I am an American.

Hola, peeps!!
Okay, so I got a 94 on my Argumentative Paper for English!
I'll post my Semester grades when I get them.
Here's my paper,...Enjoy!!

When English settlers boarded the Mayflower, they had one thought in mind -- to live in a land of peace, hope, and opportunity. A land where they were free to live, work, and, most of all, practice their religion without fear of persecution. They blazed new territory not only by establishing what we now call the United States of America, but by founding a government based on freedom. It is curious, though, that almost four centuries later, Americans are faced again with the denial of their rights as humans -- the right to marry. Depriving Americans of their civil rights for gay marriage goes beyond a preconceived notion of fear, politics, religion, or discrimination; it is a deliberate, methodical, contradictory injustice of those same laws that provide all Americans with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
America's denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is the latest in a long history of individuals' denial of basic civil rights. Adolf Hitler removed the most basic civil right -- the right to live. He gave his all to wipe out an entire race of people based on their religious beliefs and physical appearance. In another era, Africans were kidnapped, brought to America, and sold into a humiliating life of servitude. Though they kept their right to live, they had no other rights to voice or recognition. It took a civil war and Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation to rid this country of the institution of slavery. However, African-Americans were still denied civil rights until a century later when radical leaders took a stance to allow them, once and for all, the rights promised to them in the United States Constitution.
Yet another example of provincial civil rights restrictions was the Women’s Rights Movement, which came about in 1848 because American women were being deprived of many civil rights: job and educational opportunities, legal power and status, and, of course, the right to vote, just to name a few. It was not until 1920 that the right to vote was actually awarded to them.
Wrongs have been made right since these instances have long passed. Only the one movement of gay and lesbian civil rights is still on the front line in our homeland. South Carolina attorney-at-law Fart Face (*the name has been changed for blog purposes*) is cited to have said, “There are civil rights that accompany the institution of marriage…There is no way you can deny in any rational manner [these] civil rights. Because of the cultural accent of the word marriage…Marriage in our minds unquestionably means it is between a man and a woman, you can’t deny that….but marriage does not automatically mean these civil rights.”
Heterosexual married couples often enjoy the bonus additives of marriage, taking for granted that not all couples get the right to experience those same benefits. For example, if one member of a same-sex couple is rushed to the emergency room, the hospital has the legal right to withhold any and all personal information concerning the health of the patient from his or her partner, anxiously awaiting any news. In addition, if one member of a same-sex couple dies, the family of the deceased has legal rights to his or her property. The legal definition of property is “not only money and other tangible things of value, but also includes any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth.” Unfortunately, this very example has, in many instances, lead to numerous bitter custody battles over children.
For example, in 2004 in Maine, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) saw the victory of C.E.W. v. D.E.W. “GLAD, along with Maine co-counsel, won the right to seek full parental rights and responsibilities for a non-biological lesbian mother in Maine whose former partner, the child's biological mother, was seeking to terminate any legal relationship between our client and the child the women have raised together. Maine's highest court ruled unanimously that a de facto parent, one who has a parent-child relationship on the basis of conduct rather than merely on a biological or adoptive relationship, has equal footing to seek parental rights and responsibilities." The subject concerning children with gay and lesbian parents is an issue that bravely stomps on uncharted grounds that few states are willing to walk. Adoption is a matter that is screaming and cannot be ignored. Does this government believe that a child is better off being raised within the foster system rather than in a loving home with gay and lesbian parents? This undoubtedly affects the welfare of the children at stake. This is a complete and undeniable prejudice against the gays and lesbians who wish to be active in and enrich our society.
Another specific case of sexual discrimination occurred in New York in 1990. “When a New York man died he left the bulk of his estate to a former partner. His partner at the time he died sued as ‘surviving spouse,’ under New York inheritance law. In the Matter of Estate of Cooper the court concluded that only a lawfully recognized husband or wife qualifies as a ‘surviving spouse.’ Further, it stated that ‘persons of the same sex have no constitutional rights to enter unto a marriage with each other.’”
In a 2001 Massachusetts case, Ayer v. Sommi & Keller, GLAD entered yet another struggle concerning rights that heterosexuals take for granted. This case stated that “domestic violence laws protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual people as well as heterosexuals.” This should never have even been in question. This is a painfully obvious example of the fundamental human rights once denied to gays and lesbians alike.
Patients have also denied treatment by doctors due to their sexual orientation. One such incident occurred in Massachusetts. It brought about the 1999 case, Gagne v. Holyoke Health Center and Dr. George Abraham. “GLAD won a favorable settlement on behalf of Erica Gagne, who was denied treatment by Dr. Abraham of the Holyoke Health Center after she identified herself as a lesbian. Ms. Gagne, who went to the health center seeking a second opinion about the cause of abdominal pain she experienced, was berated by Dr. Abraham, and was told, ‘when we engage in unnatural acts, we are punished by God.’ She claimed she was then refused treatment.” As undeniably absurd as this may seem, this example can be compared to the oppression of Blacks when they were shamefully required to sit on the back of the bus and when segregation was asserted within the public school system.
Communities often shun gay and lesbian families. One such case was in New Hampshire in 2002. In Rose v. YMCA of Nashua, “GLAD intervened on behalf of a lesbian couple and their family in New Hampshire who were denied a family membership rate at the YMCA in Nashua, winning an agreement from the YMCA to revisit their policy and to extend a family membership to our clients." Victims of Ku Klux Klan hazing could probably sympathize with this outcast couple. Nobody deserves to be ostracized in this kind of deliberate, methodical, and heinous manner.
Perhaps the most recent case, Lewis v. Harris, in New Jersey in 2006, is a major promise of a future with no discrimination toward any couples, gay or straight. “The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to receive the same state benefits, protections and obligations as opposite-sex married couples.”
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said, “The New Jersey decision only involves the protection and benefits of civil marriage — not religious ceremonies. This case does not affect religious institutions’ freedom to decide if they want to honor and recognize same-sex unions.” The silver lining of the New Jersey case gives hope to same sex couples nationwide to believe that the promise of a better future is within their grasp. Giving voice to the civil rights of same sex couples is no different than Lincoln’s giving voice to the enslaved African-Americans.
Fart Face does not believe that all cultural benefits hinge on religious marriages. She states that the economics of scale are proof of that. Simply put, it is more efficient for two people to share than it is for one to sustain alone. In a household, if two people shared the monthly expenses, money is leftover to help fuel the economy. The community also benefits from marital cultural benefits. People are more willing to do for others than they are for themselves. This means that people who are in a relationship are better people in general, thus providing more stability for the community and economy.
She goes on to list more pragmatic benefits to couples. Health benefits, which are a relatively new phenomenon which began after World War II, are extended to the spouse in opposite sex couples. This is not an innate right of marriage. Health benefits are offered by employers to entice potential employees to work for their company. This is called market force. Because of market forces, over half of the Fortune 500 companies offer health benefits to same sex couples.
“If you look at the laws which treat people differently than non-married people,” she says, “you’ll find very little in those laws that have anything to do with religious basis of marriage or children.
“Married couples get automatic rights in and amongst their auto insurance policies that you can’t tap into unless you’re married.” Married couples also have automatic rights to go to family court and to legally define their families.
Summing up her statement, Fart Face says, “How did the fact that the tax codes treat married couples differently than unmarried couples have anything to do with this tradition? …How does that have bedrock in the traditional concept of marriage?”
As a lesbian, I find the infringement of my civil rights inexcusable and down-right discretionary against my human rights. What gives the government the right to decree my relationship with my partner invisible in the eyes of the law? What will it take for the government to recognize the basic human right to choose who we wish to spend our lives with? We are foolishly naive to easily forget our country’s heartache over the losses of such civic rights icons as JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. How much more heartache would it take for the government to see the injustice of their laws? Hearts ached and bled everywhere when Al-Qaeda leveled the Twin Towers. Bush couldn’t start the war fast enough. That lit the fire to get action started. Who was in those towers? Americans. Who are Americans? People who sought out the land of freedom for a promise of a better tomorrow. Straight, gay, lesbian, Caucasians, Blacks…Americans. What gets my goat is these self-righteous religious leaders who scream bloody murder when it comes to gay and lesbian rights. They seem to suddenly forget who is supposed to do all the judging.
People need to get mad. Get mad at our President. Get mad at our political leaders. How is any change supposed to occur when the political leaders themselves are hypocritical, homophobic bigots? We live in a society where majority vote rules. How does that protect the rights of minorities? Something, somewhere, somehow needs to change. People are too afraid of their peers, their church, and their government to get out and make any kind of relative point on this subject.
So, whether the government, religious, or political leaders agree or disagree on the true legal definition of marriage, one thing is blatantly clear: the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans are clearly being violated. That fact will not go away, nor will it ever be ignored until justice is served for those Americans whose flag is still red, white, and blue. This is not about homophobia, political or religious views. This is simply about civil rights.
The slaves brought from Africa, the Jewish in the concentration camps, and the women in the 19th century were all considered second-class citizens. It is now the 21st century, progress has been made, and yet, we still have second-class citizens. I stand tall and proud when I say, “I love a woman whom I wish to spend the rest of my life. And excuse me, Mr. President, I am no second-class citizen; I am an American.” Most of all, perhaps the president needs a refresher on his historic American icons. Martin Luther King Jr.’s words ring the truth deep into the souls of all Americans fighting for civil rights: “One day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’”