Final Column Draft

Amending Homosexual Equality
By Molly Moser and Adam Bruns

With the voting season over, there is a reminder of South Dakota’s conservative nature. As this year’s ballot offered the South Dakota voter many controversial amendments to vote for one rather disturbing one permeates them all. The amendment is not only a South Dakota issue, but it is, in fact, an issue concerning the country, perhaps even the world. It is an issue of discrimination which time should have taught us, the United States which claims to be a free democratic nation, to abolish. The amendment hearkens back to the discrimination of women and African Americans in the US. The amendment is a discrimination of civil rights and it removes these rights from the discriminated community creating inequality among US citizens. This controversial amendment that is causing such inequality is South Dakota Amendment C. As Project Vote Smart states “Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.” It could just be us, but marriage seems to be a religious matter. Perhaps we are wrong in assuming this, but marriage between a man and a woman was advocated in the Bible which relates the matter with religion and its definition of marriage. Yes, there are other laws that are in relation to the Bible, but these laws are there to protect the safety of society. However marriage between two people of the same sex is not harmful to any unwilling person. So we ask, should this be the state’s definition or even the countries? When reviewing the United States Bill of Rights the very first amendment states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Perhaps our religion believes in the union between same sexes. Would Amendment C not be a prohibition of our religious belief, and would the State then be creating a law that respects an established religion, and its point of view, that is against ours?

Now that we have your attention on this widely discussed topic and what we think, wouldn’t you like to hear what President Bush and other government officials really think and say about the issue? One statement that President Bush has been quoted by White House spokesman Scott McClellan is that, “He is strongly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage.” Also When asked if Bush considers homosexuality a sin, McClellan responded someone’s sexual orientation is “personal business in the president’s view.” He added, “The president is not someone who believes in casting stones. He is someone who believes that everybody ought to be treated with continuing respect.” Why then does he advocate that marriage should be a holy union between a man and a woman. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has also previously been quoted numerous times on the gay marriage issue. One major statement that Santorum made was that, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” But is consensual sex between two people a harmful thing? Again this discrimination refers to religion. Perhaps our religion advocates polygamy; is it the government’s right to step in and say that we cannot practice our religion? Some other statements directed towards this issue include Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas saying, “We’re making progress, and we’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat saying, “the And to prove our point Senator John Thune of South Dakota said that, “During the course of the debate on this amendment, a lot of the opponents . . . continued to repeat the mantra that ‘this is not something the American people care about.” So if this is the case, then WHY NOT GAY MARRIAGE? The reason the Senate Republicans are pushing this marriage amendment is because they don’t want to address the real issues of this country” and that “this is an effort by the president and the majority in the House and the Senate to distort, to misdirect what the real issues are.

Clergy members are also making many statements about this issue as well. For example, Rev. Stephen Woods, of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Kingston, said the issue has not come up in his own congregation. ”I think that we have a parish that’s open to people of all lifestyles,” he said. ”I don’t think the sexuality issue is as important as what happens to the poor and the lame and the incarcerated. There are other social issues that we would consider to be more important as issues.” If Rev. Woods is not extremely concerned about the issue then neither should the senate and the house. The gay community is not looking to destroy America; they are looking to receive equal rights.

There are also many citizens just like us that share the same opinion about this issue. Jim from Haines City, Florida said, “If you don’t approve of gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person. I’ve never understood why anybody cared who married who. As long as everyone involved is there on their own free will. What business is it of anyone else to even have an opinion? {Personally, I think this applies to a lot of situations.}” Ms. Maloy, 61 is a Democrat who said, “I think that marriage is a personal thing; at least it is for me,” she said. “Legally, I don’t see why people can’t all have the same rights.” And finally, a statement from an individual from the U.S. that is living in Stirling, Scotland shows exactly how we as Americans should be thinking. This individual said, “For the record, I don’t care if supporting gay rights is popular or not (and I really don’t think it is). I support any cause that works for equality (if such a thing is possible) and gay rights are by no means the least of these. To do otherwise would be an offense to my moral code.” This is the level at which all U.S. citizens should be handling this issue.

Gay marriage is not an issue of government concern. It should not be the government that decides whom can marry whom. Gay couples only want the same benefits and recognition that straight couples receive. Gay couples are not looking to disrupt the social fabric of American society; they are only looking to receive equality. This very modern issue appears to be an echo of the past; the issue is one we have seen before, in another form, from another time. So why haven’t we learned? Why shouldn’t everyone be equal? WHY NOT GAY MARRIAGE?

---

Works Cited:

Bill of Rights. http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Couple Hail Israel’s Gay-Marriage Ruling. http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=16642

Gay Marriage Amendment Fails in Senate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07AR2006060700830.html

Gay marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1014-01.htm

Good riddance, Rick Santorum. http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=9980

Project Vote Smart. http://www.vote-smart.org/election_ballot_measures_detail.php?ballot_id=M000001336

Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

White House considers constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/bush.gay.marriage/index.html

Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue

This article has a comment from a citizen.  Just thought I would put this here.  So we know which statements came from what for citing.

Good riddance, Rick Santorum

This article focuses on the overthrow of Rick Santorum, anti-gay Pennsylvania Republican Senator. The article contains quotes from Santorum himself that have offended gays in the past. It also talks about states that have overwhelmingly passed similar measures to the anti-gay marriage amendment. Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado Republican Senator, is also talked about in how she made gay marriage a centerpiece of her campaign despite the U.S. fighting in 2 wars. Article gives percent margins for some related votes around the U.S.

Second Source

My second source is not an article, per-say, but it is an explanation of what Amendment C is according to South Dakota state law. I like how it clarifies what the voters will be voting for and suggests two sides to the argument. The source presents a pro and a con side to the argument of banning gay marriage in SD. I also like how the con side suggests not only the banning of gay marriage but the definition of marriage, which is what we are really voting on. The con side provides the voter with information regarding what they are voting on and what will occur if the voter votes “no.” I think that this vote smart source could be very beneficial to our column. Here is an excerpt from the source:

“South Dakota statutes currently limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. However, the State Constitution does not address marriage. Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex. A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution. A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is”

First Article

The Wisconsin State Journal
Susan Lampert Smith column: Two churches, two views

Susan Lampert Smith.  Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. 
Washington:Nov 9, 2006.  p. 1

I found that my first article was to a great advantage concerning both individual oppinions of citizens and of cleargy or ex-cleargy members. There were a few quotes from people that gathered in two seperate churches; one church opposed gay unions and the other did not. Here is a sample quotation:

“It’s like Hitler saying it’s not personal against the Jews, because
we’re putting them all in concentration camps,” said Wolfe, whose
congregation includes same-sex couples. “It is personal. All of us in Wisconsin
have been diminished by the passage of this” amendment.

powered by performancing firefox

White House considers constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

This article came from CNN as well as the first one I posted on, which I might not have noted. This one is from 2003, but there are some views of President Bush that were interesting and that I think we could use. I think we could use these because I would assume that his view and opinion about the issue has not changed at all.

Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban

The article was focused on the block of the same-sex marriage ban. The main focus was on a few views of the President and other politicians. It also talked about religious views and contains stats about citizen views like the stats of past views. I have all of these articles that I’m going to blog about saved and key points highlighted. We can go over these articles more in-depth next time we meet or whenever works or just the ones that will work depending on what we decide our main focus is going to be and what points we’re going to make.

Gay Marriage Amendment Fails in Senate

This article came from the Washington Post and talks about how the amendment failed in Senate. It contains different views of politicians as well as a good section or piece about the view of citizens. It gives stats from the past and recently of these regular citizens in polls that were taken at different times.

Topic

Our topic has been chosen! Amendment C.

Collaborative Column

Adam
Molly

Possible Topics
Abortion
Alternative energy sources
Wind Power
Stem Cell research
Marijuana legalization
Marriage Issue

Column Attributes
700 to 1000 words
Quotations to support the argument
Begins with a statement of the topic
Also begins with an attention getter related to the topic
Moves on to more serious matters quoting when necessary
Points out situations that back the argument
Uses minor points to relate to the major points
Ending with an echo of the beginning and reiteration of the column

Tools/Process
Blogging with WordPress
Using a concept map to generate important topics
Using iJot to outline the documents structure and content
Using Google Documents to draft or compose the column
Using Google Documents to edit the column
Use a chat whenever needed