Coming Full Circle

Yesterday President Obama visited California to support Barbara Boxer’s re-election campaign. But, the visit turned controversial when a group of protestors showed up to heckle the president. During his speech, people could be heard shouting, “Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!” and “Bring equality to all Americans!”

Obama unprecedentedly responded to those hecklers, showing his indignation.

“When you’ve got an ally like Barbara Boxer and you’ve got an ally like me who are standing for the same thing, then you don’t know exactly why you’ve got to holler, because we already hear you, all right,” said Obama. “I mean, it would have made more sense to holler that at the people who oppose it.”

Although I understand the concerns that some of the hecklers shouted at Obama — I have these concerns as well — I do believe that the president is making significant strides in finally bringing about equality for homosexuals.

I realize that this issue has been a running theme on this blog. One of the very first posts on this blog was about the president’s State of the Union Address. I criticized Obama’s speed on the gay rights issue. I thought that repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a step, but it wasn’t a big enough one. I wanted him to take a bigger stand for homosexual rights, particularly on the gay marriage issue.

However, in the past few months I feel that Obama has met my expectations. He recently announced that he was ordering all hospitals in America to allow patients to establish for themselves which visitors they would like to have. This order also gives LGBT couples the same visitation rights and health proxy that is given to immediate family members.

This is exactly what happened to Janet Langbehn and her children when Langbehn’s partner, Lisa Pond suffered an aneurysm while on vacation. Langbehn and her children were not allowed to go to Pond’s bedside for eight hours because they were not considered immediate family. Pond later died.

This new order will hopefully never bring that pain to same-sex couples and their families ever again.

So, because of these efforts, I commend Obama on what he is doing for homosexuals. I understand that the process of reaching full equality is going to be slow and implementing change often takes time.

The T in GLBT is getting less exposure and that’s not a good thing

There is no doubt that the gay and lesbian fight to achieve equal rights and prevent discrimination is an important movement. However, it seems that the GLBT movement has been leaving out one important group.

Attention is constantly focused on only the “G-L-B” in the GLBT movement, transgender people have been getting overlooked, even though their fight for equal rights is just as important.

The story of Constance McMillen, a high school student who wasn’t allowed to take her girlfriend to her senior prom, has been getting tons of media exposure. McMillen’s case against the Itwamba Agricultural High School in Mississippi was taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union.  She won her case against the discriminatory actions done by her school and has since become a poster-child for the gay rights movement.

McMillen has been offered many gifts and opportunities. For example, she has been given a $30,000 scholarship from an unknown donor and was even offered an internship in New York by a digital media company.  She also has been given a surge of support from GLAAD, which has brought McMillen to speak at many events, and from numerous celebrities, Ellen Degeneres had her on her show and Lance Bass is going to start a “second chance” prom for her and other homosexuals in Mississippi.

“It means a lot to me,” she said of the outreach from others. “The amount of support helps me to continue with the fight.”

While McMillen got tremendous support, a similar act of discrimination done at the same high school went unnoticed.

Juin Baize, 16, is transgender and wears feminine clothing. His mother brought Baize and his two siblings to Mississippi at the beginning of the year to live with their grandmother. He (for now Baize prefers to be called “he”) enrolled at Itwamba Agricultural High School but was only a student there for less than a day. The school suspended him for his clothing attire. When Baize tried to return after his suspension, the school suspended him once again.

“Juin’s case was a situation where a transgender student wanted to attend school dressed in feminine clothing,” said Kristy Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Mississippi, “and the school district would not even let him attend school.”

Baize’s case was briefly taken up by the ACLU, but there was no success because the school refused to discuss the matter. Baize and his family decided to let the case go. He decided to move to Florida, a place he believes people are more accepting, to live with a friend.

The hysteria and the surge of support that came for McMillen did not come for Baize. Baize left for Florida without any gifts or celebrity support. His story was left out of the mainstream media, making it seem like it didn’t even happen.

The GLAAD community and the public in general isolates the transgender movement because being transgender is threatening to the homosexual fight for equal rights. Being transgender is harder for people to grasp, which may be why the GLBT movement doesn’t highlight the acts of discrimination done to transgenders as much as it does for discrimination done to homosexuals. But, I will say it again, the fight for transgender equality is just as important.

Transgenders face intense acts of discrimination. For example, they are often subject to prejudice and are treated unfairly in the work place.

There are thirteen states that have policies protecting trangender people against hiring bias – only 13 states. And, the laws don’t provide full protection.

“The laws help protect me from getting fired or thrown out of my apartment,” said Rebecca Avery, who transitioned from male to female, “but they do not help me obtain a career, medical insurance or housing.”

Transgender people need more support, their fight can not continue to be left unnoticed. People like Juin Baze should not be left out.

“People get really wrapped up in their minds about people who are trans-identified,” said Oscar Robles who talked to CNN about being transgender. “It doesn’t have to be that big of a deal. Correction, it isn’t that big of a deal.”

Robles is right. Being transgender is not that big of a deal and it’s time more people thought so.

The National Enquirer Considered for a Pulitzer

CNN recently wrote an article about a “new era for The National Enquirer.” The tabloid rag was recently being considered for two Pulitzer Prize awards, which is the most prestigious award for journalism. It was up for Investigative Reporting and National News Reporting. Many people were outraged by the news, while others thought it was time that the magazine finally got the credit it deserves. I have mixed feelings about the news of the award because, although I don’t want to give The National Enquirer that much credibility, there is no doubt that the magazine has broken many important stories.

There is a definite hierarchy that exists within the media. Mainstream media, like The New York Times, are at the top of the news hierarchy and tabloid magazines, like The National Enquirer, are at the bottom of the news hierarchy.  People don’t give much credibility to tabloid magazines because of their titillating stories that usually aren’t based on any real facts.

I have often thought about these types of magazines and websites as trash. The National Enquirer and tabloid media are a guilty pleasure that I indulge in often, but I take their news with a definite grain of salt. I do not actually think that Jesus has risen or that Elvis is still alive (two stories that I have seen multiple times in the Enquirer’s headlines). And, I do not care about a 600-pound baby or plastic surgeries that have gone wrong. However, it seems that lately the National Enquirer has used it’s “gotcha” tactics to expose stories about important political figures. Because of that, most other news mediums seem to be way behind the investigative abilities of tabloid magazines.

The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards affair with Rielle Hunter. They were the first to say that he had fathered an illegitimate child. Without the Enquirer bringing light to this scandal, John Edwards might have gone on to have some legitimacy in the election or in the new Obama administration.

The Enquirer also gave news about the latest O.J. Simpson trial, it broke Gary Hart’s affair, and the list goes on. This is why the newspaper is being considered. The fact of the matter is, though it may be trash, they have had some serious success in investigative reporting and national news.  Barry Levine, the executive editor for the magazine, hopes that even the mere consideration of the award would help with the magazines credibility.

“It’s a great day at The National Enquirer for us to be in the running for a Pulitzer Prize,” said Levine “I think the mainstream media can never again take the Enquirer and dismiss us.”

However, I do not think that there is going to be a true “new era” for The National Enquirer. It is true that they have broken important stories, but I don’t think that people are ready to take them seriously. Even after the news of the award, the Enquirer’s position on the news hierarchy still remains. For example, the Enquirer’s stories aren’t given any validity until another more credible news source also gives the same information. The Enquirer broke the information about Larry King’s divorce from his eigth wife, but the information wasn’t given credibility until People magazine also broke the news.

Every tabloid medium is subjected to this type of treatment. TMZ was the first to report about Michael Jackson’s death, but CNN wouldn’t verify the information until their own team of expert reporters gave the “ok.” I didn’t believe TMZ until CNN finally made the confirmation.

There’s no doubt that The National Enquirer brings on this treatment on its own. Reporters for the magazine continuously write outlandish and untrue stories. Barry Levine was recently on The View and Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg criticized him on the truth of the magazine’s stories. They brought up a recent news article in the magazine that said that Walters was having an affair with Frank Langella, Whoopi’s ex. Both women said that they never had a reporter verify the information with them and Walter’s criticized Levine by saying the story was “baloney.” Levine’s comeback was to simply state that he trusted his sources.

There’s no doubt that the Enquirer will continue to go on with these types of stories, but there’s definite credit to be given. The Enquirer has had some serious success in the past few years. Even though they didn’t win the Pulitzer (more legitimate news sources ended up being awarded), it has made me reconsider my belief in these types of magazines.

So, the next time I see a cover about Tupac being seen alive, I just might give it a second glance.

The Tea Party Movement is Just Like the Crazy Old Grandpa No One Listens To

“Faggot,” “N—er,” and “Babykiller!”

These were all words that were shouted out towards members of Congress outside of the capital on March 21, 2010 by a group that calls themselves the Tea Party Movement (a new protest group that was inspired by the Boston Tea Party).

The Tea Partiers spouted out mindless racial and discriminatory slurs to protest the proceedings of the Healthcare Reform Bill, proving, once again, that this right-wing conservative group’s extreme tactics marginalizes them from mainstream society and prevents them from being treated as a legitimate political group.

The movement has been energized ever since President Obama has taken office. They took inspiration from the Boston Tea Party because of their similar message. The group is protesting big government and taxation. They want to “take their country back.”

Some concerns of this group are legitimate, as President Obama recognizes.

“There’s (a) segment of it (that) I think is dug in ideology and has existed in American politics for a long time,” President Obama said. “Then I think that there’s a broader circle around that core group of people who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are legitimately concerned that the federal government may be taking on too much. And I think those are folks who have legitimate concerns.”

Though the group may have legitimate concerns, those concerns are getting lost in the chaos. The Tea Party movement’s most vocal and radical members are the ones that are highlighted the most, making it seem like the movement is made up of only these type of members.

Radical Tea Partiers yelled “Faggot!” to U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly gay, and “Nigger” to U.S. Rep. John Lewis, who is an esteemed civil rights activist. The use of this ugly rhetoric makes the Tea Party seem like a racist group that will stoop to any level to spread their message.

“They were shouting, sort of harassing,” Lewis said. “But, it’s okay, I’ve faced this before. It reminded me of the 60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean.”

The Tea Party will never be taken seriously as long as the majority of the movement is stuck in the rhetoric and beliefs of the past. These radical tactics make the group seem like a backwards movement, which can never make a true connection with mainstream America.

The midterm elections are coming up and the Republican Party would be served best by disassociating themselves from the Tea Party. However, it seems like the party is doing the exact opposite and are instead embracing the group.

Republicans even seem to be following the tactics of the movement, as is evident by U.S. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.) shouting “Babkiller” at Bart Stupak during Stupak’s remarks at the end of the Health Care proceedings.

Republicans are doing this because they believe that the energy of the movement will bring them votes in the midterm elections, but this belief couldn’t be farther from the truth. The movement is likely to repel the majority of moderate America, which won’t bring victory in November.

The Tea Party is like the crazy old grandfather who no one listens to. This is why it is time for the Republican Party to leave this group, with its ugly rhetoric and extreme tactics, completely behind.

Health Care Reform–Finally

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, Healthcare Reform was passed in Congress after years of struggle.

Franklin Delanore Roosevelt talked about a Second Bill of Rights when he was president. In this speech, he stated that all citizens should have the right to quality and affordable health care. Now, 80 years later the current president has finally succeeded at bringing some semblance of what FDR ordained. I couldn’t be happier. I was shouting “Yes We Can!” along with the Democratic Congressmen who finally felt like they could achieve something.

If you couldn’t feel the excitement in the air on Sunday, then you are probably a Republican who cries socialism and believes Obama is taking over one industry at a time until he is a supreme leader who cannot be stopped (hyperbolic statements all around, even from myself, if you ask me). Let’s just come to an understanding, no matter what viewpoints, that healthcare reform is necessary. Period. There is nothing to discuss beyond that. The system was broken. Too many people were denied coverage because of pre-existing medical histories and the poor were too often left to fend for themselves.

Can I please clear up some misconceptions from all the arguments against this bill? No, you will not feel the wrath of socialized medicine. The government is merely holding all people accountable for having adequate health care coverage for themselves. No, this healthcare reform is not going to put an end to all health insurance companies. It merely is going to hold them and businesses accountable for denying coverage to people.

Of course, I have a very democratic mindset. I see many benefits and count the arguments against it as illogical. But truly, I know that there are differing points of views, and would love to hear your input on your excitement/disdain in the passing of the Health Care Bill.

Gay Marriage is Wrong? I think not!

Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage, it will hurt our children, and it will force our society into a serious regression.

These are the major arguments people have against gay marriage. Are these arguments completely deluded, insensitive, and discriminatory? You better believe it. These arguments, however, are what have prevented homosexuals from receiving equal rights since the beginning of time (or seemingly since homosexuals decided to fight against the system that discriminated against them, which some say began with the Stonewall riots that took place in Greenwich Village in 1969). This civil rights issue has been gearing up in the last few years, as the government’s treatment of homosexuals seems more and more unlawful. In the 21^st century, with the first black president, it would seem likely that this civil rights issue would be moving forward. However, though some states are taking up the issue of same-sex marriage and making the right decisions (like, most recently, Washington D.C.), in reality true progression seems like a false ideal.

The gay rights movement has seen numerous drawbacks in the past few years as the conservative right has built up their coalition and has successfully campaigned to prevent gay marriage from being approved in select states. One of these states was my beautiful (and what I thought to be liberal) California. Proposition 8 was passed in the 2008 election, changing the California Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriage that occurred just six months earlier. The legality of Proposition 8 is currently being debated in a California Supreme Court case. Theodore Olson and David Boies are the attorneys that have teamed up to fight against marriage discrimination. Both these attorneys have highlighted the exact reasons why I believe denying same-sex marriage is so wrong. No matter what the arguments against gay marriage, I believe that it is actually more harmful to deny gay marriage than it would ever be to allow it. It is more harmful because it is unconstitutional, treats homosexuals like second-class citizens, and prevents society from receiving multiple benefits that could occur if same-sex marriage was allowed.

Fundamental Rights

Fundamental rights are those freedoms that have been provided to us by the U.S. Constitution. As everyone knows that we have been given life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are further protected by numerous amendments. The most notable, and the amendment that I will discus further, is the Fourteenth Amendment. According to an article called “Completing the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment and Constitutional Rights,” if we give “proper attention to the context and the structure of the text of the amendment (it) reveals just how the amendment was to ‘complete the Constitution’” (Zuckert, 1). The Fourteenth Amendment essentially was the iron shield given to a knight that already has a sword. It further protects the rights given to us by the Constitution. The amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The Amendment was enforced in numerous Supreme Court cases, including Brown v. Board in 1954 and Loving v. Virginia in 1967. So, states must strictly adhere to the guidelines set up by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, it seems that some states are given a free pass to disregard the guidelines established by this amendment.

This amendment gave justification for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a fundamental right and that denying people the right to marry is unconstitutional. This decision occured in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Virginia had a law that prohibited marriage between two people of different races. Mildred Loving (an Africa-American) and Robert Perry Loving (a Caucasian) lived in Virginia and wanted to marry. They decided to go to Washington D.C. to get married since their marriage would have been deemed illegal in Virginia. When they came back to the state, they were caught and were arrested and then charged for breaching the Virginia miscegenation law. The couple appealed their case, which then moved all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated that “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival” (Wallenstein, 40). The court clearly put immense importance on giving all citizens the right to marry. The court found that the right to marry couldn’t be infringed upon by any state. Any law that prohibits two people’s ability to marry goes directly against the Fourteenth Amendment. Clearly denying people access to this fundamental right is wrong. Yet, 45 of the 50 states are still denying this right to same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court has yet to take up a case establishing whether or not denying same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and the court will most likely not take up this issue for some time. President Obama, no matter his campaign promise to bring gay rights issues to the forefront of our society, went against the gay community and said that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, the issue is clearly not going to receive any federal support, no matter its potential unconstitutionality. States are therefore given the ultimate power to decide whether to allow same-sex marriage or not.

As I stated before, only five states have made legislation to allow same-sex marriage. This list includes Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, and Connecticut. California, for a brief period of time, was a part of this elite. However, the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign successfully made California citizens fear what would happen if same-sex marriage were to be allowed. The Proposition passed in 2008 with 52.5 percent of the vote.

Proving Proposition 8 Wrong

Proposition 8 won based on their ability to scare the public into believing that harmful things would happen to society if same-sex marriage was allowed. The biggest fear that single-handedly pushed Yes on Prop 8 to win the election was the fear that gay marriage was going to be taught in California schools if the proposition didn’t pass. The incident they cited was a school in Massachusetts that started teaching about same-sex marriage, or, as a Yes on 8 ad described, the school taught its students about how “a prince could marry a prince.” This was an isolated incident that happened with one school district in Massachusetts. There was no evidence to suggest that California schools even thoroughly discuss marriage or would be forced to discuss same-sex marriage if Proposition 8 didn’t pass. Research was done after the Yes on Prop 8 campaign brought up this issue. Janie DeArcos, an Assistant Superintendent with the Folsom Cordova Unified School District, said, “There really isn’t any kind of mandate right now to teach marriage, heterosexual or homosexual or whatever kind of marriage or partnership” (O’Mara). The research also showed that individual school districts have their own authority to figure out what curriculum is best for their students. Schools once again are not forced to teach about same-sex marriage or even about marriage in general. So, the ultimate fear that children would be taught about same-sex marriage in schools is false and illegitimate.

How same-sex marriage hurts our children is beyond me. Children, without being taught about same-sex marriage in schools, would most likely hear about same-sex relationships from their peers any way. Even if the schools did teach it, it would garner more understanding and tolerance amongst its students. Nevertheless, this curriculum is not contingent upon a state giving the right to marry to same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage will not harm our children in any way.

The biggest fear against gay marriage is false, yet the proposition was passed any way. A small majority of people subsequently could change California’s constitution forever. Luckily, the legality of the proposition is being questioned in the California Supreme Court. Hopefully, this court will show Californians the damage that is done to homosexuals and society by not opening up marriage to all.

Fighting against Proposition 8

A serious wrong is being committed by states that prevent same-sex couples from marrying. This unequal treatment does serious harm to the psychology of gay couples and treats them as if they are second-class citizens. This is the issue that Olson and Boies are effectively fighting against. According to Olson, “I think there’s something the matter with you if you don’t care enough to feel the suffering that (homosexuals have) been through and if you’re not emotionally upset about the fact that we’re doing an immense amount of harm to people. We’re not treating them like Americans. We’re not treating them like citizens” (Dowd). Olson explained the damage done by preventing same-sex marriage so simply and effectively. There is a clear disparity in treatment that occurs amongst citizens. A great percentage of the country are subjected to second-class citizen status. Homosexuals are not being offered the protection that they should be receiving from their government. Homosexuals are being discriminated against when there really is no reason why they should be treated unequally.

It would seem that since homosexual couples can’t get married that they are significantly different from heterosexual couples. It would seem that the way their relationships function is worse than that of heterosexual relationships. However, a study was done and it showed that there was no difference. In fact, “78 percent of gay couples function better than homosexual couples” (Kurdek, 880). Proposition 8 supporters have called for the “protection of marriage” saying that homosexuals would ruin the union of marriage. The study shows that there is no difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, so there is no basis to the argument that says that homosexuals would harm the union of marriage. The study even shows that homosexuals would probably function better in marriages. I believe that if homosexuals were given the right to marry that they would make the institution of marriage even stronger. Homosexuals are often in loving and committed relationships. There is no reason why this love shouldn’t be recognized by the full protection of California’s government or any other state government.

One Final Argument

Recently, Washington D.C. has legalized same-sex marriages. A Washington Post article explained that the legalization is going to bring a lot of economic benefits to the District. According to the article, “a study by the nonprofit Williams Institute predicted that legalizing same-sex marriage will create 700 jobs and contribute $52.2 million over three years to the local economy” (Mui, 1). Revenue is coming in as numerous gay couples are beginning to plan their now legal weddings. Many Washington D.C. companies have embraced same-sex marriage and are advertising directly to homosexual couples to get their business. These same benefits could be given to California if same-sex marriage was allowed. California is in a major budget crises and this could be a definite way to help the state get out of it. Essentially, denying same-sex marriage is preventing California from receiving major economic benefits.

So, again I state, same-sex marriage needs to be legalized and it needs to be legalized now!

Conclusion

States have been denying fundamental rights to same-sex couples for far too long. This wrong needs to be corrected immediately. As I have stated already, denying same-sex marriage does even worse damage than it would to not allow it. It does damage because it treats homosexuals like second-class citizens and prevents states from receiving economic benefits.

There is essentially no valid argument to suggest that same-sex marriage would do any harm to children or society. In fact, I believe those arguments are false and illegitimate.

So, is gay marriage wrong? I think not, and I hold true to the belief that marriage should most definitely be open to all.

Works Cited

Dowd, Maureen. “An Odd Couple Defends Couples That Some (Oddly) Find Odd.” New York Times 16 Jan. 2010: 1-2. Print.

Kurdek, Lawrence. “Are Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples Really Different from Heterosexual Married Couples?” JSTOR 66.4 (2004): 880-900. Print.

O’Mara, Jenny. “Ads on Prop 8 Focus on Marriage in Schools.” Capital Public Radio[Sacramento] 31 Oct. 2008. Print.

Wallenstein, Peter. “The Right to Marry: Loving V. Virginia.” JSTOR 9.2 (1995): 37-41. Print.

Zuckert, Michael. “Completing the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment and The Constitution.” JSTOR 22.2 (1992): 69-91. Print.

Jerry Brown needs to start campaigning

Jerry Brown has finally announced his candidacy for governor. Finally, giving solid ground to the democratic hope for the 2010 election.

His announcement was clearly a good political ploy to garner the media attention away from Meg Whitman, whose face has been taking up our television ad space for a few weeks now. No matter his master plan, Jerry Brown needs to get moving. He needs to start campaigning to show what he is running on. The people of California, for the most part, don’t even know who he is.

The video announcement is a good starting point. He set himself apart from Arnold Schwarzenegger (who is a serious source of contention amongst California citizens…or is that just me?) and, of course, Meg Whitman. Meg Whitman who was the former CEO of EBay and who has not voted in any election for the past 20 years (an upstanding citizen who obviously takes pride in civic duty).

Brown has been governor before and is currently state attorney general, so he has an experienced perspective. He has the skills necessary to serve well in the governorship. His experience is his main message. He stated that outsiders aren’t good for public office. Outsiders, like Whitman, do not come up with effective plans to bring California out of its budget crises and into a better future.

No matter the announcement, Jerry Brown needs to come up with a plan to take away the attention that Meg Whitman has been receiving. So, these are the questions I ask to you.

Do you even know who Jerry Brown is? What does he need to do to combat your exposure to Meg Whitman? Did you feel as angry as I did by those ads?

Let me know, I’m open to differing ideas.

The Good Wife

Ever since Eve’s womanly temptation cast Adam out of his paradise, women were cast into the role of being inferior to men.  Past marriage vows for women were to “love, honor and obey” their husbands.  Women had to think of their husbands as their kings whom they had to serve in every way possible. In the 21^st century these roles are no longer present. Women can decide whom they want to marry, when they want to marry, or if they even want to get married. Most importantly, they can decide to divorce their husbands when they deem it necessary. However, as much as I want to believe that this holds true for every woman, it does not.

This topic of concern was stirred on by Tiger Woods’ recent sex scandal and Elin Woods’ decision to stay married to him. It’s not only Elin, but there have been numerous women in the public eye who have chosen to “stand by” their man after they have been caught cheating. Some notable examples are Hillary Clinton, Vanessa Bryant, and before this year, Elizabeth Edwards. I do not understand why these women decide to stay with their husbands after their betrayals have been made known to the entire world.

The choice for these women to stay with their husbands certainly helps their husbands maintain a good public image. The public was willing to accept Kobe Bryant’s apology because his wife, Vanessa, stood by his side. Of course, there was something in it for her too, as was evident by her $4 million, 8-carat diamond ring. Tiger Woods is using his scandal and saying he is rehabilitating. If his wife, Elin, didn’t stay with him, his public image would be much harder to rebuild. Elin, again, has received monetary benefit in the form of a mansion in Switzerland.

No matter the financial encouragement, these women have consciously chosen to stay with their husbands even after their dirty, cheating secrets have been revealed. Even though I commend those who try to work on their marriages, I feel like these women lose a great amount of dignity when they choose to stay with their husbands. In this day and age, I would hope that women would feel like they no longer have to “love, honor, and obey their husbands until death do they part.”

There really is no knowing why these women make this decision. Is it merely because marriages in the public eye have a certain standard to uphold? Is the reason to uphold good public relations? There is no way of knowing, but I hope more women choose to do the right thing when their husband’s blatantly betray them. I hope that more women take a cue from Elizabeth Edwards. She has decided to divorce John Edwards. She recently spoke at Nova Southeastern University. When asked if there was one thing she would change about her life, she replied: “I know the answer…I think you do too.” She so coolly and respectfully told the truth. I hope that more women can find the same strength to do what Elizabeth Edwards has done. I hope they understand that it is no longer necessary to stick to the stereotypical “good wife” role that has plagued women for so long.

In regards to Super Bowl post

In the end, the controversial ad didn’t seem to really be anything. All it had was Tim Tebow’s mom talking about her son before he tackled her. It seemed to be a lot of hype for nothing. My position still holds true, but CBS did well to make the ad seem like nothing.

The Super Bowl now a Political Event

The Super Bowl has been an American tradition where two of the nation’s best football teams compete to win the title of ultimate best. However, this running tradition may be turning into a political event this year because CBS has decided to air an ad from a Christian coalition group called “Focus on the Family.”

The ad is said to be centered around one woman’s choice not to have an abortion. The woman had contracted a disease when she was pregnant with her fifth child, which would force her to take medicine that would harm her unborn fetus. Her doctor advised her to have an abortion, but she decided against it. She, instead, decided to go through with her birth and her son grew up to be Tim Tebow, the star football player for the Florida Gators. The message is that if you choose “life,” you can get an outstanding child.

Many people, especially women’s groups, have criticized CBS’ decision to air the ad. They believe that it is wrong for CBS to bring up this political issue in a non-election year. They believe that since CBS has chosen to highlight one side of the abortion issue then it should give the other side an equal amount of coverage. However, equal time is only an enforced law during a national election time period. CBS has the freedom to choose which ads to air during the Super Bowl.

CBS has defended itself saying that the ad does not directly address “abortion.” It is only going to show Tim Tebow and his mother, asking people to “Celebrate family” and “Celebrate Life.”

I disagree with CBS’ decision to air the ad because, like some women’s groups have said, it further enhances the belief amongst the public that having an abortion is a disrespectful act.

It furthers the idea that abortions, though a right given by Roe v. Wade, is still an act that women should feel ashamed about. This is the reason why CBS should not have chosen to air it. They should have known that it would have brought up debate on this deep-seated issue. It has turned the Super Bowl into a political event.

Whoopi Goldberg and the women of the View discussed the ad. She furthered this same belief that abortion should not have such a stigma surrounding it.

“If you CAN have your baby, have your baby, but if you CAN NOT do it, you should not be made to think there is something wrong with you for making that choice.”

The fact of the matter is, this state of mind that there is nothing wrong with making the choice to have an abortion is a long way coming and the ad does nothing to help it.