Confused4life
Jul 21, 2006, 4:30 PM
Helping my friend do some research for a persuasive speech (due tomorrow..yikes!). This is her opener..
“Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny” This is a famous speech opener by Susan B. Anthony given after being convicted of voting in the 1872 presidential election. And it still took us until 1920 for us to win our right to vote as an American, not quite equal- but nonetheless it was one battle won.
Equal rights- equal freedoms – equality for all not just the white male. Women, gays, blacks- blues you name it – we have had to fight against popular belief to be listened to and respected. Even now – among a culture that is supposed to be tolerant we have injustice because of fear- the plight of gay marriages is not different then women fighting for the right to vote, or blacks demanding to be equal citizens—yet we still resist granting basic freedoms. Why?
Does anyone have any resources or suggestions that would help?
Thanks
C4L
12voltman59
Jul 21, 2006, 4:36 PM
I have a few suggestions as a start: Google both Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberities Union---
I have at times gone and done such searching on the web and just by luck find sites by academics, scholars and others who have some great things out there---
Make use of the net while it is still not under the control of the big corporations--they are working hard to get control and turn the net into just another source of entertainment (i.e another delivery system for advertising) that they dictate...
There is lots of good stuff out there for the taking--at least for now--have fun and share what you find with us...
Confused4life
Jul 25, 2006, 1:36 PM
Well Volty those were great sites...wow. Thank you so much for your help. I promised to let you know what I found out..so here is a bit of it.
ACLU Applauds House for Rejecting Discriminatory Constitutional Amendment (7/18/2006)
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded the House of Representatives as it joined the Senate in overwhelmingly rejecting a discriminatory proposal to amend the Constitution to deny marriage protections to gay and lesbian couples and their children. Today's move follows a similar rejection by both houses of Congress in 2004, and by the Senate last month.
"Today, the House joined the Senate in rejecting the use of the Constitution to discriminate against Americans," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Election year politics should not be used to target gay and lesbian families. As they have done before, the House today rightly rejected that ploy."
The House vote was 236 to 187, with one member voting present, which was - once again - far short of the two-thirds required to pass a constitutional amendment. The ACLU noted that supporters of the discriminatory amendment gained no ground over their major defeat two years ago:
· The House vote in 2004 was 49 votes short of the two-thirds required for passage; today, the House vote was 47 votes short of the two-thirds required for passage;
· In 2004, 27 Republicans in the House voted against the discriminatory amendment; today, 27 Republicans in the House voted against the discriminatory amendment;
· In 2004, 36 Democrats in the House voted for the discriminatory amendment; today, only 34 Democrats in the House voted for the discriminatory amendment.
"Today's vote makes clear that the political tactic of division and discrimination hasn't gained any new supporters," said Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "It's time for the House to start addressing the real problems of America and get the country on track."
Text of the Proposed Amendment (3/23/2004)In January of 2005, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment as S.J. Res. 1. The Amendment reads:"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Talking Points on the Federal Marriage Amendment (2/25/2004)Talking Points on Equality and MarriageMarriage equality for gay and lesbian couples1. Marriage is a commitment. It is about sharing, love, trust, and compromise. Two adults who make this personal choice to form a life-long commitment should not be denied the right to marry just because they are gay or lesbian.2. Gay and lesbian Americans are American citizens who pay taxes and protect our communities as fire fighters, police officers, and by serving in the military, and therefore desire the same rights and protections as other Americans.3. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry takes away legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations, and inheritance that other long-term committed couples enjoy. We should end this discrimination.4. Today we look back, almost disbelieving, on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants, or between blacks and whites. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny the right to marry to adults just because they are gay or lesbian.5. We are not asking people to change their religious beliefs. There are many things about modern society that religious organizations do not endorse. For example, we did not ask the Catholic church or other religions to accept divorce or birth control when they became legal in this country.Federal Marriage Amendment1. The federal marriage amendment is messing with the Constitution. It is unnecessary, unwise, and political.2. With all the many problems that Congress needs to address, it is unbelievable that some in Congress are spending time and resources to amend the U.S. Constitution to make a pronouncement about marriage.3. The U.S. Constitution is not the place to change morality every time someone in Congress has an idea about what morality should be.4. This Amendment takes away existing legal protections, under state and local laws, for committed, long-term couples, such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, pension benefits, and health insurance coverage among others.
There ya go
C4L