on the masculinity and femininity of heroes when we were reading the Iliad. 

 Blossom90 argued that in the Iliad, we saw a "dichotomy of men = strong, powerful, passionate and women = submissive, meek and sensitive". In Antigone, I believe that the traits of men hold true--Creon is certainly strong, powerful and passionate. However, in her own way, so too is Antigone. She is definitely neither meek nor submissive. In fact, her rebellion results in her punishment and (even though Creon changes his mind) her eventual death. 

 Achilles, the quintessential Greek hero, as made deliberate choices that resulted in his death--he chose to return to battle knowing it would be a sacrifice of a quiet, happy life. Does his heroism result from his choice, or from the unparalleled battle valor that accompanied it? Is Achilles a hero because of his decisions, or because of his warrior skills?

The same question could be asked of Antigone, and could bring us a bit closer in analyzing masculine versus feminine heroism for the ancient Greeks. Antigone buries Polynices in direct defiance of Creon's orders; is she a hero because of her choice to provide proper burial rites to her brother? Or is she a hero because she is caught, sentenced to be executed and kills herself?

Is she even a hero at all?

[nebrationalize-blog]

On December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal was arrested for allegedly shooting a Philadelphia police officer and sentenced to death in July of 1982. He has been on death row in high security Pennsylvania prison SCI Green since then, despite that fact that "judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, discrimination in jury selection and tampering with evidence by police to obtain a conviction" have all been cited as errors in his trial. Furthermore, "ONE THIRD of the police officers involved in the case, including its lead investigator, police inspector Alfonzo Giordano, were tried and eventually convicted of rank corruption, extortion and tampering with evidence" just two weeks after the case. 

So, not only has Abu-Jamal been placed on death row on skeptical grounds, but he remains there in spite of an incredibly corrupt trial and sentencing. Abu-Jamal's case has garnered international attention as a sad example of the racism and prejudice that continues to pervade the American justice system post-Civil Rights era. 

The worst part is that Abu-Jamal is far from the only victim of a corrupt justice system the ACKNOWLEDGES its errors in unconstitutionally and unfairly arresting, sentencing, and punishing and potentially innocent people.

But what do we do about it? As the article's title suggests, the US justice system itself needs to go on trial. 

[nebrationalize-blog]

"Because women — yes, even young women, ones who live in cities and have sex — are just as affected by every law, every war, and every economic strategy as a man would be. Women are small business owners who need help from local governments. Women want comprehensive health care that wouldn’t drop them for having a pre-existing condition. Women care about whether or not we are constantly mired in ongoing wars in various locations throughout the world. Women care about access to birth control and abortions and breast cancer screenings, absolutely, but that is just one of many things that are a part of our lives, and any candidate should have more respect than to believe that simply supporting women’s reproductive rights is enough to completely appease them."

I wouldn't consider Thought Catalog to be a reputable "news source" per say, but this essay points out a social justice issue that was relevant in this election and will be in elections to come. Furthermore, is worth discussing and debating in general. 

Women's issues are important to discuss especially as important rights (the rights to one's own body, for instance) are in heated debate right now. But, as Chelsea Fagan suggests, are women's issues clouding how candidates present themselves to women as a whole, assuming that those are the issues to which women owe their attention and thus their vote?

Or is the added emphasis given to women's issues, to women, necessary for candidates to fully express their opinions and how they intend to act if elected?

[nebrationalize-blog]

[peaces-of-paraguay]

For every $15,000 we spend intervening in the lives of economically and otherwise disadvantaged kids in those earlier years, we save $80,000 in crime related costs down the road.

[nebrationalize-blog]

The headline of this article alone is enough to address the injustice embedded here. A current Vice-Presidential candidate- that means the man who will be a partner to the most powerful man in the United State (and arguably, the world)- promises to purse policies that will violate human rights. America? What?

This headline would look very different in a Focus on the Family article. It would probably read something more along the lines of "Paul Ryan promises Focus on the Family to defend traditional marriage which occurs between one man and one woman only, no ifs, ands or buts about it."

Or something like that. 

Regardless. Gay rights is no new issue, and there isn't much that hasn't been said about why it's a divisive issue in this election. The Civil Rights Movement and improved racial attitudes that we enjoy today are evidence that time can change minds. I just wish time would hurry up.

[thedailywhat]

Dear Ann Coulter of the Day: After Ann Coulter referred to President Obama as a retard in a tweet during Monday night’s presidential debate, Special Olympics athlete and global messenger John Franklin Stephens penned her this open letter:

Dear Ann Coulter,  Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow. So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?  I’m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public’s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow. I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you. In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.  I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.  Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next.  Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.  Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are – and much, much more.  After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me. You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV.  I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash.  Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor.  No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.  Come join us someday at Special Olympics. See if you can walk away with your heart unchanged.  A friend you haven’t made yet, John Franklin Stephens Global Messenger Special Olympics Virginia

[specialolympicsblog]

[peaces-of-paraguay]

This is one of the most inspirational pieces I have read in a while. John Franklin Stephens wrote quite the moving piece as he addressed Ann Coulter on her tweet about President Obama being a “retard.” While her response was anything but classy – though I think it is safe to say few people expected much out of her based on the type of person she has proven herself to be - what is most important is to not whether or not he impacted her, it is what an impact he has had on a members of society.

 I have found that some of the most influential heroes are those whom society tends to expect the least (a man with Down Syndrome or a 15 year old girl). There are two aspects of heroism and justice that create a sort of legitimacy; the idea that one must be just regardless of the possibility of negative outcomes, and whether or not they are relatable human beings. People such as John Franklin Stephens, or Malala Yousafzai, are just that; they fight for a just cause regardless of the consequences, they live in a society that expects little of them, and because of their perseverance, drive, and faith, they rattle society’s view of right and wrong. Furthermore, they get people to question societal assumptions of who can make a difference. 

[nebrationalize-blog]

I want to draw attention to Coulter's response (linked above) because that's all that it is--a response, not an apology. If anything, it's a justification. 

Coulter says that it's alright to call someone a "retard" because it's used colloquially. WHO is Ann Coulter, or anyone for that matter, to colloquialize words that mocks the lifestyle and hardships experienced by other people? Coulter is by no means the only offender. On what grounds did society essentially decide to take a term that demeans their fellow citizens (who have already overcome more than anyone could fully realize) and turn it into a phrase that expresses distate for something else? Coulter's defense is that it's okay to call the President a "retard" because everyone else does; she defends herself because everyone else does the same bad thing, not because the bad thing is wrong.

I would contend that no just society makes a mockery of a portion of its population, especially one that already faces so many obstacles. 

Am I being too critical? I'm all for self-deprecating humor, and even good-natured, mutual insults between friends. But at what point does society transition from making a joke out of someone's pitfalls, to turning hateful language against a group of people into an everyday expression, in complete ignorance of its own privilege?

[miscnerdings]

The term hero is used very loosely today, at least by the standards set by Homer and Socrates. You have comic book heroes, video game heroes, movie heroes, social heroes, war heroes, etc. But who is actually a hero? Or in this day and age, is there a need to distinguish who the real heroes are? Is...

[nebrationalize-blog]

I think that the major defining factor of a hero is that he/she can do something exceptional, something that is difficult to attain by an ordinary person. Therefore, the qualities of a hero will change based on what qualities a person values, and what qualities they wish to emulate. This explains why, to one person, Achilles was a hero and to another, Justin Bieber is. For the ancient Greeks, the highest honor was to be a war hero, to die valiantly (and often violently) in battle. Achilles was best emulation of this ideology, and so he remained a heroic figure for centuries. 

I think it's also worth noting that the ancient Greeks were all encouraged, by their philosophers and by their government, to value the same things. They were encouraged to act according to their gender roles, social class and overall to act in accordance with societal values. This also explains why the value placed on Achilles has endured for so long- because he was the hero not just of one, but of many.

I'm not trying to equate Justin Bieber with Achilles, but each of them is a heroic figure for someone, based on what they represent. For Achilles, it’s war valor and for Justin, it’s fame and success.  Regardless of what you're opinion on Justin Bieber, his talent or his music his, he represents the ability to become famous and successful from humble beginnings- a desire held by many. 

I would definitely agree with you in saying that the word “hero” is probably overused today. I don’t think that someone is your “hero” for letting you borrow a pen in class or for giving you a ride home. It’s a nice sentiment, but probably not an accurate one. We’re in agreement there. 

What is disagree with is that I don't necessarily think that the term hero being used differently than the standards that Homer wrote about is necessarily a bad thing. Changing heroes, in my opinion, is a good thing. For Homer's audience. Achilles was the embodiment of THE type of hero that every man should strive to be. Today, I feel like every person is encouraged more to think for themselves, value different things and as a result, have different heroes. Sure, this means that some people’s heroes are going to be Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan. But it also means that some heroes are going to be Stephen Hawking or Anna Pavlova, and Mahatma Ghandi or Amelia Earhart can be heroes too, not just Achilles and Hector. It means that both personally and as a society, we can recognize that compassion, generosity, drive and peace can be traits just as heroic as bravery and sacrifice. 

There’s definitely “cause for concern” about heroes in today’s pop culture. I’m just as disgusted as the next person about the fame and attention who surround celebrities (to use the trite example, like Kim Kardashian) who are almost worshipped, despite having done very little to merit fame and who, even worse, do very little with their fame to give back to society. In that sense, I am just concerned about the “lack of focus” in pop culture heroes. But what I remain hopeful about is that even though the diversification in the traits we find heroic might distort our priorities a little, we’re greater advantaged by the influx of new heroic traits, that encourage us to be different from each other but still successful in our own way. 

The definition of hero from Homer to today has certainly changed, in manners good and bad. We understand Achilles as a historical hero, but he might not be what we desire to emulate today. I like that our heroes can reflect who we are and who we want to be, not who society thinks we ought to be.

[nebrationalize-blog]

This article describes how this election has been particularly quiet on issues of social justice. I would agree, especially in comparison prevalence of dialogue related to "hope" and "change" four years ago. I think that this trend coud be the result of the type of election. In "open seat" elections, where neither candidate has held the office they're running for before, I think that there is a higher tendency to discuss social justice issues because the candidates have a clean slate of material, and want to make more promises to more demographics, to secure their votes. 

However, in elections that have an incumbent, like this one, I think that the dialogue focuses more on what has or hasn't happened in the last four years, and the conversation centers more around why that president should or shouldn't be elected, rather than making new promises. As a result, social justice issues tend to go by the wayside.

[apsio-blog]

A federal appeals court in New York became the nation’s second to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding that the Clinton-era law’s denial of federal benefits to married same-sex couples is unconstitutional.  The divisive act, which was passed in 1996, bars federal recognition of such marriages and says other states cannot be forced to recognize them.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Thursday that the federal law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, ruling in favor of a widow named Edith Windsor, an 82-year-old lesbian who sued the federal government for charging her more than $363,000 in estate taxes after being denied the benefit of spousal deductions.

This issue of same-sex marriage brings about controversy and questions of justice in more than one area.  In this particular case the main focus was whether or not the U.S. government could not recognize a marriage that a state does recognize.  This brings about the dilemma between federal laws and state laws.  It also brings into the conversation one of the most difficult constitutional questions to answer.  I can’t remember exactly and feel free to help me out here, but I think there are two conflicting clauses in the constitution that makes it hard to determine whether or not states have to recognize lawfully conducted same sex marriages in other states. 

So there is of course the legal justice matters to be debated, but there are also morality issues when it comes to same-sex marriage.  Many people seem to be against same-sex marriage.  Which on some accounts I do not understand; because for me, whether a married couple is homosexual or heterosexual does not directly affect my life any differently.  Yes, I can see how it makes people feel uncomfortable and in that way it is affecting your life.  But that’s like saying people with large age differences in their marriage make you feel uncomfortable and therefore should be made illegal.  It may be unusual and something I wouldn’t do, but that doesn’t give me the right to tell someone they can’t do it.  This issue is deeply rooted in religion and I understand that some people who want to stay true to their faith have to be against same-sex marriage because their religion is.  However, not including religious reasons I don’t understand why someone would want it illegal.     

[daydreamer0414-blog]

Personally I believe same sex marriage should be determined by each separate state. I really don’t believe there to be a need for a federal mandate of the law. I understand that some people believe that if it is taken up in the Supreme Court and made a law nation wide that it would be more accepted or something of that sort, but why not leave it up to the states?

I find this a more plausible solution because I have found that many states have several different opinions regarding how the solution should be handled. So why not make it so the people of each state can decide? That way the more conservative states who wouldn’t necessarily need such a law didn’t have to add it to their constitution while other more liberal states who have a higher population related to same sex marriage can enact a law just for their particular state.

I agree with you in regards to the argument being more or less religious based. That is the only logical explanation I can find in regards to why people are not okay with same sex marriage, besides that I have yet to hear another reason why that wasn’t completely absurd.

[nebrationalize-blog]

Reserved state powers work really well for some decisions, like administrative tasks that the state government would be better at determining than a national mandate, like a budget for instance.

Reserved state powers do not work well for determining basic rights that every human should have. 

Roughly 60 years ago, the United States struggled with this dilemma in determining whether or not schools should desegregate, and if so, how. 

The racist attitudes and policies enacted by both the government and citizens are an embarrassment in our history; incidentally, they are no different that the attitudes about gay rights and gay marriage today. 

Regardless of the individual moral position on homosexuality and its implications, it shouldn't be personal moral beliefs that determine someone else's life. 

We've made progress, and to keep doing that, it's my hope that the U.S. advances as quickly as possibly into an increased reality of Americans accepting other Americans, for who they are, not who they love. Hopefully soon, homophobic attitudes will be an embarrassing part of our history, much like the racist attitudes of the Civil Rights Era, and not a prevailing attitude of our present.