Atheist Councilmen Feels the Religious Heat

Asheville, North Carolina City Councilman Cecil Bothwell has some great ideas, and believes in great things. However, one of the things he does not believe in is God. Being an atheist is a big problem to some people in North Carolina. His opponents say it is a sin to be an atheist and makes him unworthy of serving in office. The North Carolina Constitution even states that being an atheist disqualifies officeholders "who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

However, the state's requirement that officeholders must believe in God is unenforceable because it violates the U.S. Constitution because of the supremacy clause. The Supreme Court affirmed that federal law prohibits states from requiring any kind of religious test to serve in office. This shows the power the federal government has over the state government.

Any person who has the correct qualifications should be allowed to serve in office, whether they believe in God or not. Even though Bothwell is permitted to stay in office, he will spend much of his time defending himself in court against his conservative, religious opponents. If his ideas and motives are good, his belief or non-belief in any ultimate being should not be relevant. Religion and politics should be kept separate, and the U.S. Constitution helped it stay that way in this case.

No Gays, No Group

The topic of gays and lesbians is a hot and controversial one. Another debate has begun about them at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law and it is being brought in front of the Supreme Court this upcoming Monday.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the law school violated the constitutional rights of a Christian group at the school by being denied recognition as an official campus organization because it excludes gays and lesbians. The college requires officers and voting members to share their religious beliefs, including that "Christians should not engage in sexual conduct outside of a marriage between a man and a woman." The article states, "The justices agreed to intervene in a case that pits anti-discrimination policies common college campuses against freedoms of religion and association".

I can see this case going either way. Discrimination is wrong, but the group is being denied recognition for their religious beliefs. Because I am so anti-discriminatory, pro- gay, and not so religious, I think it is right to not recognize the group. They are leaving people out because of something they can't even control and they think that's okay. I understand that everyone has their own beliefs but these beliefs are unfair, discriminatory, and the group does not deserve to be recognized.

30,000 More

Last week, Obama announced he was sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The plan is for the troops to be added by next summer and begin to be withdrew in July 2011. It sparked a huge response, some happy with his decision, some not. Mostly not. The Republicans accused Obama of "aiding the Taliban insurgency by setting a date to begin a withdraw" and the Democrats criticized Obama for an "expensive expansion of an unpopular conflict at a time of economic hardship at home". In addition, John McCain added, "'What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the president's decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies'". However, our own Representative, Doris Matsui said, "'I am encouraged by Obama's clear commitment to bring our military involvement in Afghanistan to a conclusion'".

Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan brings up a good point. He argues that bringing more troops in would increase Karzai's dependence on the U.S. military and prolong the country's involvement in the war. This is true. The goal of the war is to destroy al-Qaida and to turn over government and security responsibilities to Afghans as quickly as possible. But if we have thousands of troops over there, they will become dependent on us and it will make it harder for us to end the war.

Over 850 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Although some, including the President, think it's necessary to bring in more troops, I don't think it should happen. Increasing the number of troops increases the time we will be over there, which I wish was no time at all.

Interracial Marriage Not Allowed in This Guy's Book

A Louisiana justice of the peace in New Orleans recently refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. Keith Bardwell claims he did this out of concern for any children the couple might have. Bardwell is justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish. He says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last.

But wait, Bardwell claims he is not a racist. "'I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way. I have piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else'". So he marries 2 black people and lets them use his toilet, but he won't marry a black person and a white person? That seems racist to me.

He said that he asks every couple who calls seeking him to marry them if they are interracial. If they are, he does not marry them.

Imagine calling up a justice of the peace, you are white, you're partner is black, and the justice says, "No, i cannot marry you, because you are a mixed-race couple and all couples like that never last". I would be pretty upset. He is violating my rights and not treating every person equally. This situation is the equivalent to "I can't marry Jack and Sue because marriages between people named Jack and Sue never last long". It's ridiculous, discriminatory, and unfair.

Why are you Skipping School?... It's Confidential.

There has been a recent proposal to allow students in the San Juan Unified School District to be excused from school without parental consent for "confidential medical services". This has caused much controversy and debate. It is a fight between the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative nonprofit, and Planned Parenthood and National Center for Youth Law. They are fighting over the question of whether students in grades 7 to 12 can leave school for medical services such as abortions, getting birth control, treatment for sexual assault, and drug and mental health issues.

There are some people strongly against this idea. "'They are officially usurping parental authority. Children, who are teenagers, in most cases do not have the sufficient knowledge or wisdom to make decisions at times like these'' said Erline Applegate, a parent of a junior at El Camino High School. She makes a valid point, but so do her opponents. Rebecca Gudeman, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law says most children involve their parents in such issues, but "'It's the 25 percent we care about, in abusive households or in families that don't believe in mental health care'".

The current San Juan policy says : Students should not be absent from school without their parents/guardians' knowledge or consent except in cases of medical emergency.

The proposed policy says: Students in grades K-6 shall not be absent from school without their parents/guardians' knowledge or consent except in cases of medical emergency. Students in grades 7-12 shall not be absent from school without their parents/guardians' knowledge or consent except in cases of medical emergency or confidential medical appointment.

I don't think children in grades K-6 should be allowed to leave without parents consent except in a medical emergency. 4th grades should not and probably are not having abortions. These kids are too young to know if they can leave school or not. However, I do think this is a good law because there are a lot of families that would not accept their child or realize the importance of getting mental or drug abuse help. By passing this law, high schoolers could have a chance to make a medical decision they thought was best without their parents holding them back. But is it really confidential if you have to bring a note back to the school from the doctor? Or would they not have to? I think students should be allowed to leave school for medical emergencies and confidential appointments without the consent of their parents.

A One-Drug Death

When a person commits a really horrible crime, he or she is sometimes put to death. In most states, the three-drug method is used. The first drug knocks out an inmate, the second drug paralyzes him or her, and the third stops the heart. This process is extremely painful, especially if the first drug doesn't work. Ty Alper, associate director of the Death Penalty Clinic at UC Berkeley said, "'Parazlyzing inmates before executing them- so we can't tell whether they are suffering- is a barbaric practice'".

If you are on death row in Ohio, you are in luck, or as much as you can have on death row. Ohio has adopted a new method of execution, a one-drug injection. This method has never been tried on prisoners before. This single drug is an overdose of anesthesia, the same drug used to euthanize pets, sedate surgery patients, and been used in assisted suicides in Europe. This one drug method is intended to make executions more humane.

I think that it's good that people are attempting to make executions humane, but I don't think the death penalty is and never will be humane. Personally, I think life in prison or any other harsh punishment is worse then getting put to death. Getting killed is the easy way out, but having the spend 30 years in a small cell almost seems worse. It's also just not right to kill other people. Props to Ohio, but I think the death penalty should be abolished.

Good News for Drug Addicts With Needles

There are 1.1 million HIV cases in America. The number will grow if drug addicts continue to share needles because buying new ones is very expensive. There are many needle-exchange centers where addicts can turn in their used needles and get free ones in return. Although this endorses injecting drugs into you, it also greatly reduces the spreading of HIV, AIDS and other diseases.

A bill is now in Congress that would lift a ban of over 20 years on using federal money for needle-exchange programs. However, this bill would also ban federally financed exchanges from being within 1,000 feet of a school, park, library, college, video arcade, or any other place where children could be. This causes a problem because officials at exchanges around the country said there are very few, if any, places that could house a needle exchange under this rule. Raquel Algarin, executive director of the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center in New York said, "'We'd probably be doing syringe exchange in the middle of the East River, and any exchange on the West Side would be in the Hudson river'". In addition, Rebecca Haag, executive director of the AIDS Action Council, said, "'This 1,000 foot rule is simply instituting the ban in a different form'".

On the other side, Rep. Jack Kingston from Georgia said, "'Let's protect these kids. They don't need to be playing kickball in the playground and seeing people lined up for needle exchange'".

While I understand what Kingston is saying, I think this 1,000 foot rule is unfair and that it's great the federal government is finally going to fund the needle exchange program. This program greatly reduces the spreading of diseases and it's ridiculous to make these rules about the location of them. Drug addicts are part of our society and always will be, so we might as well control it and make it as safe as possible for others.

The Law Interferes with College Halloween Fun

Every Halloween, a group of students from the University of Colorado in Boulder strip down and run through the outdoor Pearl Street Mall naked with pumpkins covering their heads. This event is highly anticipated and entertaining among the students and residents of the town. But this year, the police decided to get involved and ruin the fun. The police planned to station over 40 officers throughout the mall and two SWAT teams patrolling nearby. All had orders to arrest the naked runners as sex offenders.

Many people think the police's orders are too strict and out of line. The American Civil Liberties Union accusing the police of violating citizens' constitutional rights to express whatever it is they want. In addition, it is not illegal to be naked in Boulder. Boulder is known as a free-spirited liberal town, so nudity is not a big deal there. Since the police couldn't arrest the students for nudity, they are hitting upon Colorado's indecent exposure statute, which makes it a "Class 1 misdemeanor for anyone to knowingly expose his or her genitals in circumstances likely to cause affront or alarm". However, this isn't that fair because the run begins at 11 p.m., after all children are home and the older fans have come out to watch it, knowing what to expect so there really is no alarm.

If the runners are convicted of indecent exposure, they must register as a sex offender. I think this is really unnecessary. I visited Boulder last year and walked the Pearl Street Mall. On my tour of the college, they talked about the naked Halloween run and how it was a fun tradition. I don't think the police show intervene and ruin an event special to the school because they don't like it. There have been no complaints about it, either, so I think it should be left alone and the law should stay far away from 5 minutes of fun.

Hate Crimes

There is now a law making it illegal to commit a crime against someone based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. These crimes are called hate crimes. One of the most well-known hate crimes is the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., which enacted a hate crimes law centered on crimes based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The measure that passed in Congress was based on the murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student 11 years ago.

T0 make sure this bill is passed, Democratic supports attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill, which was approved by the Senate and House earlier this month. Many Republicans voted against the defense bill because of the hate crimes provision. Conservatives also oppose the measure because they believe it created a special class of victims and that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.

I feel like this law is appropriate and good. So many gay people get hated on- physically and mentally- so I feel like a measure to prevent hate crimes against them is necessary. It does create a separate group of victims, but creating a measure to prevent hate crimes against black people is creating a separate group of victims too.

132 Years in Prison- Cruel and Unusual or Necessary and Just?

Angel Cabanillas's life is pretty much ruined. He was just sentenced to 132 years in jail and he's only 18 years old. In 2006, Cabanillas, 14 years old at the time, shot and killed Manuel Rayas in Modesto, CA. Cabanillas leaned out the window of a car with a rifle and shot Rayas, an innocent bystander.

"Stanislaus Superior Court Judge Timothy Salter said the circumstances of the shooting ruled out leniency" the article said. Cabanillas was fully aware of what he was doing and should be punished for being a fourteen year old kid with a gun, purposefully shooting and killing an innocent man. Martin Baker, the defense attorney, called the 132 year sentence "cruel and unusual punishment".

The issue of cruel and unusual punishment roots back to the Constitution. The eighth amendment states, "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." But what qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment? The issue of whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without parole is currently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that juvenile death penalty is unconstitutional.

I think that what Cabanillas did is awful and inexcusable, but I do think that 132 years in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for a young teenager. I believe that since he was only 14 at the time he committed the crime, he was young enough to get psychological help while still serving some time in jail. Teenagers are still learning, growing, and changing, and I think it is unfair to give such a harsh punishment to a kid that has the potential to change. The court does not agree with me, so it looks like Cabanillas will be spending the rest of his life locked up.

The Right (or not) to Bear Arms

Does the Second Amendment apply to states, or just to federal enclaves, such as Washington D.C.? This is a hot topic right now and there are many disagreements on gun control and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment says "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." So does this give the individual the right to bear arms or just the militia?

Since the crime rate in Washington D.C. is so high, a law was enacted that made it illegal for individuals to own a handgun. The Supreme Court over ruled this decision and decided owning a gun was allowed again. Then, the city of Chicago attempted to enforce the same law Washington D.C. tried to enact. The National Rifle Association said "no way" and tested that this law was overturned in D.C., and should not be enforced in Chicago. NRA Executive President Wayne LaPierre said, "'Without the court's review, millions of Americans may be deprived of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms... I have every confidence the Supreme Court will say that it is a freedom to be enjoyed by the entire American People, not just those in federal enclaves'".

A "freedom to be enjoyed"??? I don't believe owning a gun and putting so many people's lives in danger is something to be enjoyed. There have been so many stories about a parent or child accidentally shooting him/herself or another member of the family, or even someone shooting another on purpose. It is so dangerous to own a gun and I don't understand the logic of owning one for "protection". Owning one just puts you in a position to hurt or kill another person. I do not know how the writers of the Constitution meant for this amendment to be interpreted, but I think that only militia should be allowed to have the right to bear arms.

Church and State Belong Light-years Apart

There is a big problem going on in Lodi, a small city usually not attracting much attention. The problem: "Should the City Council allow invocations that call on Jesus at its public meetings?" The opponent of the prayer is the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the support comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, the defenders of religious liberty. A member of the Alliance Defense Fund said of the Freedom Foundation, "'Their organization is on a search-and-destroy missions for all things religious... For whatever reason, they have targeted one of our oldest and most cherished traditions, the opening of public proceedings with prayer, which dates to the Continental Congress.'"

Really? The most cherished tradition is praying? What about the people who aren't religious? That is most definitely not the most important part of a public proceeding regarding politics. The Continental Congress was also almost 300 years ago. Times have changed. The United States is meant to have separation of Church and state, so this is completely contradicting the way we are trying to live.

I'm Jewish, and although I'm not a practicing Jew, I still respect my heritage and know the beliefs of my family. I don't mind prayer at school because I go to a Catholic school. Prayer is part of life there. But to go into a city council meeting and be slammed in the face with an invocation that calls Jesus just is not okay. Jews don't even believe in Jesus the way Christians do.

Robin Rushing, a Lodi resident, feels similar to me. "'I was fooled last night in praying for Jesus Christ. I was fooled into standing for that. As a Buddhist, I kind of resent that. I mean no disrespect. But I do feel that is a political (forum).'" Religion and prayer should be saved for trips to church or temple or in the privacy of your own home.

Unfortunately, the decision was ruled to keep prayer during the meetings. Hopefully some sense will be slapped into these people when they realize what they are doing is unconstitutional and idiotic.

Voting's not that important anyway, right?

First if you were a muscular, Austrian actor you were qualified to be governor of California. Now if you are a billionaire CEO who never voted until 2002 you're qualified. Meg Whitman, the republican former chief executive officer of eBay, is running for governor of California.

Proof has been found that Whitman has never registered to vote before 2002. When called out on this, she tried a new approach, claiming she "had been a registered 'decline-to-state' voter since 1998." Then Whitman press secretary Sarah Pompei said "she misspoke, and it was wrong." Shot down.

Not being registered to vote until only seven years ago and now running for a major state office shows lack of interest in politics and where her priorities are. Billionaires such as Whitman have people do things for her such as get you out of speeding tickets and make dinner reservations. However, these "people" can't do everything, such as vote. It is Whitman's responsibility to take the time to learn the facts, pay attention to news and politics, become well-informed, and to do the best job being a governor as possible. Her lack of involvement in politics and voting worries me and other voters.

I'm not interested in having a filthy rich republican governor who has barely ever voted and has no experience dealing with a struggling state.

Lobbying= Bribery

California is in a deep recession, we're talking billions of dollars, yet lobbyists are pulling thousands of dollars out of their pockets to give to legislators and the legislator's families to get them to vote for their way.

From January 2008 through June 2009 lobbyists gave legislators and their co-workers and friends approximately $610,000 worth of gifts. Lobbying is legal, but there are restrictions. Legislators are allowed to receive only $420 in gifts from a single organization, but there is no limit on how many gifts the leader's and friends and relatives may get. This comes in handy when little Susie wants to go see "Disney's High School Musical: The Ice Tour". Daddy the legislator and 17 of his co-workers and his family get to come along too at the expense of AT&T. It has been reported that lobbying organizations have given $34,000 in gifts directly to the spouses and relatives of legislators and their staffs during the last 18 months.

Another example, a group of lawyers from the California Department of Insurance took a trip to Las Vegas, paid for by the insurance companies they regulated. The company paid $2,268 to lodge the lawyers, $1,300 to feed and transport them, and $1,076 worth of meals, drinks, and spa treatments to one of the lawyer's wife.

A database shows lists of all the gifts, including Britney Spears concert tickets, 424 meals at Spataro restaurant, kegs of beer, free travel to Hawaii, and hundreds of King's tickets, which I don't understand because the Kings are no good now.

In my opinion, that is messed up. This extreme lobbying is like (barely) legal bribery. Not only are these companies spending money on useless things when our state needs the money the most, but they are using material goods to influence the leaders who make the decisions that effect us. I think laws should be made about restrictions on lobbying because the level they have taken it to is not okay.

No home, no sympathy

California has its fair share of problems right now. One of them, specific to Sacramento, is homelessness. Sacramento has a large homeless population, and no room for it. Mark Merin thought he had the solution. The Sacramento attorney is the owner of a vacant lot on C street. Merin has been letting homeless people sleep on his property for the last 10 days. This has been great for the homeless people, but it hasn't been such a hit for Merin's neighbors and the police.

Last Wednesday the police showed up to the C street lot with a search warrant, issuing citations against illegal camping. The police came in response to calls from neighbors who claims the campers insulted them, left trash in the neighborhood and disrupted their lives. Although the neighbors believed this to be true, the homeless people were mainly just showering or having breakfast at Loaves and Fishes homeless complex down the street. The police seized 32 tents, sleeping bags, and cots.

Merin plans to take action on this issue with the support of Loaves and Fishes and dozens of members of religious and advocacy groups. He has vowed to go to court next month to challenge a city ordinance that prevents people from camping in non-designated areas for more than 24 hours at a time.

The government needs to do something about the homeless people. It's not fair to leave them to fend for themselves then kick them out of any place they try to sleep. However, I do understand where the neighbors on C street are coming from. I wouldn't really want dozens of homeless people residing a few yards away from my family and me. But what should the government do? Should they be responsible for providing food, shelter, and healthcare to them? It's an issue.

In times like these, homelessness is becoming a bigger problem. With more and more people losing jobs everyday and homes getting foreclosed, people around the country are becoming homeless. Something needs to happen to solve this problem.

Since when is staying in school a political issue?

On Tuesday, September 8 President Obama is making a speech about education directed towards students. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of them won't be hearing it because of their nut-job parents. School administrators and parents have objected to the showing of this speech in school. Originally, lesson plans sent to schools suggested the students write letters to themselves about "what they can do to help the president." The harsh feedback caused the wording to change and say the student's letters should focus on ways to achieve their educational goals.

Many people are concerned that Obama's speech is going to be about his policies and Republican parents don't want their child to be exposed to other views, especially not our own African American democratic President's views. People need to chill out. Obama plans to challenge students "to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate. This isn't a policy speech" said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. The stubborn parents and administrators who do not want their own president to speak about a cause important to so many because of dislike or fear of what he's going to say, needs to rip off the blindfold over their eyes and realize he is our president and he's not trying to indoctrinate children! The Republicans are using this speech as a political issue, trying to turn people against Obama by using children as their weapon.

Let's think back to 1991. President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students on live television. No problem. Why is there such a problem now? Sure the times are hard but that shouldn't effect this. I support a positive message about education, whether it's coming from Obama, Bush, or Truman. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. It's ridiculous to hide your child from everything he's saying and doing, especially from this speech, which is not even about policy, but about trying hard in school. People amaze me with how ignorant and stubborn they can be to what is around them. It's important to open your mind and be welcoming to other views. The irrational administrators and parents are the ones who should watch the speech because God knows they are the ones who need the education.

sin tax vs ex-lax

About 31% of Americans are obese and 65% are overweight. America has earned the bad reputation of being fat pigs who eat portions big enough to feed a family of 5 in Paris. A large contributor to obesity is the price of the junk food people are buying. Flamin' Hot Cheetos, Twinkies, and a quart of ice cream adds up to half the price of 3 bags of fresh produce. This leads to the issue of sin tax. Fattening foods are generally cheaper then fresh fruits and vegetables. Government officials believe that a tax could help offset that imbalance, and push people to eat more of what is good for them and less of what is not.

If I'm having a bad day and I just want to treat myself to some ice cream, I would feel pretty bad to reach for the carton and be faced with a sin tax- I already feel bad enough eating unhealthy food, so I don't appreciate the government telling me I'm sinning. But then again, it could make me not want to buy it because it is more expensive, I could buy something healthier for the same price, and the name makes me feel guilty.

Sin taxes have been placed on cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, and gas-guzzling vehicles. The taxes have turned out to be very effective in reducing and preventing those activities. However, when it comes to taxes on unhealthy food, some people aren't so supportive. Dietitian Kellie Glass says, "folks are just not going to give up all the foods they love, even if they are more expensive." While this is true, 63% of the people who opposed the tax said they would change their minds if the money they were spending on the healthy food was used to fund a health care over-haul and combat heath problems related to obesity.

I think the sin tax is a good idea because I think it would actually be effective. I was talking to my mom's friend who said she would buy chicken breast at Whole Foods, but it costs $10 more then it does from a cheap grocery store where it is drowned in salt water. She said if the chickens were the same price, she would buy the healthier one. I think people do want to be healthy and make the right choices, but living in a time with the economy like it is, people are trying to save money wherever they can. Although I think the sin tax would be beneficial, I think a lot of people would be really angry. Nobody wants to have anything taxed right now, especially not food that fat, broke people eat everyday. So, either this sin tax goes into effect and people become healthier, or they spend less money, eat like crap, and then lose weight with ex-lax. ew... so, which one- sin tax or ex-lax? I choose sin tax.

A Step Toward Equality

This is my first blog entry, so why not start out with something controversial; gay marriage. As you will learn, I'm very opinionated when it comes to basic rights and people being treated equally. The other day while flipping through the Sacramento Bee, I came across an article titled, "Obama backs repeal of federal marriage law". I was so happy to finally see something about gay marriage. My family and I were big supporters of Obama during the 2008 campaign and election- I even have 3 shirts, a book, and a poster. His popularity, youth, and fresh attitude made him appealing to me, but honestly, an candidate that was in no way related to George Bush and the Republican party would have my support.

During his campaign, Obama was supportive of gay marriage and idea that people should be able to marry whether they were gay or straight. From the time he took office in January, to now, I have been waiting for him to take action to help these poor unfairly discriminated people. However, also in the time from January to now, our country's issues have escalated to a place where half the country feels screwed over. With the economy and health care reforms, gay marriage has not been a priority. Some supporters on the issue have been disappointed (including me) but I do understand that he has a whole lot of crap to deal with right now.

This article said that Obama is backing the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies benefits to partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages preformed in other states. So technically Obama isn't allowing gay marriage but is attempting to get it recognized. Fine by me... it's a start. This process is a slow one no matter how hard the administration tries.

I'm sick of gays being treated like they are so different, so un-human, that if we dare allow them to express their love and marry, the world will definitely end. How could two men possibly be in love?? Their parents must have been gay or raised them to be gay, right? WRONG. Senior trail counsel W. Scott Simpson even used evidence found by prominent medical groups, saying that "children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."

I remember when California made it legal for gays to get married for a few months. Thousands of people seized the opportunity and wed the love of their lives. That was short lived. Thanks prop 8, you single-handedly broke the hearts of hundreds of thousands of people wanting an equal chance at life. But they can't have an equal chance because of the discriminating people in this country who are too selfish and conservative to understand that gay people are humans too.

Imagine being a gay man living in Connecticut and you just married your long time boyfriend. Life is going great, until your partner has a career change and must relocate to Texas. Because you are devoted and in love with this man, you move together. But wait, Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage, so once you move, you aren't even married anymore. Sucks for you. Come on Obama, keep working to make this country discrimination free and repeal this dumb Defense of Marriage Act. All people are equal!