Picket the Picketing

Hello again everyone! This will be my final Government issues post for my semester and today I'll be taking about Picketing against the Picketing.

I recently read the Snyder Vs. Phelps Case, which dealt with Westboro Church picketing the funeral of a Marine named Snyder. The family made a case against the church claiming they had no right to do such a thing and that they had committed "an invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress" (Oyez, 2014). Based on the ruling, it stated that Congress could not take away Westboro's right to free speech, granting them access to future funerals because they cannot be stopped when it comes to their First Amendments Right.

However, what is to stop the picketing from being picketed?

While I don't agree with Westboro's methods or beliefs, I will agree that everyone has their right to free speech (no matter how ugly or belligerent it may be). I will also say that, because of the freedom of speech, other people have the right to stand against Westboro and what they picket against. Ironically, Westboro doesn't seem to grasp that while they were granted the OK by Congress because of the First Amendment, they have to let others picket as well because of their free speech rights.

In the recent death of their reverend, Ron Phelps, Westboro asked the general public not to picket his funeral. When protesters against these infamous picketers lined up down the blocks with anti-Westboro signs during the funeral procession, Westboro decided to sue them. (Read the full article here: http://nationalreport.net/westboro-baptist-church-suing-funeral-protesters-fred-phelps/) Now Westboro is directly at the viewpoint of Snyder; they are upset about others slandering and inflicting emotional distress (Oyez, 2014) onto mourners of the deceased. Their words and behavior has lashed back out at them and they do not understand how to handle it. 'Ain't no rest for the pickets', right? "'I think it’s pretty ironic that this so called church is making these outrageous threats of a lawsuit,' said human rights activist Sarah Winters. 'The Westboro Baptist Church is known for their actions against gay people; picketing is what they do. They hide behind the 1st Amendment and free speech and now that the tables have been turned they don’t want any part of it'" (National Report, 2014).

As Citizens of the United States, it is important to remember that, while we have the ability to say whatever we want because of our First Amendment rights, we should have the decency to refrain from using such harsh language and abrasive actions as they can just as easily be used against us or onto us. What Westboro doesn't understand is that they cannot simply hide behind the Freedom of Speech right to slander others and then proceed to cry about how others are doing it right back to them. People should have the decency to let people mourn the loss of their loved ones and, even if they are to picket, it is a right to stand up for what you believe in but it should be civilized. If I were ever to picket, I would still use decency and kindness to approach a solution rather than using harsh and vulgar language (even if most of my spoken vocabulary was sailor-like). You may have the ability to stand up for what you believe in, but there is a time and place for it as well as common decency that must remain. 

The Snyder vs. Phelps case is a reminder of such. Congress may have sided with Freedom of Speech,but as Justice Samuel Alito stated, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case" (Oyez, 2014).

Promoting With Voting

This week in Government we read about Elections, the election process, and individual voting. I chose to draw a cartoon representation of what I believe voting is:

The "uncle Sam" figure, which represents the Government, is listening as individuals give the government their responses one by one. Overall, it represents that, even if it is not required to vote you still have the right to have a voice. The stepladder represents what it takes to make an educated opinion such as by reading newspapers, keeping up with politics, and staying informed about recent events and controversy. As much as people say they hate politics, our world revolves around putting people in charge to stay balanced, and it is our role as citizens to keep up with such things to make our community better. 

Now, we can't just run off and check off boxes this way and that. Everyone has their own opinion which may be expressed through the representative they elect. However, if you don't stay informed about what is going on in your community, this could happen:

It is the responsibility of the individual to keep up with all of these factors in order to make an educated and informed decision about who you choose to represent you, and even to decide what kinds of laws could be passed in your area. Polls often ask the generic, to-the-point question when they want to ask about a law, so it is up to you to be informed about what the law entitles in order to vote yes or no. Asking your representative questions, talking to friends and family about the matters, and keeping up with the local news through broadcasts and newspapers are all examples of how to be involved and how you can start being more active in your community.

Every Vote counts, even if you don't believe you would make a difference. Think about it, if you think that and still voted, how many others do you think do the same? If everyone who doubted they would make a dent all voted yes on the same matter, it could potentially change the outcome of the poll than if you didn't go in the first place. The E-book further supports this by saying, "As stated by Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee (1954, p. 308),”… [W]hen a person buys something or makes other decisions of daily life, there are direct and immediate consequences for him. But for the bulk of the American people, the voting decision is not followed by any direct, immediate, visible personal consequences.”' (The Learning House, 2014) Because our communities can be so large, or have so many people, or any combination thereof, it is hard for us to see the results of our actions, including our voting habits. We could end up being misrepresented or our communities could cripple because not enough attention is being placed upon it. There's a delicate balance that we, as citizens, are keepers of and it should be a priority for all of us to be concerned about the rest of the community.

So, overall, I believe one must stay informed and claim the right to have their voice heard. It is much better to cast a vote and not have the outcome you want than not cast a vote at all. 

Marrying Under the Rainbow

So I'm in a Government class for my college and we were given the task of creating a blog. Considering I own four already (and this one in particular is severely lacking in posts) congratulations! You readers have the delight of reading a short essay.

So today I'm going to talk about something everyone knows about: Marriage!

Ok, well, not just marriage, but the debate that is currently going on about whether two people of the same gender should be able to legally marrying in the states. According to gaymarriage.procon.org, "As of Jan. 6, 2014, gay marriage has been legalized in the following 17 states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Maine, Maryland, California, Delaware, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New Jersey, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Illinois. 33 states have gay marriage bans through either laws or constitutional amendments or both." 

But what exactly are the arguments for and against gay marriage equalization? On the same site, they have both sides of the argument in one big convenient diagram:

For Pro Marriage, most of what they say is that banning legal marriage between same-gender couples is unconstitutional and that, because it is illegal, they have been misrepresented with negative remarks. They even talk about how the "traditional man and woman" is "historically inaccurate" since there have been several past civilizations that promoted homosexual relationships (one such example is the Romans).

For those against Gay Marriage, they put a lot of emphasis on how it would weaken the economy in several factors: that it would increase the rate of divorce, unmarried mothers, and anger the public. They believe legalizing gay marriage will also bring on potential legalization of bestiality, polygamy, and other "taboos".

As for my opinions: not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional. If they are consenting adults and love someone, they should have the right to marry that person. It would raise divorce rates, yes, because they divorce just like any other person. The only reason it would raise is because the government would actually have records of the couple being hitched. Crazy, right? What's more, gay couples have to fight to marry and constantly face criticism and negative commentary. I doubt they would suffer through all of that if they could "switch it off" or not be completely committed to the relationship. And in terms of religion, over half of the world in not affiliated with a faith, and there are just as many other religions that are okay with same-sex partnerships that go against it. If you don't like it, don't do it, but don't harm anyone who does.

Another, final point I will leave behind takes the form of this wonderful and humorous youtube video:

There we go readers, a big honking controversial post! I hope you enjoyed.