In her post in the blog One Land, Under Six Flags, Sierra H. criticizes the logic behind anti-gay marriage laws. She writes that the Constitution calls for equal protection of the law. This means that no person can be denied certain rights because of their sexual orientation. I agree that this is a very big point in defending gay marriage rights. I find it funny that almost everyone in the US can accept and recognize that denying a person a certain right because they are of a certain race should never happen. It troubles me that some people do not apply this same way of thinking to people who are not heterosexual.

Just like the author points out in her blog post, I agree that much of the resistance towards allowing gay marriages comes from a religious point of you. People are taught from a young age that a higher being does not approve of people that are not heterosexual. This, in turn, makes people support laws that most align with what they have grown up believing. However, I do not think that the law should regulate religious preferences. As Sierra has stated, the law of the land is not should not bring together church and state. The catholic religion states that meat should not be eaten on Fridays during Lent, but this does not mean that there should be a law put in place that fines people for eating anything, but fish during this time.

The part of Sierra’s post that really stuck out to me is that marriage is much more than just a ceremony for two people who are in love to show their love. It is a way that a couple can legally receive state and federal benefits. I remember once seeing a tweet from a classmate in high school saying something along the lines of not being sure if they supported gay marriage because they would not feel comfortable with seeing “two dudes making out on the street.” I think people who are against marriage have a certain level of distress and fear that homosexuality will somehow be encouraged if gay marriage becomes lawful, which is not the case. The fight for gay rights is not asking for people to “turn” gay or for the ability to shove people’s sexual orientation in others’ faces. It is asking for equality and to have the same basic rights as couples who are heterosexual. Overall, I believe that same sex marriage should not be under question at all, as there is nothing in the Constitution that properly states this should not be allowed.

In response to the surge of unaccompanied immigrant children that have crossed into the United States border in the past year, Texas governor Rick Perry has sent National Guard troops to the border. The implied purpose of this action is to protect the border and “fix” the current situation, however, I do not believe that Perry’s actions are going to change or fix any part of the current situation.  The National Guard has no business being at the border, and them being there in no way handles the main problem at hand, which is what to do with the children who are now stuck at the border waiting for their fate to be determined by the government. Perry’s actions are reflective of the fact that he does not have clear idea or thought of what to do to control the situation and make the people who voted for him happy. Sending the National Guard down to the border sounds productive and sounds like he is taking a firm stance on securing the border and proclaiming his anti-immigration view, but this is all his action does. It looks like a big action to citizens and, therefore makes him look like the only political player actively taking actions to try to solve the situation. Furthermore, not only is sending the National Guard to the border a waste of time and effort, but it is also a huge waste of money. $38 million dollars were spent to fund the deployment of these troops. These are millions of dollars that did not have to be used at all. I believe all Perry has done through this stint is spend $38 million to make himself look favorable to conservative citizens without a single well thought out solution to the border crisis in mind.

        The author of the blog post “Livin in a Bible belt” from the blog Everythangs Bigger in Texas makes many good points on his critique of sex education in Texas. Abstinence-only education programs have been pushed from the state government, but I, like my fellow peer, do not agree that this is a solution to stop teen pregnancies. It is not a secret that teenagers have sex. This is a fact, and I believe teenagers should not be shamed for it. It is natural to want to have sex, even at an early age. This is how humans are biologically designed. Of course just because teenagers want to and have sex, does not mean that these actions can have negative effects. In any sexual relationship there is potential for sexually transmitted diseases to be spread and for women to become pregnant. Both of these consequences cost the state money, which is why it is such an important issue to our government, however, their push for abstinence only programs is not a solution to this problem. My colleague notes that in Colorado, teen pregnancies have dropped 40% since enacting sex education that includes contraceptive information. This is an example of how teaching teens about safe-sex is actually helpful in teens engaging in safe sex. I believe many people preach abstinence in the hopes that teens will rethink having sex or somehow stop wanting to have sex. From my experience, teens will have sex if that is what they want to do, regardless of their religious faith or what they have been taught. This decision is complicated for teens because their body tells them they want to do something, while their mind may want something else. In order to protect teens if they decide to have sex, we should teach them what the consequences of having unprotected sex can be and how to practice safe-sex.

I agree that it is the fact that Texas is very motivated by religion that is the cause of the push for abstinence-only education. Christian religions preach no sex before marriage, but in public schools, this belief should not be pushed onto others. Schools should not be motivated by religious beliefs, but rather teach real facts about sex, which includes contraceptive information. I also believe that a curriculum that includes contraceptive and abstinence information can work. In my high school health class, we went over all contraceptives, but the teacher made sure to emphasize that abstinence is the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. I feel that this emphasis is helpful in both teaching sexually active teens the information they need to know, while still emphasizing that abstinence is the safest form of contraceptive.

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that it is constitutional for Texas to issue a license plate with the Confederate flag printed on it. The court made this decision based on the First Amendment, which allows for the freedom of speech. Those who support being able to print Confederate flags on license plate say that it is a symbol of a past heritage, sacrifice, and independence. I do not agree with this view. Many people view the time of the Confederacy to be a time of racism and oppression that should not be praised or glorified. Those who choose to display this flag on their license plate seem to give off the message that they approve of a time in history in which slavery was popular and the federal government was condemned. Though I cannot speak for all people who have a confederate flag displayed somewhere, many people who do this still do not believe that desegregation should be put in place and are often thought of as being racist. This causes a problem between if this type of display should be allowed. There is not a doubt in my mind that if a state decided to print a swastika on their license plate there would be tons of back lash, and I honestly do not believe that a court would even try to say it is protected under the first amendment.

 I believe that the use of the Confederate flag on license plates should not be allowed. Yes, supporters of the Confederacy have waved their flag in front of their lawns or put bumper stickers on their cars, but it seems much worse to have a state allow and take part in making sure people can display this on license plates. It gives off the idea that the state does not care if people are racist or want to rebel against the government. Furthermore, I believe this case involves a much deeper look at the First Amendment and whether a future amendment could be added that takes into account hate speech that is directed toward group of oppressed people.

         In one of his blog posts on offthekuff.com, Charles Kuffner discusses Planned Parenthood’s launch of a campaign to try to bring out voters for Democratic candidates, which includes gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis. Planned Parenthood plans to spend $3 million dollars on this campaign to reach out to over 300,000 women through phone calls, personal visits, mail, and online advertisements.  Kuffner points out that he loves this idea, but wonders why it took until now to be put into place. He states that the “bad guys” have been engaging in this tactic for years, and that he wonders where other groups are that should be doing the same thing. Though I agree with Kuffner that this type of campaign has been done before by others and that it seems odd that this has not been done already, I think this campaign is coming about because supporters of Democrats are now seeing that they are increasing their probability of having a fighting chance against Republicans in statewide elections.

         Kuffner then quotes Matt Mackowiak, a Repulican consultant in saying that this campaign will, “put the abortion spotlight back on Davis and could stymie her messaging as a candidate focused on a broad range of policies.” Mackowiak is also quoted in stating, “the campaign knows that talking about abortion is a net loser for her.” Kuffner, whose blog is intended for a Democratic audience, surprisingly agrees with Mackowiak. Kuffner states that his reasoning is because putting the spotlight on Davis’ abortion views is not a good move because there is not much she can do as governor for reproductive rights, except for using her power to veto.  I agree with Kuffner on this statement as well. I also believe that focusing too much about reproductive rights could push away any conservative voters who may have voted for her. Talking about a more diverse set of issues could potentially lure in unexpected voters and give Davis’ more of a chance in the upcoming election. Furthermore, not sticking to being known as a reproductive rights activist could also bring other organizations to campaign for money to bring in voters just as Planned Parenthood is starting to do.