Same-sex marriage has been a prominent issue in American politics since its foundation in 1776. Recently, North Carolina passed Amendment 1 to ban the right of same-sex marriage. The right to be married is a sacred passage that often makes a conflict for either the church or the state. Marriage is defined as the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments and religious ceremonies. Why is so important in the first place that the church or state be involved in whether or not a person can get married? Back in the day Henry VIII had a problem with limits of the church and the power of the state. He decided to separate the two institutions for his own benefit. Currently, the state is involved with marriage because many changes occur when a person ties the knot. Changes to financial statements, last names, and family relationships mush be made for the state in the event of marriage. On the other hand, The church is involved because marriage is a sacred event that binds a man and woman to one another through love and faith. Faith is personal and means very different things for each individual. In my opinion, normal marriage and same-sex marriage should be treated the same.
Does the new amendment passed in North Carolina hold constitutional grounds or does it in fact hinder one’s rights as an American citizen? I believe that this new Amendment is very unfortunate and clearly unconstitutional simply because its wrong. According to Allen Snyder, “Most gay marriage supporters rightly argue such an amendment ought to be soundly defeated, since it curtails rather than expands individual rights, something the US Constitution has never before done.” Snyder successfully states why the change to the North Carolina state constitution is unjust. No amendment that inhibits the use of one’s freedoms should be passed.
The controversy and media attention that this event received should be taken into account. The true dream of equality among men needs to be reinstituted as the priority in this nation. Every human should be equal under the law, but this amendments sets same-sex couples apart from all other people because they are not allowed to join in holy matrimony. The ban on same-sex marriage is wrong, unfair, and unconstitutional. Its hard to believe people are willing to strip away the right of marriage from anyone who proves to be unique or different in their own way.
Recently in government class we have studied the structures and organizations that compose our great Democracy. Among these organizations and structures are political parties, election events, congress, and the presidency. During our studies, I took a keen interest in the study of elections and more specifically the media’s effect on the candidates in the form of Campaign Commercials.
Before we learned about the structure of campaign commercials, I paid no attention to the messages that were being delivered to the audience. Most campaign commercial vary greatly from one another in the sense that some can promote positive messages and others can be negative attacks directed to harm the opposing candidates reputation. Negative messages have been the most prominent form of campaign commercials circulating in the media during the 2012 elections. One example of a negative campaign commercial would be, “Selling Access” an approved message by Ron Paul, which serves as a perfect example of a negative attack directed toward Newt Gingrich. According to cbsnews.com Gingrich promised to run a positive campaign early in the election process and even quoted, “We will run a positive campaign focused on our country’s future.” Unfortunately Gingrich had no other choice but to defend himself when the attacks struck him first. Gingrich began approving videos such as “The French Connection” to strike back against the offensive videos directed at him. This constant flow of attacks from candidate to candidate can do more than just shift the perspective of the audience, they can also create a system that excludes any candidate without the ability to produce and defend a media attack.
Each campaign commercial is designed to deliver a message that either promotes a candidate or tears a candidate down. At what cost do these messages come? Candidates such as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and even President Obama all have sufficient resources to produce and defend vicious media attacks. On the other hand, Rick Santorum was an underdog candidate who did not posses the wealth and financial resources like the other candidates, therefore he couldn’t compete in the media war-taking place between each candidate. Santorum’s inability to fight back against harsh criticism prevented him from getting the necessary votes to stay in the race. On April 10, 2012, Rick Santorum dropped out of the presidential race, turning over his support to Mitt Romney.
The Campaign Commercials are in essence weapons that the candidates can use in the fight for the presidency. I think candidates loose focus the kind’s of messages they are delivering to ordinary citizens. Campaign commercials aren’t movie trailers or video games so enough with the dreadful effects. We need clear messages that are truthful and meant to deliver positive messages and solutions to current problems. In my opinion, the commercials that have positive messages rather than negative messages usually have more of a lasting effect. All in all, I am so tired of all the political finger pointing that takes in the media when there are people ready and willing to solve the problems in this nation.
Media has become the entity capable of uniting every person around the world together for a common purpose. The media coverage of elections has opened up new doors that people can access for political information. Campaign Commercials are widely viewed and serve as an important assets to the success of an election. A little information delivered through a commercial can have a lasting impact on the audience. It is our responsibility to keep these messages positive and to ensure a better future for the presidency and the nation.