Looking back... (a self-analysis)

Previously to my in depth research of the world of LGBT rights, I had an incredibly broad viewpoint on the matters that define the gay rights struggle. The way I do research and process information has evolved as I’ve studied this topic, as have my view on how the American society functions and my perception of myself.

            The profundity of my understanding of simple terms has changed drastically. Often, people associate conservatives with republicans and liberals with democrats, yet these groups of people, although they do overlap, are not the same. While conservative and liberal viewpoints often refer to the lifestyles, ideals, and principles one holds, democrat and republican categories mainly refer to political ideas, policies, etc. To give a real life example, the Log Cabin Republicans may not be considered conservative, as their views on LGBT rights are quite liberal, yet they are republicans. I find it interesting that I have grown so accustomed to feeling like democrat/liberal and republican/conservative are synonymous terms without giving it much thought, and this research has really led me to be more conscious of the differences in such words.

            When I began this blog, I wasn’t quite sure where to begin. I briefly searched through news articles and websites, yet I felt that I needed more primary information from LGBT activists, writers, politics etc. Finally I began to stumble upon blogs that led me to the more in depth links I had been looking for. I became really interested in this topic, and would actually become somewhat mesmerized in the articles and stories I was reading. From one article I would remember some connection in another article I had read before and would venture back to it.  Sometimes I would get lost in researching a historical event or term a blogger or article had mentioned. My way of doing research has developed as I have delved deeper and deeper into this topic, and my involvement and interest have peaked with my more intense thought and exploration.

            LGBT rights, being a somewhat grim topic has also altered my perception of the world around me. Like when I started this blog, I still find it difficult to understand why hatred and denial of LGBT people is so prevalent. This society, which preaches freedom of ideas, speech, religion, etc. has a fairly nonrestrictive set of norms on the outside. Yet, at further examination, one can see that contrary to my previous statement, the set of norms in the American culture are incredibly narrow. Though they have definitely changed over the past few decades and have become more accepting to the LGBT people, all across the U.S. homosexuals are being discriminated against. With the bullying of young gay children and the enforcement of DADT as telling signs, our society still has a long way to go in the full acceptance of LGBT people. Because of all of the prejudiced acts that I have learned about throughout my research, my outlook that the American culture is an accepting one has become a bit more skeptical. Though other current and ongoing American issues also reinforce this skeptical viewpoint, my research on homosexual rights has had a big impact on it. All that one can do is remain actively aware and fight for the causes he or she believes in, eventually countering the bigotry and discrimination that is so dominant in this society.

            In this blogging journey, something I have come to realize about myself is that I am incredibly biased, as many people are.  In looking more at the side of those who are against things such as same sex marriage, I have broadened my perspective on these issues. Although I do admit that I retain my original opinions that I had from my first post months ago, I have been able to come to terms with idea that other people hold very different views from me. Through my analysis of this topic, I feel more prepared to have civil discussions with those who have contrary opinions. It is obvious that everyone we encounter will not feel the same way as we personally do on certain issues, yet we should all be able to live cohesively and accept our differences.  My fundamental concern with the biases that those who are against LGBT rights have is that they sometimes attempt to control the lifestyles of those they do not understand. One’s judgment, to me, does not hold any significant ground until he or she reasons with the other side.  Hopefully our society will become more accustomed to learning about differing viewpoints and be able to reasonably converse with the other side.

            As I have narrated to you in this exceptionally extensive post, this research has had a profound impact on the way I view our society and myself, and the way I do research and interact with others. When I began this blog I did not expect the outcome I received, yet it was an undeniably beneficial one. Just remember to fight for what you believe in, while always considering what lies on the other side.

Where do we go from here?

Throughout this blog, it has been pretty evident that I am a supporter of LGBT rights. I feel that it is a basic human right for people to be able to marry whom they want, adopt children, and openly express themselves in the workplace. The question for those in support of gay rights is where do we go from here? There have been incredible advancements in the world of LGBT rights, as can be seen in the allowance of civil unions, adoption, and even in popular culture (gay couples are more accepted in TV shows and movies), yet more needs to be done. Gay couples are not provided with the benefits that heterosexual couples are, like property inheritance from his or her partner, or even being able to visit his or her loved one in the hospital. It is necessary for LGBT supporters to speak up and put an end to unequal treatment. Whether it be by protesting, educating, or voting against discriminatory policies, we must all do our part. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity,” eloquently describing how people, regardless of race, religion, or gender, should all put their differences aside and do what is best for the whole of humankind. Whatever your beliefs may be, hopefully blog helped expand your views of LGBT rights and provoked you to think more deeply about the overall status of LGBT people in America.

Links that can guide you through the world of LGBT rights...

Here are 9 links which provided me with a plethora of information, and if you're looking to delve more deeply into the world of LGBT rights, these should be useful for you too!

1.     http://www.cnn.com ; CNN is where I received much of my current information on DADT and hate crimes that I addressed in the blog.

2.     http://pewforum.org/Topics/Issues/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/ ; Pew Forum, a cite with a religious basis, gives a non-biased analysis of LGBT rights in a religious context.

3.     http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm ; Religious Tolerance is another site that provides unbiased information about same sex marriage, talking about general opinions among different age groups, giving quotes, and providing arguments for and against it.

4.     http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/ ; Andrew Sullivan’s blog comments on the status of LGBT rights every once in a while, discussing things ranging from strait up information, to funny and inspirational videos.

5.     http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ; The Washington Post’s Federal Eye section provides a lot of vital information about the DADT debate and is where I received a lot of my information.

6.     http://www.politicsdaily.com/ ; Politics Daily provides information on LGBT rights and upcoming elections, which proved to be very informative and useful for me.

7.     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ ; The Huffington Post is not just a generic news site, it also provides wide ranging information about LGBT rights as a whole, while also commenting on current issues in the forefront like DADT.

8.     http://www.hrc.org/issues/coming_out.asp ; The Human Rights Campaign is a wonderful website for useful information about LGBT rights, from DADT to adoption to marriage, and is a website where one can find a way to be an activist for something he or she believes in.

9.     http://www.youtube.com ; I always have to give props to YouTube, as I am always researching speeches from politicians to celebrities on LGBT rights.

Three Blogs to Read

 Here are three blogs I've kept up with that, if you're looking for some good reading and information, are perfect!

Park 51
This blog is one that I feel is informative on both sides of the Mosque issue, eloquently written, and fascinating. This issue has fallen out of the top spots in the news, and this blog keeps me updated with what is occurring. The information provided by this blog is reliable and supplies a plethora of links that bring readers even more up to date news.

What the Frack?
What the Frack explains a not very well known issue happening in America today, oil drilling in the Midwest. This blog is enlightening and brings a lot of interesting and controversial environmental issues to the forefront. I really enjoyed reading this blog and becoming more aware of this issue. Additionally, I like the “Midwestern Gas Tunes” Houston put in his blog!

Digging for Trouble
Another environmental blog relating to oil drilling, Digging for Trouble talks about the offshore drilling debate in the United States. I really enjoyed reading it, as it kept me updated with the issue and enlightened me on the subject. I realized just how dangerous, necessary, and dependent our country is on offshore drilling.

Can't Tell Me Nothing

Obviously off topic, but an amazing video if you're a fan of Zach Galifianakis.

What's going on with DADT?

Over the past few days a lot of conflicting developments have occurred with the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. While the Obama Administration, which supports the repeal of DADT, has called for current actions that have allowed LGBT people to enlist to be stalled. They say this change must not happen too abruptly, although the Pentagon is telling top recruiters to allow openly gay people to serve and a judge recently prohibited enforcement of DADT.  There are thoughts among LGBT activist groups that a higher court could overturn this prohibition and that LGBT soldiers should be wary about coming out.

All of this contradictory information has left me confused. I do believe that the Obama Administration is in favor of a repeal of DADT, but it’s frustrating that they are extending this repeal that has been in the process for a long time. It is overwhelmingly sad that someone has to hide a part of their identity (which many others are permitted to openly discuss) in order to get/keep their job. This is the epitome of job discrimination, in my opinion.

The Obama Administration argues that a quick change "risks causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute." What harm can be done to the military when a person can now talk about their significant other of the same sex? How hard is it to enact a simple repeal? I may be a bit ignorant about this process, yet it seems easy enough when a judge can repeal the law, so why can’t our Administration do it? I find it incredibly unfortunate that DADT hasn’t already been repealed, and hopefully the speculations of some LGBT activist groups will not be true. One day soon, I expect that America’s common sense will triumph and DADT will permanently be retracted.

Implications of the LGBT Rights Debate

The future of LGBT rights, in my perception, will inevitably hold major public changes in regard to homosexual marriage and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Although these issues are debated highly today in the political arena, with conservatives and liberals making up the polarized sides, I feel as though these debates will become exponentially argued to the point of significant policy change. The issue of gay marriage is one that has undergone considerable ups and downs throughout recent history. Like in California, where Proposition 8 banned gay marriage and was then overturned, I believe there will be more feats in the “battle” for LGBT marriage in the near future. I foresee people becoming increasingly fervent on this issue, drowning out and out-reasoning the ideas of the religious conservatives, and pursuing a response from Congress in the form of a bill that will allow for LGBT marriage. As for DADT, there will also, without a doubt, be a bill that repeals this law. Despite the conservative view on DADT, which is that it should remain, the moral conscious of Americans will prevail. With a myriad of public support for its end, Congress will be pressured to repeal it within the next year. Though these issues will come to a conclusion legally, tensions will undoubtedly remain for years to come. Eventually though, as occurred throughout the course of the African American Civil Rights Movement, there will be acceptance of LGBT people.

How to bring an end to the differing views on LGBT rights

When dealing with the issues of gay rights, it is incredibly hard to come to some sort of consensus between each extremely polarized side. Religious conservatives often take the viewpoint of being against gay rights. They feel as though their religious teachings do not condone being LGBT and that it is morally wrong. Some see being gay as a decision and do not believe that it is an inherent trait. Overall, our nation is a religious one where it had been a faux pas to be homosexual in the past. Even in the 80’s gay people were discriminated against, as many people associated being gay with the spread of HIV/AIDS. To me, there are only a few routes that can be taken to end different ideas on how LGBT should be treated in society. There is no compromise on preventing certain groups of people from having their basic human rights. If there is, in any circumstance, job discrimination, housing discrimination, etc., it should not be tolerated by law. Gay people, just like all other human beings, should be given the respect that they deserve. Although some believe that there should be regional laws on marriage, based on the diversity of different areas in America, I think that gay people should just be given the right to marry. For those who are concerned about the marriage of a non-heterosexual couple, they should let their hatred and judgment go. If someone does not condone a homosexual union, they do not need to connect themselves to gay people. Additionally, open-mindedness should be taught in our homes, schools, and religious institutions. As has been relevant in current news, children who have been perceived as being gay have been bullied and sought help from school administration, but to no avail. Due to this bullying, there have been incredible amounts of teenage suicides. In regard to DADT, LGBT people should be able to openly express themselves as all strait people do.  Being discharged from the military based on your sexuality is a form of job discrimination, which should not be allowed. Sadly, the DADT repeal, which was a compromise between our two polarized political parties, was not passed, even though it could have been a major step forward in bringing these two sides together.  Even now, soldiers are afraid to come out for fear of losing their jobs.  There seems to be no concrete solution to the problems that are caused by the differing views on gay rights. It will take time for generations to become more open minded and accepting of all people, and although the task to afford LGBT people their rights seems to be a daunting one, it is something we all need to take action on now. Preaching and teaching love and acceptance of others, and respecting the rights that all people are born with are the only ways in which we can stop this type of bigotry. As is evident from our past and current actions, anything that one doesn’t understand and is beyond their perception of the norm is seen as not right, and until everyone accepts all humans there can be no true compromise.

... Why some believe that openly gay people should not teach

Senator Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, once again made big news earlier this month while trying to persuade pastors at the Greater Freedom Rally in Spartanburg, that economic issues are moral issues. His “persuasions” included his talking about his anti-abortion stance and disproval of “non-traditional marriages.” He even went on to repeat a point, which he had mentioned in a 2004 Senate debate, that, “if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend – she shouldn’t be in the classroom." After being reprimanded for the things he said at the Senate debate, by groups like the Log Cabin Republicans, he claimed that although people agreed with him, none of his supporters would publicly speak out.

Although Senator Jim DeMint is entitled to his own opinions, as all Americans are, his words are a symbol of the polarization of ideals and bigotry in this country. Despite his reasoning backing his beliefs, these principles are a microcosm for the beliefs of many, and, to me, the definition of intolerance. Regardless of a LGBT person’s qualification as teacher, or even a single mother’s qualification, Senator DeMint believes that they should not teach in schools. Why people think that an experienced or successful teacher will impose their personal beliefs onto students, instead of teaching them the material they are required to teach, is somewhat baffling to me. Additionally, those discriminations could be regarded as job or employment inequity. Hopefully, in the near future, all people will be able to put their prejudices aside and view people as people and not define them by their relationship status or sexuality.

Here is the article that discusses Senator DeMint’s comments.

It Gets Better

The “It Gets Better Project,” started by a gay man, Dan Savage, is a group of videos, posted by celebrities and average gay people alike, spreading hope to the youth that is afraid to come out or is bullied. The overall theme of these videos is that life gets better, and that anyone suffering from bullying due to their sexuality, and who may be contemplating suicide should seek help, and remember that life does get better. The people who post videos give their stories, explain how they suffered, and remind watchers that depriving one’s self of a beautiful life is not the appropriate way to deal with bullying. This project is a way to give kids hope who feel as though they have no support or love.

Here is a video of Dan Savage and his husband, Terry, speaking about their experiences.
Here is a video of a gay cop and a gay marine speaking about their experiences.
Here is the link to Dan Savage’s blog.

Analysis on the Current Issues surrounding LGBT Rights

The issue of gay rights, varying over multiple topics, is debated highly in the current political arena, by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. These issues are nothing new in the United States, as activism for sexual equality can be seen as beginning around the 60’s (more on the history of gay civil rights can be found here). Though many years have passed by since the Stonewall Riots and the foundation of the Mattachine society, the fight for equality and the main arguments among gay supporters and anti-gay activists still remain. The foremost subjects being contested in America’s political realm in regard to homosexual equality are marriage, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the military, and adoption, all of which have somewhat partisan divisions and will be the main themes that I discuss throughout this blog.

Debatably the most controversial issue dealing with LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) rights is that of marriage. Since the 1969 Stonewall Riots, gay men, lesbian women, and bisexuals have come out of the closet and demanded equal treatment, especially with marriage. More recently, in 1996, Hawaii became the first state to allow for same sex marriage, as prohibiting it qualified as “sex discrimination.” Though all states have not followed Hawaii’s example, the ability of same sex couples to be wed is on the rise.  What defines marriage? Who has the power to decide who can and who cannot get married? These questions and more are intensely argued in relation to this topic, which is mainly split down partisan lines. More conservative people, who interpret texts such as the Bible literally, feel as though the sanctity of marriage would deteriorate if LGBT people were allowed to marry. To them, the “traditional marriage” is the foundation of society. Some even believe that the permission of same sex marriage could lead to the allowance polygamous and other nontraditional marriages. At the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, it was said that, " 'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to nondiscrimination. Therefore, it is not unjust, for example, to limit the bond of marriage to the union of a woman and a man. It is not unjust to oppose granting to homosexual couples benefits that in justice should belong to marriage alone. When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost," summarizing the conservative thoughts on homosexual marriage wholly. On the contrary, liberals see marriage inequality as a violation of civil rights. They see many occurrences today that devalue the sanctity of marriage, such as divorce, yet do not believe that the union of two men or two women to be something which weakens marriage. If a committed, stable, same-sex couple wishes to profess their love in a union, they should have the right to do so. For many who are in favor of same-sex marriage, it is difficult to comprehend why a group of people could be so ardently against homosexual marriage, when it would not take any effect on their personal lives. Here is a video in which Marc Lamont Hill and Ann Coulter argue about same sex marriage. While this issue is predominantly divided by political parties, as was mentioned before, there are evident exceptions to this idea. For instance, the group Log Cabin Republicans is a gay and lesbian organization, advocating for the equality of homosexuals. Throughout America, though, 29 states have established official bans of same sex marriage as of 2008. Although these bans are fighting against same-sex marriage, the generational views have evolved into becoming more accepting of same sex marriage, providing LGBT supporters hope for future equality.

Don’t Ask, Don’t tell, or DADT, is currently one of the most debated matters relating to gay rights in the American political sphere. Before it came into being, Reagan’s Defense Directive was in place, making homosexual or bisexual acts a basis for discharge, citing that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” DADT, established in 1993, became a compromise of Clinton’s plan to lift the ban on homosexual participation in the military and Reagan’s Defense Directive, allowing gay people to enlist without being solicited about their sexuality.  The law was on the path to being repealed earlier this year, yet failed in a recent vote on September 21^st. The law was on the path to being repealed earlier this year, yet failed in a recent vote on September 21st. The plan was a compromise that allowed military leaders to review and possibly accept it, yet, attached to the House’s version of the legislation was a $500 million expense on a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine that neither the Pentagon nor the White House wanted (the article about the repeal can be found here). Supporters of the repeal, mainly Democrats, pressured the legislation to be enacted quickly for fear that when the November elections were to come around, and the congressional majority were to switch to the Republican side, the repeal would not have been able to be passed. Before the elections even occurred though, the bill failed, as it was unable to gather the 60 votes to defeat the GOP filibuster. Even pop star Lady Gaga’s plea for the repeal and description of how unjust the law is did not sway the votes in Congress. Though the legislation failed, it does not reflect the overall attitude of Americans, with many polls indicating that the majority of people believe that the law should be repealed (here and here are two polls that prove this). Those congressional members in support of the repeal explain that adults should be free to express themselves as they are and their sexuality should not interfere with their involvement in the military. They believe that this policy is both a transgression of our Constitution and national values. As the epitaph of Leonard P. Matlovich said, “When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” Those who oppose the repeal, primarily Republicans, believe that it was principally a way to gain backing of LGBT people for upcoming elections, authorize abortion in Military hospitals, and evade avenues of legal immigration. In their opinions, both homosexual and heterosexual people are not allowed to perform sexual acts while on duty, so both groups should receive the same punishment when found to be breaking such rules (13). Some even say it depreciates combat training and morale . This issue takes on a lighter note in these liberal parodies, mocking conservative views of the DADT issue (the links to the videos are here and here).

Adoption by homosexual people, though not the most publicly and highly contested issue is still prevalent in some states.  Many LGBT people began combating laws that prevented them from adopting children starting in the 1970’s, especially laws that prohibited one partner from adopting the biological child of the other partner. Although individual LGBT people are, in most states, permitted to adopt a child, a homosexual couple jointly appealing for adoption and a partner petitioning to adopt the child of his or her partner is most often unclear or not overtly forbade. In some states, such as Mississippi, North Carolina, and Utah, a gay or lesbian couple is not allowed to adopt together and in other states, like Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin, one partner is not allowed to adopt the child of the other. All state laws regarding adoption by LGBT people can be found here. This issue received a myriad of media attention when Florida, previously encompassing all of these aforementioned regulations, recently overturned its 33-year-old ban on gay adoption . Those who oppose the adoption of children by gay or lesbian couples (usually people who are religiously conservative) cite that children need to be raised by both a mother and a father, as they benefit more from being raised by a member from both sexes, though this is not scientifically proven. The supporters of gay adoption, on the contrary, say that whether or not a child is raised by two males and two females is irrelevant; if the home is loving, nurturing, stable, and stimulating, it makes no difference whether or not the child has a parent from both sexes. Additionally, with the shortage of adoptive parents, supporters question how people can deprive children of a loving home based on the adopter’s sexuality. Supporters also point out that what those opposed to gay adoption say, in regard to it being wrong to raise a child by parents from one sex, inadvertently condemns raising children by a single parent, even if that parent is heterosexual.

All of the arguments surrounding the overall civil rights of homosexuals, including marriage, DADT, and adoption are highly contended in the American political realm. They are all connected to one another, as they fall under the larger spectrum of homosexual civil rights. Since the beginning of LGBT civil rights advocacy, predominantly around the 1960’s, the arguments for equal treatment have developed into the fight for marriage equality, which then developed into the allowance of gay individuals and couples to adopt, which all ties into the capability of homosexuals to openly express themselves and the restriction of that by DADT. In the movement for homosexual civil rights, there are a plethora of issues that are being promoted and fought for, yet the three topics which I discussed (marriage, adoption, and don’t ask, don’t tell) are all current issues that are very important in today’s politics, and will inevitably have major significance in our society.

*All of the hyperlinks lead to the websites from which I received the information in the post.

When is freedom of speech taken too far?

In watching or reading the news recently, many of you may have come across the controversy regarding the soldier, whose funeral was barraged by a group of anti-gay activists. These protesters, all from the Westboro Baptist Church, invaded the funeral service in Maryland with signs saying, “God Hates Us” and “You’re going to hell,” preaching the idea that because homosexuals are allowed any rights in the United States, God is letting soldiers die. These people personally attacked the mourning family of Matt Snyder, and although he was not homosexual, the patriarch of the church, Fred Phelps claimed that “They're either fags or fucking enablers. Take your choice, each one is going to hell." Though the Snyder family was compensated with $5 million for the emotional distress and invasion of privacy, the issue of whether or not this “freedom of speech” was taken too far is still being discussed in the Supreme Court. Is a funeral private or public domain?

To me, the answer to this question is obvious; a funeral is private domain. Even though this church (made up of primarily one family who live on a compound in Topeka, Kansas) is preaching ideas that are far from mainstream beliefs, this utter prejudice and ignorance is incredibly disheartening and saddening. It is disgusting that these people are spreading the word of hatred and are attacking such private and sacred ceremonies, like Matt Snyder’s funeral. I do believe in freedom of speech, but how can we prevent such awful events from occurring? I think that there should at least be some sort of restriction on personal ceremonies, like weddings or funerals, but the question I pose to you is, where should our judicial system draw the line?

The article discussing the Westboro Church protesting outside of Snyder’s funeral is here.

Same-Sex Marriage

Many can agree that marriage is a sacred bond that connects two people together, and that it is a basic human right that all can enjoy… Except for gay people. Unfortunately there are laws that prevent homosexuals from even having the capability to join together in matrimony.  Same-sex marriage, a heavily debated issue forms along the idea that only men and women should be able to join together in union. Yet, it is morally and humanely just that people should marry whom they want to and if two people wish to present their love for one another in a formal union, they should have the ability and right to do so.

There are religious reasons for why certain people do not condone gay marriage, yet I still do not understand why those people would want to strip gay people of their rights. I’m sure gay couples do not interfere with the lives of strait people who are opposed to their lifestyles, so those who are opposed to the lifestyles of gay people should stay out of their lives. Even with religious reasoning against same-sex marriage, taking such civil rights from men and women is also extremely heretical.

Additionally, some believe same sex marriage “devalues” the sanctity of this sacred union. Would it be appropriate, then, to prohibit divorce, which actually does devalue the bond created by marriage?

Personally, I feel as though people should live the lives they wish to live. There is no person that should have the ability to decide whether or not a couple should be allowed to wed; it is both immoral and unjust. As someone anonymously posted to a mailing list, "A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?"

Gay Civil Rights

In searching through different news sites, watching news programs, and reading newspapers, it is evident that Gay Civil Rights is a widely discussed and debated issue. Much of the underlying controversy stems from marriage laws, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military, and adoption regulations. These restrictions against homosexuals all form from underlying assumptions about them, and are undeniably transgressions of their basic human rights. Being able to publicly and officially demonstrate one’s love through marriage, being able to express one’s self to others, and being able to have children are rights which all heterosexual men and women can enjoy, so how can we deprive others of those same liberties due to their sexuality? Unfortunately, some people perceive homosexuals solely upon their sexual orientation and not upon their morals, ethics, opinions, personality, etc. Hopefully through meaningful discussion, those who misunderstand and are prejudiced against homosexuality can learn to be more open and accepting.

The civil rights issues dealing with gay people are so prevalent in our society, and we should take it upon ourselves (whether we are strait or gay) to advocate for their equal treatment. It is unjust and unfair, in a country where “all men are created equal,” to decide who can live freely and enjoy civil liberties and who cannot. Regardless of any person’s sexual orientation, we are all human beings and deserve to be treated with the same respect, kindness, and compassion as we, personally, would wish to be treated with.

Here is a video in which President Obama talks about Gay Civil Rights.