Alabama, Where Same-Sex Marriage Remains Deeply Unpopular

15 February, 2015
Unit 2: Political Beliefs & Behaviors

Alabama, Where Same-Sex Marriage Remains Deeply Unpopular

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/upshot/alabama-where-same-sex-marriage-remains-deeply-unpopular.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1

The 21^st century, the great debate over gay marriage has really started in the early 2000s.  Alabama, one of the most conservative states where 2/3 of the population oppose gay marriage and one of the only states that strongly opposes gay marriage; that is challenging for same-sex couples in that region.  Whether for isolation or religious factors, Alabama population do not agree with gay marriage   If the Supreme Court finds that gay marriage bans are constitutional then those bans could last decades in the South states, especially Alabama. 

The article talks about how Alabama’s population does not have political tolerance for same-sex marriage in their state.  There is reasoning in why Alabama does not support same-sex marriage and that could be because of religious views, Christian and conservative views, or because of isolation, the percentage of gay people in Alabama is not high and the population does not have a predisposition of gay people – both reasons are considered political socialization.  There are gay activists in the rural states of the south who are seeking approval from the Supreme Court so their marriages can be honored disregarding what their state believes.  While public opinion shows that many adults in the US favor gay marriage, in 2012, Alabama enacted a ban on gay-marriage that was very popular in the state.  The stability in Alabama is very little and some think with time that the population will change their minds.  In June, if the Supreme Court honors gay-marriage being constitutional it will make millions and myself happy.     

Yashinari Effinger kissed Adrian Thomas as they were declared a married couple Monday in Big Spring Park in Huntsville, Ala. CreditGary Cosby Jr./The Decatur Daily, via Associated Press

US Should Honor States' New Pot Laws

8 February, 2015
Unit 1: Constitutional Underpinnings & Federalism

US Should Honor States' New Pot Laws

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/13/opinion/osler-marijuana-federal-law/

Residents of Colorado and Washington, those who could be punished by federal government for possession, selling, or transportation of weed.  The federal vs. State legalization of marijuana, federalist view is different from moralist view.  3 to 4 states in the United Sates have legalized recreational use of weed and in 2012 that marijuana was legalized in 2 states (Colorado and Washington), which was the first major move in entirety of US to legalize weed – “social and statistic experiment."  The legalization of marijuana is affecting my generation as a whole with their use or the laws created as they near the age of 18, the voting age for those who will represent them in congress and the state/local government in the state of PA.  This is important because there are already talks of medical use and recreational use of marijuana in the state.

There is a difference between someone who is a federalist and someone who is a moralist when it comes to the legalization of marijuana in the United States.  I suppose the creation of America started the term, "Federalism" when it was originally creating the Constitution with the original 13 colonies. In this case, federalism speaks about those living in states such as Colorado or Washington who have the opinion that the national government should not pose a threat to them. Moralist believe that the government should be allowed to enforce narcotic laws on states because they believe it establishes social order. The majority of the argument in the legalization of marijuana is that the illegality of marijuana is not helping the public be able to make smart choices in not participating in doing or possessing marijuana. Since the marijuana laws are based on enforcement and not solving the problem of individuals using marijuana. The US government spent $20 to $25 billion dollars over the past decade on prosecuting those involved in drug trafficking or other illegal activities involving marijuana or other drugs. In the end, it should be states that have the say in creating their own laws on says of marijuana use and other issues,