United States National Government should legalize gay marriage. Many of the arguments made against the legalization of same sex marriage are that same sex couples would ruin the "institution of marriage" because the bible states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Although this would be a valid point for a Christian it has absolutely no meaning to someone who is not. Since marriage is regulated through the government and one of the main points in the constitution is the freedom of religion and separation of church and state is a big issue in modern government. Shouldn't it be said that if you have no religion, then religion should play no role in being able to wed the person you love? Isn't it only fair that if radical religious activists are allowed to protest outside of slain soldiers funerals and harass their families that people who choose not to have a religion should not be bound by a law that was based on Christianity. Another point that could be made against anti equality supporters would be that although they say that it is completely wrong because it is what is stated in the bible there are many many scriptures which ban certain things that people practice anyways. Such as wearing clothing made of mixed cloth (Leviticus 19:19), shaving your beard (Leviticus 19:27), divorce (Luke 16:18), and premarital sex (1 Corinthians 7:2). What makes these scriptures different from one that says man shall not lie with man?

On March 8th, 2013 the Huffington Post posted a political blog entry that discussed a poll that was conducted through Latino voters. The poll asked if they supported or opposed allowing same-sex immigration couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. Right now same sex couples do not have the same immigration rights as hetero sexual couples and when the results of the polls came in it was revealed that 64 percent of Latino voters would support a policy that allowed same sex couples to have immigration rights, while 24 percent said they opposed it. Although the chances of including same sex couples in immigration reform is "politically difficult" it is clear that it is popularly supported. The authors intended audience for this article is Latinos who live in America and those who do not. As well as same sex couples attempting to immigrate to the United States. I completely agree with the majority that same sex couples should have the same rights as hetero sexual couples in America and as well in immigration issues. It is unfair to treat these couples differently than "traditional" couples and they deserve to have a chance at bettering their lives in America just as everyone else does. The fact that they are same sex couples should not make it harder for them to immigrate.

The New York Times published an editorial on February 18, 2013 that was entitled 'Unjust Mandatory Minimums'. The author of this editorial was pointing out the fact that many states have mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes that are causing minor criminals to be incarcerated the same amount of time as major criminals. In drug trafficking cases no matter the role that the individual played in the crime, they are sentenced to the same amount of time as someone who was manufacturing drugs. This editorial is well backed up with statistics and quotes from judges. The intended audience seems to be anyone who would be concerned with this issue. Although the actual story is directed at the attorney general, Congress, and the sentencing commision who are directly spoken to in the last sentence of the article. I agree completely with the point that the author is trying to make. Criminals should be sentenced on a case by case basis, there absolutely should not be a general sentence for certain crimes because it is unfair and unjust.

On February 7th, 2013 USA Today posted an article about how First Lady, Michelle Obama will be attending the funeral of a young girl, Hadiya Pendleton, who was killed from a gunshot wound to the back in Chicago. The girl had performed at the Presidential Inauguration with her high school band and drill team. Many civil leaders in Chicago are calling on the First Family to attend the funeral, in hopes that it will bring awareness to the extreme gun violence that has been going on in the city, with over 500 deaths in 2012. This topic is very hot in politics right now, because of all the recent shootings we have had around the country. Many people believe that Michelle Obama's presence at the funeral will spark conversations about the "scourge of gun violence in the city". The article is worth a read, because it brings awareness to a very sad event. I also think that it is really interesting to see how the First Family reacts in the wake of such a tragedy.