Editorial #5

The article I chose this week is entitled, Separation Anxiety, and it focuses on gay rights. The editorial focuses specifically on gay Americans whose partners are not citizens of the country. As it stands now, “foreign partners of American citizens are unable to use the family immigration system, which accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the United States.” The Uniting American Families Act, which was introduced to both the House and Senate last month, would change the immigration system to include gay partners. In the new system, “permanent partner” and “permanent partnership” would be added after the words “spouse” and “marriage.” This would allow gay Americans the opportunity to stay with their partner. The article concludes by discussing more in detail the problems with the system the way it is now. It says that many gay couples are forced to choose between their country and their partner. Others take a third option, staying in the country illegally. This is wrong, and the Uniting American Families Act, if passed, will change this.
I agree with everything in this article. The fact that gay couples are not allowed to get married in many states is wrong, but this bill is at least a step in the right direction. What many people do not think about is how much marriage can affect a couple. It isn’t just getting to call the other person your husband or wife, there are many legal factors as well. The Uniting American Families Act rights one of the wrongs done to gay couples, but there are still many others waiting to be fixed. Wrongs such as not being able to make medical decisions, death benefits, and adoption are all unfair processes when it comes to gay rights. Those that fight against gay marriage should take time to consider what they are forcing those people to give up.

Editorial #4

This week I chose the Washington Post editorial “Science Over All?” Author Yuval Levin questions President Barack Obama’s stand on stem cell research. The President recently announced his policy on federal funding of stem cell research, but failed to address the ethical issues behind it. Instead, Obama concentrated on the scientific side of things. Obama’s stand was based on the promise of science and he said his administration would “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” Obama signed an executive order that promised ethical guidelines, but would leave it to the National Institutes of Health to actually define what the guidelines will be. Levin criticizes Obama’s decision on scientific policy being left to scientists by saying that it is a combination of science and politics. He claims it is the government’s (and Obama’s) responsibility to consider the countries morals and ethics before making any policy. If a government fails to do this, Levin claims “an increasing proportion of public concerns [are being] kept beyond the reach of democracy.” He concludes by saying that science policy does require the help of scientists to clarify complex details of the subject material, but the policy should be based on priorities and worldviews. Science policy should be just like any other governmental decision, and it should stay in the government.
Levin is right is some ways because the countries moral and ethical opinions should be represented in the making of scientific decisions on policy. However, I believe Obama addressed this a little more than Levin gives him credit for. What I believe Obama was really saying is that he believes that using embryos for scientific research is ethical. He did not have to specifically state that in his executive order because it was implied. That may not be the view of the general public, but as President, he has the power to rule that the scientific benefits outweigh the importance of public opinion.

Editorial #3

This week I chose a Washington Post editorial entitled Red Ink and Raises. It focuses mostly on the firefighters union and Montgomery County’s budget plan. John Sparks, who heads the union, is not willing to give up the four percent salary increase that was due to firefighters this year as a cost-of-living adjustment. However, the county Executive Isiah Leggett is refusing to approve the pay increase in the tight budget. The budget is currently in a 450 million dollar deficit, so other county employees such as teachers and school officials agreed to forfeit their pay increases this year. The firefighters union wants to keep it’s increase, costing the county an unnecessary seven million dollars. This alone would not be a big deal, except that it could cause other unions to change their mind and demand their raises as well. This puts Isiah Leggett in a rough spot because he can not grant the firefighters their request with out angering other unions. He has the choice to either refuse to fund the cost-of-living adjustments or risk fiscal calamity.

My first reaction to this article was surprise. I think it was very generous of all of the employees that did agree to give up their cost-of-living adjustment salary increase this year. However, I do not like the way the article makes the firefighters look. They have a right to demand that increase, and some of them might really need it. I understand all the problems that it is causing, but they risk their lives to save others and deserve to be compensated for it. I also do not think it is fair to judge firefighters as a whole, because it is the union and its representatives that are causing the problem. I look forward to reading later articles to discover the outcome of Montgomery County’s budget, and how the firefighters were affected.