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.