IS MILITARY SEGREGATION THE SOLUTION?

The current presidential administration offers a host of topics to stir controversy and raise critique. From healthcare to the closing of Guantanamo Bay, there is never a short supply of issues to debate. On a lot of the issues, there is cause for wariness if not outright disapproval. However, there is one issue that I believe is a step in the right direction. President Obama is pushing to remove the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for serving military personnel. This was an act put into operation in 1993, whose purpose was to prevent serving military personnel from being openly gay (whatever that means). Now that President Obama is pushing to repeal this legislation, there are a lot of military officers and administrators that are not too giddy about the repeal of this act. CNN reports that one marine officer is pushing to have homosexuals and heterosexuals room separately.

It is not difficult to understand why a lot of the military personnel are not too excited for the removal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The military is the most hardcore, adrenalin pumping experience that a person can be a part of. It is also an establishment rich in tradition. Therefore, in places like this, the old stereotypes and prejudices against homosexuals have not been so quick to vanish. Another problem is that the military equates homosexual men with female mannerisms and mentality; women trapped in men’s bodies. It makes some nervous and others outright disgusted.

“I would not ask our Marines to live with someone that’s homosexual if we can possibly avoid it,” Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told a Web site in an interview posted Friday. “And to me that means we’ve got to build [barracks] that have single rooms.”

Outside of pushing for outright banning of homosexuals from the military or keeping the old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, the marine in the CNN article decided to push for the next best thing, which in his opinion is segregation. Does anybody else see the problem with this? Before you answer that question, may I please point out that up to this point, chances are that the Marines have already been rooming with gay individuals. Not to mention that segregation has already been outlawed by the government and generally frowned upon by society.

Conway told the site Military.com that he would “want to preserve the right of a Marine that thinks he or she wouldn’t want to do that — and that’s the overwhelming number of people that say they wouldn’t like to do so.”

This is a wonderful quote. I want you to try it’s application. Tomorrow, go to your respective schools and workplaces and make a proposition. Tell your manager/dean that a large majority of employees/students agree that they do not want to work with blacks/Arabs/Jews etc… Please email me the result of your brilliant proposal so that I can post it on this website. Just because a large group of people want things a certain way doesn’t mean that the particular desire is ethical, morally right, or legal. Discrimination is Discrimination regardless of the way you dress it up.

The only real change attributed to the removal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is that gay soldiers would no longer have to hide the fact that they are gay. This doesn’t mean that the men will start walking around with tank tops, making out in the barracks, and sexually assaulting the marines. Even homosexuals have to follow military code. It just means that they no longer have to hide the fact that they are gay. The repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is another step towards equality. The individual serving is a soldier first and foremost. Sexual orientation has no effect on the quality and dedication of a soldier. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, are putting their lives on the line for this country and the freedoms that this nation offers. ALL soldiers deserve our respect and deepest gratitude.

Banning Homosexual Marriage: The Reasons Are Thinning

Marriage is an institution that has come into and remains to this day in a constant state of turmoil.  On one side we have people saying that marriage is the union of man and woman.  The other side states that marriage is a bond between two people who have pledged themselves to each other.  The question is; who is right?

The conservative view, as stated before, is that the institution of marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples only.  The main argument is that religion and marriage are linked and, therefore, religious leaders have interpreted marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  The second view is used for the sake of having an argument that is not linked to religion.  It is that homosexual marriage will bring harm to the institution of marriage as well as creating an unsafe environment for children.  It is important to take the religious perspective into account because this nation was founded on Christian principles.

The other side of this debate argues that marriage should be available to all couples.  The more liberal side states that religion, mainly Christianity, does not specifically ban homosexual marriage.  There is also no viable argument that states that homosexual marriage would become a perversion of the American family.  The statements made by conservative and religious activists have done nothing but make good people suffer for their choices.

Hillary Goodridge V. Department of Public Health offers the best example of this debate.  On the appeal of this case, the department of public health argued that homosexual marriage will inhibit a favorable setting for procreation, inhibit an optimal setting for child rearing, and lastly threaten scarce state and private financial resources.  Hillary Goodridge argued that by denying homosexuals marriage rights, the state is denying those couples legal and social protections.  The judge’s opinion on this case addressed the Department of Public Health in the following manner.  In regards to the argument that homosexual marriage does not provide a favorable setting for procreation, the judge stated that our laws of civil marriage do not establish fertility as a condition for marriage.  Restricting marriage to heterosexual couples does not guarantee an optimum setting for child rearing.  Lastly, the court found that homosexual marriage would pose no plausible risk to the economic well-being for the country.  This case was suspended for 180 days so that legislature could take appropriate action.

This case establishes the firm foundation of my position that marriage should be open to all.  The argument that homosexual marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage is absolutely ridiculous. Divorces in this country are at around 50% and that is only from heterosexual couples.  I think that in today’s society, if there is somebody who is willing to get married, then our government should give them that chance.  Heterosexual couples have been known to abuse, abandon, and emotionally cripple children, yet they are still allowed to not only get married, but adopt children too.  It is irrational that child welfare be used as an argument against homosexual marriage.  In addition, the argument that gay marriage would inhibit procreation is absurd.  If gay couples will be denied the right to get married based on the procreation argument, then heterosexual couples should be required to take fertility tests when applying for a marriage license.

Ultimately, it comes down to the issue of equality.  Does our government have a right to dictate who has the right to get married while issuing legal and social benefits to married couples?  The answer is no.  African Americans fought for their rights to freedom when the social climate presented reasons why they should not be offered the same rights as white men.  Rights of equality are also offered to other minority groups as well as religious institutions.  America cannot claim to tackle issues of inequality and discrimination while denying rights to marry for a certain demographic.  In absence of any LOGICAL reason, by continuing to pursue an anti-homosexual perspective in regards to marriage, the government of the United States is making a perversion of our legal and social freedoms.

The Second Amendment: The Right To Regulate Arms

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  These words have been reiterated countless times by gun enthusiasts, lawyers, and judges.  In the 2008 Supreme Court decision, on the matter of District of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled in favor of individual gun ownership with the stipulation that the government reserves the right to regulate gun ownership.  Though the majority of the legal dust has settled on the large front, there are still regulatory battles being waged against such practices as owning sawed off shotguns and automatic weaponry.  With strong advocates on each side, the battle is continually waged between the advocates of freedom of the second amendment and those wishing to restrict it.

People arguing for unrestricted gun control state; that the second amendment offers them a fundamental right to bear arms.  It is their right as Americans to have a weapon to defend their household and themselves, as well as hunt game if they so choose.  The abridgment of that right is paramount to trampling on their very freedom.  As evident by the arguments posed by this side, it is clear that the amendment is interpreted as protecting an individual’s right.

The group arguing against complete entitlement to bear arms states that the second amendment starts out with, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”  Advocates against unrestricted gun ownership argue that the second amendment is mainly geared towards military purposes.  Without the creation of a militia, the right of the people to bear arms is non-existent.  This side of the spectrum argues that the amendment is meant to offer protection of the state’s interests through a well regulated militia.

These are examples of two perspectives that lean towards opposite and extreme corners of the debate.  It has been a personal philosophy of mine to avoid extremism in any form.  Therefore, I believe that there is a middle ground to be walked on this issue.  It is important to first define what the amendment means by “well regulated militia.”  In order to do that, we must understand the context in which this amendment was written.  It was written at a time where the militia was an important element of the nation’s guard.  Among other purposes, it’s most obvious was the defense against invasion as well as being a policing force.  If we delve further into defining the term “regulated”, we find that in 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist 29, “If a well regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.”  Therefore, it seems like the intent was to create a government regulated militia.

Having defined “well regulated militia”, it is important to note that in our current time period; the police force, the government regulatory agencies, and the military establishments have adopted the functionality of the militia.  However, the latter part of the amendment is still in need of addressing.  I believe that for our modern society, the phrase “keep and bear arms” is far to general.  In our current arsenal exists weapons that have automated firepower and the destructive capabilities of proportions that drafters of this amendment could not have foreseen.  However, an individual has the right to defend themselves as well as hunt and this amendment empowers them to utilize arms to that end.  Therefore, in the interest of public safety, as well as the compliance of the United States Constitution, it is important to regulate the weapons available for self-defense and hunting purposes.

It only takes one or two bullets to stop an attacker, not fifty.  Therefore, unless taking on a small military group singlehandedly, there is absolutely no use for weapons of excessive destructive capabilities.  It is my position that owning weapons is a fundamental right; however, it is a right that must be regulated for the purposes of public safety.