Can you feel the love?

I was married once. Many bitter divorcees would tell you, “It’s not all it’s cracked up to be.” Who are we to deny same sex couples the same right to a lifetime of “ball and chain” misery? Seriously though, all humor aside, why not? Because it’s unconstitutional? Ok, let’s just whip out the constitution of the United States of America and show everyone the section that states marriage is between a woman and a man so we can end this debate right now. Oh, wait, there’s nothing in the constitution about marriage? Hmmm… that’s weird.

One argument would be that we should make an amendment and put it in the constitution. Well, there’s just one… or really a few things wrong with that. Generally amendments are made to the constitution to protect people. We can’t add an amendment that is literally designed to oppress an entire group of people. We added the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery. We added the fifteenth amendment to ensure that people would not be discriminated against because of color in regards to voting. We added the nineteenth amendment to extend the right to vote to women. The list goes on. After all of these steps forward, why on earth would we take a million steps backward and add an amendment that would literally deny the rights of certain people?

There are many other arguments out there against gay marriage. Some would say that the Bible prohibits it. I’m going to avoid the discussion on the different interpretations of what the Bible says, but I will mention the fact that we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. Whatever your beliefs are, that is not the issue. The issue is that religion is not supposed to factor into our legislation. Another aspect is that homosexuality has been somehow linked with things such as incest, pedophilia and even bestiality. From a strictly legislative standpoint, this is absolutely ridiculous. As a student pursuing a career in law enforcement, one thing has been made very clear; it is about CONSENT. Pedophilia and bestiality are (other than the moral conflict,) about one of the parties NOT consenting to the activity. THAT is what makes them obscene and illegal. In my opinion, you absolutely cannot compare these things as same sex couples are two consenting adults. If all parties involved are consenting, then there is no one that needs protection from it. There is no victim here, other than the people whose rights are being oppressed.

To put a fun little spin on such a heated topic, let’s add a little humor. Here is a link to a lovely video that should put things into perspective. (Caution; contains explicit language)  Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends

The Great Debate

In his article “Five Myths about Legalizing Marijuana,” Doug Fine addresses some of the arguments that are being used against the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. What I love about this article is that it was not written from the perspective of a pothead who just doesn't want to go to jail over a chill evening with a few bags of Cheetos. This article was clearly written by an educated person who brought to light some very valid arguments about the legalization of cannabis.  Whether you are for or against it, it is still important to hear all sides of an argument so that you can form a more educated foundation for your own opinion.

In the article, Fine addresses some major arguments such as the idea that if cannabis is legal, it will become more widely used. He provides information from legitimate sources such as the United States Department of Health and Human Services in saying that teen marijuana use is at an all-time high. Even in his personal experience “When I spoke at a California high school recently and asked, ‘Who thinks cannabis is easier to obtain than alcohol?,’ nearly every hand shot up.” Fine also brings up the fact that in the Netherlands, adult use of marijuana did increase after its legalization. Yet the rates of use were still lower than that in the United States. One of my favorite quotes of the article comes from this section where Fine says, “When the United States’ 40-year-long war on marijuana ends, the country is not going to turn into a Cheech and Chong movie.”

Another point Fine brings up, is that law enforcement officials do not oppose the legalization of cannabis. Not only in my own experience have I found this to be true, but Fine backs it up even further with legitimate research within the law enforcement community to show that most officials absolutely recognize not only the extremely skewed arrest rates towards minorities, but the fact that we need to focus our energy and resources on more dangerous crimes. Fine quotes Sherriff Tom Allman of Mendocino County California; “This county has problems: domestic violence, meth, poverty. Marijuana isn't even in the top 10. I want it off the front pages so I can deal with the real issues.” To me, this quote says it all. While it is of course not completely unheard of, we should ask ourselves about the last time we saw a story on the six o’clock news about someone who went into a murderous rage while under the influence of THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol; the psychoactive compound in marijuana.)

Fine goes on to talk about the many other uses for the hemp plant, other than getting high. He tells his readers of the many uses of the industrial cannabis plant that could, dare I say it… help the economy! In addition to that, many people seem to think it is only the liberal “hippies” that support the legalization movement. This is false. Fine brings up in his article that a good majority of Republicans and Conservatives are voting in favor of decriminalization of marijuana. This shows that the issue is no longer a debate between the two political parties. You could almost say that there really isn't even much of a debate to be found at all. I believe that a big part of that is the fact that it is no longer a group of people sitting around a campfire eating Taco Bell and discussing the issue. It has bled into the fabric of society and is being debated on a much larger scale by educated people, and even a large number of politicians.