Sweet Home Alabama, for same-sex couples too... (possibly)

The article, "Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Gay Marriages In Alabama", discusses the Supreme Court decision this past Monday (February 9, 2015) to refuse to halt same-sex marriages in the state of Alabama. This makes Alabama the 37th state where gay marriage is now legal. This should mean that this matter is settled for goo, right? Wrong. The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court sent out an order telling lower-level judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, effectively defying the federal government. The governor of Alabama also made a statement saying that he would not take any action to deter or encourage the issuing of these licenses. Therefore, only some same-sex couples were able to get marriage licenses in the state that day and many were denied. This is a clear example of federalism within the governmental system of the United States. A state is denying a ruling that it deemed to be too far of an extension of federal power. It is pretty ironic that such an action would occur in that part of the country. Only time will tell if Alabama will win this struggle (I highly doubt it.)

Alright guys, I am sorry to open this clusterbomb of an issue again, but it was too good of an example of federalism to let go without discussing. I was shocked when I read this headline. I personally thought that this would be the second to last state to legalize gay marriage (looking at you Mississippi). This whole process has gotten so dragged out that I am looking forward to the definitive, nationwide ruling of the Supreme Court to come, just to bring an end to this debate. I am typically for state's rights, but I am going to swing a little left here. The individual states have no right to decide upon the natural rights of the citizens of the United States of America. In a completely SECULAR sense all people deserve the natural right to marry who they please (and by "whom" I mean another human being). Now when gay marriage is legal throughout the United States, should they be entitled to the same medical coverage as a heterosexual couple? No, they shouldn't as they should not need birth control, etc.

That's just semantics though. This may make it sound like I am for the empirical concept of homosexuality which I am not. From my Christian point of view, homosexual acts go against the divine Word of God and are a blatant misuse of his creation. For all you far left-wingers who always say that this teaching came from the Old Testament and Jewish tradition which in itself is wrong, look up 1 Timothy 1:8-10 and Romans 1:26-27. I'm not one to argue with St. Paul.

To conclude, I have to respect the separation of Church and State in this case. If a statute of the government limits the free will of the citizens (which God inherently gave every living person), that statute should be abolished. As long as the legalization of gay marriage does does not inhibit my right to hold and practice faith in my beliefs, I cannot find any SECULAR reasons that it should not be legal.

  

The F.C.C. has come to its senses

     According to the article, "In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility", the F.C.C. is expected to propose legislation that would classify the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act. More specifically, this would make high-speed Internet a telecommunications service as way of ensuring the principle of net neutrality which forces Internet providers to treat all data equally no matter who created it. The F.C.C. is attempting to create regulations that will stand up to legal scrutiny while being politically acceptable. President Obama has called for the protection of the open internet as more and more people use it as a part of their daily lives. The Internet Association has also spoken out in favor of net neutrality. This elite association includes companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Netflix. Those who would stand to gain from the destruction of net neutrality are the monopolies of cable companies like Time Warner and Comcast along with other Internet providers such as AT&T. 

     My opinion on this issue is very clear, net neutrality must be maintained. Internet service providers do not have the right to pick and choose what data can travel at which speeds. Abolishing neutrality would allow these companies to maintain control over the internet through download speed times as start-up companies would not be able to pay fees to the providers for faster download speeds. Making the Internet a utility is a great plan in my opinion. Companies do not pay electricity providers extra fee to make their lights brighter, so a company should also not have to pay an internet provider an extra fee for quicker download times. The internet is a free and level playing field for all to create, explore, and live. Maintaining net neutrality will help to ensure that the Internet remains as a beacon of progress in the modern world.

Below are some links to videos that go more in-depth on net neutrality, and its significance to the modern world...

John Oliver (WARNING- Some inappropriate language is used; Comedic take on the issue that actually does a good job of giving background information on net neutrality): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

Hank Green (Down to earth representation of the arguments of both the Internet user and Internet provider): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2aso6W7jQ

GCP Grey (Really technical but cool explanation of the concept of net neutrality): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw   

Court Rules in Favor of Facial Hair

The article, "Ban on Prison Beards Violates Muslim Rights, Supreme Court Says", discusses a recent Supreme Court on a Muslim's right to grow a beard in prison for religious reasons. The prisoner is in an Arkansas prison and was denied the right to grow a half-inch beard. In its defense, the prison stated that the rule was for security issues as they were concerned that the prisoner may hide weapons or a SIM card in his beard. When examining this case, the Supreme Court first looked to see if the ban was burdening to a religious practice, which they deemed it was. The Court then had to see if the defense had a compelling reason for this rule. Justice Alito struck down any notion of a compelling reason by stating that the contraband would have to be very small to keep in a half inch beard while making sure that it did not fall out. Justice Alito also noted that the prison does not have a rule on the restriction of haircuts for the inmates, so a prisoner would be more likely to keep contraband in his long hair instead of his half inch beard. After all of this debate and discussion occurred, the Supreme Court came to a unanimous ruling of striking this prison law down.

In my opinion, I agree with the Supreme Court on this ruling. A man should be able to practice his religion to a reasonable extent while incarcerated. The request of the inmate was reasonable as he did not ask for a full, ZZ top like beard (Picture), just half an inch. It would be nearly impossible for the inmate to hold anything harmful in a beard of that length. Arkansas is one of the few states who still has a ban on short beards for inmates. Shockingly, all of these states are in the South. In conclusion, the Supreme Court made right decision concerning a reasonable matter of religious liberty.

Taxes never go away

In his 2015 State of the Union, President Obama discussed the tax situation of our great nation. The article, "Tax Loopholes the President Left Out – for Now", discusses President Obama's proposed tax plans in economic terms. In very general terms, President Obama mentioned closing loopholes on taxes for the wealthy and big end corporations. By closing these loopholes, the President claims that he will be able to lower the tax rate for middle class families since the upper class will be paying its correct amount. According to the article, it will take a lot of tinkering and adjusting to fully close these loopholes. If President Obama's plan is put through, the projected tax revenue will increase from $1.4 billion to $320 billion over the next ten years.

My analysis is mostly positive for this plan. Our country does need more revenue in order to decrease the national debt. However, I feel that it is unfair to overtax the wealthy just because they are successful. If this plan is just closing loopholes that corporations and wealthy people use to get out of what they really owe, I am fine with that. I would have a problem though if they are just raising taxes on the wealthy just to cut those of the middle class. Income inequality is an issue, but I do not believe that increased taxation is the correct answer.

Diversity Comes to Congress

Link 1

Link 2

When a person looks at a new Congress for the first time, a person will first look at the party balance. After that, a person should at the backgrounds of the members themselves. The articles "Most Diverse Congress in History Poised to Take Power" and "The New Congress is 80 Percent White, 80 Percent Male and 92 Percent Christian" outline the demographics of the 114th Congress. The latter headline does not make this new Congress seem that diverse, however, this Congress is, as the first headline stated, the "Most Diverse Congress in History". The highest number of female members in Congressional history will be in the 114th Congress. Another landmark can be found in the election the first African-American Republican woman, Mia Love (Utah). Concerning race, the Congress is mostly White (442) with minorities of African-Americans (46), Hispanics (33), Asian-Americans (12), and Native-Americans (2).  As for the aspect of religion, the Congress is, once again, overwhelmingly Christian. There are, however, some other religions represented including 28 Jews, 2 Buddhists, 2 Muslims, and 1 Hindu.

In my opinion, increased diversity in Congress is a good thing. It shows the reflection on modern times and advancing society. Increased presence of minorities in Congress will hopefully strike a blow to the systemic racism in America (which does exist Vlogbrothers Link). I also like the new ratios between certain demographics as I feel that they proportionally represent the population as a whole in these demographics. All in all, let us all, as citizens, hope that this new, diverse Congress can help advance America and keep Her great.    

Countries actually agree on something!

Link

The article, "With Compromises, a Global Accord to Fight Climate Change Is in Sight", relates the recent event of 196 countries coming close to reaching an agreement concerning fossil fuel emissions. This is currently happening at a global climate summit in Lima, Peru. The treaty contains achievable goals as each country must publically enact policies that best fit their own situation. However, this brings up the major drawback of this trearty, the standards will be set by each country instead of using global standards. This is supposed to lead to a global deal to be signed in Paris next year with each country bringing its own pledge including the United States.

My opinion on this event is quite positive. It is about time some action was taken to stop the slide of global warming before it becomes a catastrophe beyond repair. It will be hard for the necessary legislation to be passed in the United States because there are still some government officials who do not accept global warming for the fact that it is. Over a decade of scientific research has show that the planet is undergoing an abnormal change in temperature. This is the consensus among the scientific community, and some scientists even consider us to living in the midst of the sixth great extinction in the history of the Earth. The current die off of species is due to gloabl warming and its effect on the environment. All in all, I am glad this legislation has been so that the human race will force itself to advance to more sustainable forms of energy.

Cyberattack with Larger Implications

Link

The article "Everything We Know About the Massive Sony Hack" describes how the massive technology corporation Sony has been under heavy cyber attack in the past few weeks. The Sony Movie division has been specifically targeted with upcoming movies being leaked, communication systems being shut down, and twitter accounts being taken over. This is really bad news for the company since box office totals significantly drop if the movie is leaked online before the release date. There is suspicion that North Korea is behind the attack because of The Interview, an upcoming movie where Kim Jong-un is portrayed as a target for assassination. North Korea has stated its disgust with this movie and its producer, Sony. The FBI and several United States government agencies are looking into this hack and treating North Korean involvement very seriously. This whole event may lead to even icier relations between North Korea and the United States.

In my opinion, North Korea needs to learn how to take a joke. The movie is a clear comedy that has no deeper, political meaning behind it. I doubt that James Franco and Seth Rogen are high international experts who purposely put subversive political agendas inside a generic, modern comedy. What it really boils down to is another situation where North Korea is going to whine until it gets what it wants from the outside world.