Re: Homosexuality in Texas

In response to a classmates commentary on Gay Marriage. I felt that the piece was written with more argument against homosexuality itself than the issue of gay rights and same-sex marriage. 

I will first point out that feeling that something is "truly disturbing" is an emotional or "pathos" based decision. It is not based on reason or fact. Logic based judgements are when critical thinkers use facts and rationale to understand the world around them. Logic makes an argument stronger because it is fact-based; facts are easy to cite and rarely refutable.  Then the idea that "men and women are always meant to go together"  - says who? The author of this commentary did not support this proposition with additional information to persuade the reader.  

Also, the author talks about how they were "simply dumbfounded when Karl Rove said that he could actually see the next REPUBLICAN president supporting homosexuality". Democrats and Republicans alike stand for or against gay marriage; the issue of gay rights is bipartisan and travels beyond party lines. What does political affiliation have to do with gay marriage? How is that a valid argument for banning gay marriage? Stating that it is surprising to see republicans supporting gay marriage does not support the validity of the authors argument.

Finally, I agree with the author that the government has bigger fish to fry; our rising national debt, declining relationships with other countries, or even the number of homeless and hungry in the United States are far more important. The government should not be involved in the marriage process at all. Marriage is a legally binding contract in our country, and our government should not be concerned with the gender of two people wishing to commit to a contract of marriage.

Austin Bag Ban: Should it be "sacked"?

We have all been asked, “paper or plastic?” Regardless of preference, embedded in the age-old question is the premise that we will be provided a bag —a means to transport the goods purchased from a retail store. Although consumers expect to be provided bags at retail establishments, Austin has recently enacted ordinances that prohibit that practice. In a good-willed effort to reduce waste and impose more "environmentally responsible" choices on consumers and businesses, the City of Austin has stepped across constitutionally drawn lines.  While the Bag Ban and it’s threatened penalties for non-compliance has already gone into effect March 1^st, 2013, state law stands in the way of the Austin policy maker's plans to enforce their “green police” agenda.

Section 261.0961 of the Texas Health and Safety Code provides: “A local
government or other political subdivision may not adopt an ordinance, rule, or regulation to: prohibit or restrict, for solid waste management purposes, the sale or use of a container or package in a manner not authorized by state law.”

Texas law is clear: a city may not ban bags, unless authorized by the State to do so, which it has not. But this is exactly what Austin did.

In addition to violation of Texas Constitutional Law by infringing on retailers legally protected rights, it also poses harm to consumer welfare; recent studies conducted by Austin's own University of Texas, have shown the unsanitary conditions lurking in the bottom of a typical “reusable bag”. Pathogens such as Salmonella, MRSA, and Staphylococcus Auras (better known as “staph infection”) have been found in the mesh fibers of a once or twice-used bag. So consumer’s new-found responsibility to bring their own bags is not only a mild inconvenience as you find your bread flattened at the bottom of an overstuffed tote, but it is  also a serious threat to public safety. 

Austin’s intentions have been well-intentioned with the well being of the environment in mind. However the lack of consideration for state law, retailer’s rights, and consumer safety, has caused a disconnect between the policy and Austin residents. Instead of mandating it’s citizens and businesses into compliance, I believe the city should take an educational approach and strongly encourage waste-reduction. In the city of diversity, acceptance, and ingenuity, I understand a push for more responsible behavior; this can be achieved without infringing on our state-constitutional rights.

Education Reform

http://www.empowertexans.com/features/chartering-better-education/

Amnesty Battle: Where do we find sensible solutions?

          While the topic of immigration stirs many into discussion, it has been a particular hot topic in media coverage since the President's State of the Union Address. As a close neighbor to Mexico, Texans have always held strong, often varied, opinions about immigration system reform. I personally come from an immigrant background, so I took interest in The Dallas Morning New's editorial on recent legislative proposals about amnesty.

          The author, whose credibility we cannot investigate as they leave the spokesperson unnamed, points out the current failings of our immigration system as well as the flaws in the recent radical plans that have been proposed. The target audience most likely is composed of local readers, those who keep up with political happenings and possibly reside in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The newspaper takes on a vague, pro-amnesty attitude but instead of clearly defining their reasoning and evidence, leaves the readers with a question: "At some point, those who decry amnesty must contend with a question they might rather avoid: What do you do about the 11 million illegal immigrants already here?" That is the question of the hour indeed, but is hardly evidence of why we too, should support amnesty. From there, the author explains why simply rounding immigrants and taking them back is not a solution; consider the enormous cost of transporting almost 11 million people back to their homelands. I agree, it makes no fiscal sense in our current debt crises. Besides most of these people have come to America to find a brighter tomorrow. 

          The author's actual argument for amnesty is weak as it consists only of opposition to current proposals because they are "burdensome" or require actual effort for immigrants to become citizens. While this editorial provides little evidence and persuasive argument, I fundamentally agree that there are better ways of reforming our current immigration system. However, granting complete "guilt-free" amnesty to undocumented illegals is no solution either. Marco Rubio, Florida Senator and son of Cuban immigrant parents has sold the most convincing plan yet:  “If we do nothing, what we have is de facto amnesty because we don’t know who the undocumented are. We couldn’t enforce it even if we wanted to. What you get is a work permit, the ability to be here legally. We know where you are, we know where you live, we know where you work, you pay taxes, you have paid a fine — this is not amnesty.”

Texas lawmakers seeking reversal of Planned Parenthood ban

         Due to recent media coverage and the close proximity of our state's capital, many central Texans are aware of the recent controversial legislation that bans abortion affiliates from participating in a Medicaid program that offers reproductive health care to low-income women. In 2011, legislators cut family planning by two-thirds, slashing family funds from $111 million to less than $38 million. They also placed family planning providers like Planned Parenthood last in line for state dollars. In addition to cutting women's health care, a health reform bill was passed, which ensured that Women’s Health Program funds cannot be used to “perform or promote elective abortions, or to contract with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.” This legislation has stirred up much debate as legislator Lon Bernam seeks to pass a bill that would nullify the “anti-abortion” language. Many supporters of the reversal attribute Texas’ high unplanned/unwanted pregnancy rate to inadequate women’s health care for low-income families; if these women we able to find contraceptives and have access to preventative medicine, that solution would be the best of both worlds.


         Regardless of which side you take on this discussion, this article is a great example of lawmakers standing up for their citizen’s rights; I believe that our government’s sole responsibility is to serve our great country and state, not to dictate how we live our lives or to push ideological agendas.