Response to: "Same-Sex Marriage...Not a "Political" Issue"

            I read the article titled “Same-Sex Marriage…Not a “Political” Issue” that was posted on the blog, “Texas Government-Summer 2014.” First of all, I disagree with the author of this blog that the “issue of same-sex marriage does not need to be a government issue.” The author stated in this article: “I would prefer for elected officials to dedicate their time to dealing with issues that significantly impact the majority of citizens.” Actually, the issue of same-sex marriage greatly impacts the majority of citizens and most definitely should be a government issue.

            The fourteenth amendment, ratified in 1868, guaranteed citizenship to all former slaves.  Although African American’s did not account for the majority of citizens, equal treatment of the group is an issue that has affected everybody, regardless of their race or heritage.  The term “equality” has tremendous implications; it provides everyone with the same opportunity to achieve their goals.  Just because African Americans are among the minority doesn’t mean equal treatment of them isn’t important.  Similarly, equal treatment of women as citizens of the United States, as outlined in the 19^th amendment, is an issue that has had reverberating effects among the entire population.  America was founded on the idea of Democracy; that all people possess the right to have their voices heard, to be treated equally, and to have equal rights as citizens.  The fight for African Americans and women to gain equal rights as citizens should not be underappreciated, for it is movements like those that guarantee equality now, regardless of race or color.  Anything that is a threat to the equality of all U.S. citizens, including the issue of gay-marriage, should most certainly be a government issue.

            On the other hand, I agree with the blogger’s analysis that same-sex couples “are not adding to the issue of overpopulation and they are providing loving homes for children who otherwise might not have one.”  There are so many children that need a loving home. It is ridiculous to suggest that growing up in the system is better than being adopted by a same-sex couple.  Additionally, same-sex couples could be more able to adopt and would be more financially stable if they were allowed the same rights as any other married couple.

            Furthermore, I feel that separation of the church and the state is a very important principal that our country was founded upon.  Resistance to equal treatment of same-sex couples reeks of religious influence.  It is vital that the separation of church and state is maintained in order to snub out this current societal discrimination against the gay and lesbian community. 

            Gays and lesbians are citizens, too.  They deserve the same right that African Americans and women alike fought so hard for; equal treatment as citizens of the United States of America.  You would think that after the fight for racial and gender equality in our country, equality among all different groups of sexual orientations would be a no-brainer.  Unfortunately, though, this is not the case.  It is because of this that equality should always be considered to be at the forefront of all important government issues facing the diverse citizens of the United States of America.

           

        I recently read an article in the Austin American Statesman about how a $1.25 million settlement was awarded to the three minor children of a Texas man who was fatally shot by a policeman last year.  This settlement is the largest in Austin’s history.  The man was shot in the back of the neck.  The police officer has been indicted on the charge of manslaughter.  There wasn’t much other background information, but I couldn’t help but think about the fact that he was shot in the back of the head.  I couldn’t help but wonder why in the world an officer would shoot someone in the back of his or her neck.  If someone isn’t even facing you, how are they an imminent threat to you?  Aren’t officers supposed to only shoot to kill in situations that put the safety of themselves or others in direct risk?  Furthermore, it is unsettling to me how the officer was only charged with manslaughter.  A charge of manslaughter basically means that there was less moral thought than Murder 1 or 2.  In my opinion, this story reeks of a police officer over using his powers.  It is frightening to think that someone who is supposed to be protecting us and keeping the peace is shooting another man in the back of the neck.  I think Texas needs to be more careful about who they hire and train to become a police officer.

            I completely agree with the article posted on Sierra’s blog, “One Land, Under Six Flags.”  In her article, Sierra outlined her reasons for why she believes that “Texas is in dire need of an education reform.”  She mentioned how budget cuts made in the state legislature are putting a great deal of financial pressure on school districts.  Affects of this are not limited to old textbooks, art being taken out of the curriculum, and rising tuition costs.  One severe consequence of these budget cuts is a higher student to teacher ratio, which creates a more hazardous educational environment.  In high school science laboratory classes for example, teachers are expected to monitor an even greater amount of rowdy, hormonal teenagers handle dangerous chemicals and equipment.  Another severe consequence of these budget cuts is prevalent in the terrible special education programs within the school districts.  School districts cannot afford professionals who are trained to deal with certain students with special needs. Special education programs in Texas are a joke.  Although, the fact that I am the daughter of a gripey-middle school science teacher mother and grew up around constant “the Texas Education system sucks” chatter might have implanted some sort of bias within me.  Perhaps if she made a better salary compared to the workload and hours put in as well as the education earned to achieve this “professional” career, she wouldn’t have complained so much. 

            In the end though, doesn’t everything come down to money? If there was more money, school districts could provide a safer and more up-to-date educational environment, pay their teachers more, and provide a better special education service to students with disabilities.  If there was more money, colleges and universities could afford to lower their tuition, thus helping more people graduate who would have otherwise been prevented from doing so for financial reasons.  If more people graduate, we have a more educated and efficient society, who go into higher paying jobs and produce more intelligently and efficiently and spend more money, thus positively affecting the economy. If Texas had an income tax, I wonder, would it be able to afford all of these improvements to it’s education system? My guess is yes, but it’s all about money and who would want to give their money away to some pesky income tax?  Certainly not enough of the politically active registered voters in the great state of Texas, that’s for sure.

            According to the Austin American Statesman, “ abortions in Texas dropped 13% in the last year as new abortion restrictions triggered the closure of nearly half the state’s abortion clinics.”  These abortion restrictions, outlined in House Bill 2, banned abortion after 20 weeks, required doctors to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the abortion facility, and required abortion facilities to meet the same standards of ambulatory hospital services. 

Among all of the states in the continental U.S., the state of Texas has by far the strictest laws in regards to abortion procedures. This is a very sad reversal of women’s equal right to healthcare services.  The way I see it, if abortions in Texas dropped 13% in the last year, then we also had a 13% increase in unsafe abortions and unplanned-for deliveries. 

Decreased access to services such as Planned Parenthood is devastating to the female youth in Texas.  Since HB 2 forced the closure of many Texas facilities, Texas women have also lost access to birth control and S.T.D. screenings in addition to abortion services.  Due to the passage of this bill, which Republicans justify by claiming that it makes abortion “safer”, it has become extremely difficult for low-income female citizens of Texas to gain access to sexual health care clinics.

It is extremely sad that in the state of Texas, if someone was raped and didn’t realize they were pregnant until after the 20-week mark, they would be forced to go on with the pregnancy.  This kind of situation would definitely have devastating long-terms psychological effects on both the mother and the child.

            I read an article on the Burnt Orange Report, written by Katie Singh and titled “Greg Abbott: Texans Should “Drive Around” and Ask Facilities if They’re Storing Dangerous Chemicals”.  Katie Singh wrote her article with a general intended audience of all Texas residents, but particularly those with children who tend to be especially concerned about their health and wellbeing.

Singh began her article by giving some history on a recent ruling that states “the locations of dangerous chemicals can be kept hidden from the public (so that terrorists don’t get a hold of them)”.  Also according to Singh, Greg Abbott, attempted to back up his stance on the ruling by notifying Texans that “you know where they are if you drive around. You can ask every facility whether or not they have chemicals or not.”  Of course, Katie Singh argues that “it’s completely ludicrous, and shows no concern for public safety whatsoever.”

Katie Singh also does a very good job at supporting her argument by pointing out Greg Abbott’s connection to the Koch brothers’ industries.  She reported in her article that just “five months after an ammonium nitrate explosion that killed 15 people in West, Attorney General Greg Abbott received a $25,000 contribution from…the head of Koch Industries’ fertilizer division.”  She made a good point at the end of her blog post, which I agree with: “Texans deserve better than a governor who refuses to stand up for their safety, putting corporate interests ahead of saving their lives.”

Randal O’ Toole of The Austin American-Statesmen cleverly argues in his article, titled “Buses are a better bet than rail for Austin”, that the planning of a light rail line in Austin is a waste of tax-payers’ money and that it is a poor transit choice for the general Austin community. O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of “The Worst of Both: The Rise of High-Cost, Low Capacity Rail Transit”. His intended audience includes the tax-paying citizens of Austin, but more specifically, the tax paying citizens of Austin who are more likely to be reading his article in the daily newspaper.  The tax paying citizens who read the newspaper are older, wealthier, car-owning citizens who are very unlikely to ever use the proposed light rail line. In his article, O’Toole presents sound statistical evidence of the high cost and low efficiency of light rail lines compared to buses in order to gain the support of his readers in opposition to the proposal.  He presents shocking figures, for example, the light rail line “will cost close to $150 million per mile”, but the MoPac Express Lanes “are costing less than $20 million per mile.”  Additionally, O’Toole points out that “the trains will average only about 22 miles per hour” and that “buses on express lanes can go 60 miles per hour.”  I did notice, however, that he failed anywhere in his article to mention the environmental impact of light rail lines versus buses. Hmm…I guess he didn’t want the average 60-year-old newspaper reader remembering to consider environmental impacts. The logic he presents is simple: it costs more, and isn’t worth it.  I would have to say that Randal O’Toole presented his argument in a clever manor to predictable readers who are very likely to agree with the points he made.

I came across an interesting Texas Tribune article, titled “BP Wants Unspent Spill Recovery Money Back", which I feel is definitely worth a read.  It has only been a mere four years after the most devastating oil spill in U.S. history and - get this - BP “respectfully” requested the return of any unused funds left over from the five million dollar grant they gave to the State of Texas.  Just to clarify, BP spilled five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010.  That’s a whopping $1 per barrel grant BP gave to the State of Texas to be used for cleaning up after their mess.  After absorbing this much so far, I immediately got emotional and images of poor oil-coated baby dolphins and sad little innocent turtles stuck in sludge flashed through my mind. I thought to myself, what slimy behavior it was for BP to ask for their money back! I’m no marine biologist but I’m pretty sure that the biggest oil spill in U.S. history will have negative economic and environmental repercussions for a lot longer than four years.

I then calmed back down and continued to read the article, finding it cute that Perry’s office “respectfully” denied the oil company’s request.  The Governor’s office also assured BP that the money would indeed go towards a website and other grant programs…. eventually.  Meanwhile, Mississippi is ahead of the game with a “website related to spill recovery funds that lists the sources of money and allows the public to submit project proposals.”  All Texas got around to doing with the grant money so far was purchasing a domain name for what is still a non-functioning website. In fact, it seems that while Texas has been fiddling its thumbs, all of the other Gulf States are far more advanced in their own recovery processes. Well geez, after reading the last half of that article, I can almost see why BP is so frustrated.  How hard can it be for the State Government to get a website up and running?  According to the article, “local officials and organizations eager to do restoration work on the Texas cost are waiting for funds to become available, watching as other states spend millions of dollars.”  So why on earth is the Texas Government just sitting on this money like a dumb duck?  I do not know the answer.  I do, however, believe that this article is worth a read because being informed and asking questions is just as important as getting the answers.