Gay Marriage in Texas

Marriage.  Is the sanctity of marriage at stake? Over the past years there has been an increase in homosexuals wanting to solidify their relationships with marriage.  Is this a bad thing? I mean, shouldn’t they have a right to get married like the rest of us? If anything, they should be able to get married for their own protection.  By this I mean that if someone in the partnership were to die, the other person should be able to receive benefits.  What if this couple had children, the child wouldn’t be guaranteed to stay with the other partner.  Can you imagine the damage that would cause that child?! First they lose a parent, and then they get taken away from the only parent they have left until custody was figured out.  That just doesn’t seem fair to the child or the live parent.  What if none of these were to happen though, no deaths, and no children, should homosexuals be able to marry?

What does Texas think? When there was a vote to pass an Anti-Gay Marriage amendment, it passed by 70% in Texas.  This is expected of course though because of the major Republican representation in Texas.  We are known for being ultra conservative and not the most open state when it comes to cases like gay marriage.  Why does Texas feel so strongly though about this? Does allowing two people to get married that are of the same sex affect anyone outside of the couple? The answer is no.  It only affects that gay couple, so why not let them get married?  Why wouldn’t Texas want to protect their citizens with benefits only received by a married couple? Some say it’s because most of the conservative Republicans are Christian who believe only man and woman should get married.  This would mean that the Republicans would be indirectly pushing Christianity on the state and later the nation.  I do understand this and how it could look like that, but at the same time, many Christians are accepting of gay marriage, they just might not live in the state of Texas.  Texas did go out of their way to pass their amendment against gay marriage when it was already illegal to have a same sex marriage.  This seems a little over the top just because it wasn’t an issue and they decided to make it one.    

In the Texan Republicans fight against gay marriage they did bring up the fact that being gay can spread dangerous diseases.  An example of this happening was when there was a huge outbreak of AIDS in the 80’s that was mainly affecting the homosexual men.  The only thing with Texas bringing the spread of diseases up when discussing the gay marriage issue is that by outlawing gay marriage it isn’t going to stop them from being gay or having partners.  The homosexual population will still exist, they just won’t be making their partnership official.  So, I don’t believe this should be a reason for outlawing gay marriage in Texas.  I can definitely see people coming back from my opinion saying that if you were to let gay marriage be legal in Texas then more people could become curious about being gay because it would be a more official option of personal preference.  By legalizing gay marriage it would become more of a normal thing that people would see which would make children as they grow up feel as if they should experiment since people go either way.  So I can see where someone who had those views could come from, but I feel that it isn’t a definite outcome and in all honesty, what right do we have to decide how someone lives their life? 

-Kelsey Scott 

Give Us the Facts Juanita...

“Kill em’ All!” Not exactly the words we want to hear when referring to anyone. These words were spoken about the Mexican Immigrants crossing the Texas borders.   I do have to agree with Ms. Jean in this specific case that stating to kill anyone who crosses the border isn’t rational or humane in any sense, but there is a reason why this has been said.  Ms. Jean, in her blog, “Oh For Pete’s Sake”, discusses how the Commissioner of Agriculture has decided it’s time to put a stop the immigration flow into Texas from Mexico.  Throughout the blog, she tries to target the unknowing citizen of Texas that doesn’t know what is going on around them.  What she says to her audience, will be the only source of News that they are receiving.  In some ways, she does speak some truths, but she leaves out major facts that need to be stated! 

When writing her blog, she can easily sway someone to believe what she feels if she leaves out important information.  The way she wrote the blog, it made it look like there was no sane reason to put a stop to immigration.  This is not the case, by reading her embedded link it does verify the fact that some of the border cities are safer than our own city of Austin, but it also shared a vital piece of information.  The farmers are ACTUALLY at risk and the threats are REAL!  There are drug cartels coming through their towns and putting their own safety at risk.  There have been older farmers that have actually given up their careers because of how many dangerous immigrants have been passing through.  Now, this doesn’t give us the right to “Kill em’ All”, but it does give us the right to enforce the National Immigration Laws. Texas just needs to find a more humane way to enforce these laws.  With all of that said, Ms. Jean should have included the vital piece of information about the farmers being in harms way in her blog to make it less one-sided of an argument.  Her audience needs all of the facts before making an opinion for themselves.  

Now, before anyone takes Ms. Jean too seriously, it is important to note her line of work.  She is a hair stylist.  Not that this isn’t a good profession, but how qualified is a hair stylist to give her opinion on politics and what should be going on in this state.  She considers her blogs as her political organization.. Last time I checked, a blog site is not equivalent to a political organization.  It’s fine to read her blogs, but take them with a grain of salt, because from the looks of it, she leaves out important facts, and isn’t completely qualified to be giving the state of Texas her political opinion.  

-Kelsey Scott 

Who is to Say What Makes a Good Leader?

Leadership.  Who is to determine what characteristics makes up a good leader versus a bad one? Well the nameless writer to the editorial, Perry Falls Short on Texas Shortfall Leadership, believes that he has the right to determine how Governor Rick Perry should lead our state.  Why should we, as an audience, take anything he says as correct when we don’t know who he is and what his credentials are? I understand the fact of keeping a column private, but when you are expressing your feelings on such a pertinent subject, the audience should be able to know the background of the author.  

In this editorial, there is a main theme of bashing Governor Perry, but what is the reasoning behind it? The author kept proposing that Governor Perry tell us his exact plans for fixing our deficit, which yes that would be nice, but there isn’t a reason to tell the world what he proposes to fix the deficit if his proposal hasn’t been approved yet.  As a leader, you don’t want to tell the people what you hope to do if there is any possibility that your plan could not be approved.  Also, the author isn’t throwing out any suggestions to help our deficit.  All he can do is critique the one leading our state.  

Who was our mysterious writer trying to reach?  The author was trying to reach an audience member that doesn’t really pay attention to what is going on around them and how bad the deficit is.  Another type of person the author could be attempting to reach would be the person that is upset by the deficit which would intern rally more people against the Governor and his choices.  Does it do any good though to rally anyone against the leader of our state? No it doesn’t.  That doesn’t mean we need to just sit back and watch the Governor destroy the world around us, but we could at least be somewhat supportive and see what he has in store for us.  In general, the author’s opening statements are not backed by anything.  He is telling his audience what a good speaker should be doing, but where did he get this information? Who made him the judge of what a sound speaker should do? With that said, throughout this editorial, the author makes claims but can’t back them up.  Are you going to fall for this unknown person’s opinion?   

-Kelsey Scott 

Financial Aid Assistance?

How much money have we all spent on classes and textbooks a year? Who all takes out loans and receives financial aid from the school? In the article, Dan Patrick: "Middle Class Should Not Pay For College For the Poor", written February 8, has an interesting debate about whether or not Universities should be allowed to take 20% of student’s tuition to put toward financial aid for the student population.  Mr. Dan Patrick is the main person that is speaking out for his bill to be passed, and has made a few very intriguing points.  “Patrick describes this process as an “onerous, backdoor tax” on college tuition fees.  A student, whose family is paying tuition, Patrick argues, shouldn’t have to contribute to educate another family’s child. He would eliminate financial aid derived from tuition payments, resulting–he says–in reduced tuition costs for everyone.” Which yes, is a valid point, but at the same time, the state had reasons to allow the University to set aside 20% of student tuition for financial aid as to the state’s 2003 budget cut according to the article.  Also, is it wrong to distribute funds to the less fortunate? Don’t we want to be able to help the children that want to go somewhere in life, but don’t have the financial options? These are questions that should be asked.  These are the main reasons as to why the Universities do what they do, and why the Texas Higher Education Commissioner agrees with them.

I highly recommend reading this because it brings to light issues that were unknown to me, and I am sure some of you out there had no idea this was occurring either.  So what is your stance, should the middle class pay for the poor’s education as well as their own?