Issue 4

Page 1

History of samesex marriage in California 1994-Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman by California’s Civil Code. 2000-State Law Prop 22 was passed to define the only recognizable type of marriage is between a man and a woman. 2004- Mayor Gavin Newson orders the city of San Francisco to issue same-sex marriage licenses to 4,000 couples. Supreme Court does not recognize marriages, as the mayor did not have the authority to bypass the state law. Sept. 2005- The state Congress approves AB 849, which allows same-sex marriage. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes the bill, and cites his reason as Prop 22. Sept. 2007-State Congress passes AB 43, which allows same-sex marriage. Oct. 2007-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes bill and cites Prop 22 as his reason. May 2008-California’s Supreme Court overturns the ban on same-sex marriage. Nov. 2008-Prop 8 is approved by popular vote, and overrides the Supreme Court’s decision. Source: msnbc.com

A

the

Nov. 20, 2008

California wrongly bans same-sex marriage Proposition 8 bans same-sex marriage in California BY ERIN JOHNSON Editorials Editor The definition of marriage in California has been debated, reversed and redefined many times in the past eight years. The most recent change was made on Nov. 4, when the people of California voted yes on Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is an amendment in the constitution of the state of California that was created to override the State Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage. Those who oppose same-sex marriage either define marriage as a union between a man and a woman or find it offensive to their ethics or religion. Many people cite verses from the Bible to argue against same-sex marriage, but the Bible is not the document that governs this country. The document that governs is the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that all men and women are equal, thus people are not equal if they do not have equal opportunities. The controversial issue of same-sex marriage brings up another conflict, which is that some social and law related changes cannot be decided by popular vote. If this was so, then schools would never have been integrated and women would

in question makes some people never have voted. uncomfortable. There is no People have to realize way that a country can be run that the issue of samewhere everybody is completely sex marriage may seem satisfied, there has to be bumpy uncomfortable and wrong patches along the way. to them, but if the laws People should stop trying change now, in 20 to 30 to insert the government into years the country could be other peoples personal lives. used to it. Same-sex marriage may offend Some believe that only some people, but it does not the states decide on what harm anyone. The whole concept laws to pass on this topic, is about love, but it is fought but that is irrational. States with such unadulterated hate. such as California keep California has changed its alternating their ideas law about same-sex marriage on the subject, making it a total of six times. Anyone even more complicated. It can see that the way people are gets even messier when approaching this issue is not thinking about how the state could see someone as Same-sex couples are still only able to marry in working. If there is to be any sort of end to this issue, the federal married one day, and single the states Massachusets and Connecticut. government should pass a law, the next. Those against same-sex marriage in California either preventing or allowiing same-sex marriage. clearly think that if they have the governor on The Declaration of Independence says that the their side and the popular vote of the people, they people have the unalienable right to the pursuit will keep their law in place. But by looking at the of happiness, and not letting people get married history of the U.S., there have been many battles means they are not able to pursue their own hapfought over citizen’s liberties. In most cases, the piness in the way that they choose. In the end, same-sex marriage, or marriage freedom and equality that represents America triumphed, even if that was not the popular decision between a man and a woman, is a very private topic. No one has any place getting involved in like Title X or emancipating slavery. The government’s job is to secure the people’s another person’s married life, and neither should liberties, not to abolish them because the liberty the government. ERIN JOHNSON

2

EDITORIALS

Should the government help pay for college? A question of who should help finance college BY JAMES YU Staff Writer

Ted Stevens mistakenly re-elected

On Nov. 4 this year, Senator Ted Stevens was re-elected as Republican Senator of Alaska. Several days before the election, he was convicted of hiding his senatorial finance papers, and taking money for thousands of dollars worth of gifts and renovations on his home. While many people in Alaska heard about these crimes and voted against him, the majority obviously noted that he was a criminal but voted for him anyway. Taking money from the government secretly and using it for personal needs is unacceptable. Ted Stevens should not have been re-elected. He should have stepped down from his position, which is what the Republican Party wanted him to do. Ted Stevens is, however, a fairly popular Senator in Alaska. He has an airport in Anchorage named after him, and was able to win the election despite being convicted of seven counts of taking money and spending it unethically. He is also the longest serving senator in history, and a loyal Republican. A decent person would not have taken the oppurtunity to steal this money from the government, and have it used for personal items such the renovation of his home. Ted Stevens’ maximum sentence could be to spend 35 years in jail, five years for each account of corruption, and yet he is still part of the body of law that creates the laws of the land. -Erin Johnson Editorials Editor

Issue 3 Corrections –English teacher Anna Kate Prum’s name was mispelled on page 10 –Senior Abdi Mohamed’s name was mispelled on page 10 –Freshman AJ McCafferty’s name was mispelled on page 10 –Math teacher Gail Chmura was not credited as a math teacher on page 12 –The band was not credited as competing Class 3 on page 5

Whether the government or the individual should finance for the costs of higher education is a thorny debate which many AHS students can relate to. Look at the country of Denmark for a brief moment; they bear the burden of financing higher education as one. The tax system in Denmark is known to have tax rates up to a soaring 63%, according to the International Herald Tribune. It is undeniable that Denmark has some of the highest taxes in the world. Also, according to The New York Times, many young Danes are fleeing the country; mostly in order to escape the high tax rates. In other words, they stick around to earn a free college education financed by the public and then dash off to other countries. The act of looting from one’s own people to benefit the self is extremely selfish. These kinds of acts, which are frowned upon, are inevitable if the majority of the American public vote for the government to finance higher education. According to a study conducted by AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) in March of 2006, out of 1,016 Americans aged 25 and over, 77% considered taxes too high and 59% felt that the tax system was unfair. Visualize these percentages, if they were readily available in a time of financial hardship the country is going through. The expenditure the American public would have to face if the government financed higher education would be sky-high. Given the financial crisis, the U.S. has dug

SOURCE: COLLEGE BOARD

itself into a deep hole and will not see daylight in the near future. It would be unwise to dig itself even deeper into the ground by expanding our financial woes. Although the system of government financing for higher education for its citizens may work for Denmark, it is highly doubtful that the picture would be as pretty in the United States. Second, according to a 2006 study by the Commerce Department, Americans failed to report trillions of tax dollars in the year of 2003 alone, a 37% increase from the year of 2000. It is evident that an accumulation in taxes would serve to increase the temptation to cheat on these taxes. Third, the benefits would not be applicable to many individuals and it wouldn’t be fair to coerce them into casting a large portion of their income so that others could benefit from their hard work and effort. The country cannot force a low-class couple who chose not to obtain a higher education or bear children to pitch in for the higher education of the son of an extremely wealthy lawyer. Finally, an individual would end up compensat-

ing a cyclopean amount of money to the government through taxes than if they had taken a loan. Situations like these, which are bound to arise, make the idea of government financing for higher education are not the best. In addition, there are many paths an individual can take on his or her quest for higher education, although many drop out. According to the Department of Education, 30% of college students leave after his or her first year and almost 50% never graduate – the unfortunate part being that the investment in these dropouts would be wasted. The money could have gone to many places in lieu of higher education institutions; such as charity, infrastructure projects, or even education reform to better prepare students for college to reduce the dropout rate. The question is who should be accountable for these kinds of troubles. For example, fingers cannot be pointed at the government for investing so heavily in the individual. The person who received federal aid for their college tuition and failed to graduate cannot be blamed either. It is everyone’s fault. Ideally, higher education would be free to all, and the economy and society would blossom endlessly with no limits and everyone would be exempt from taxation. What a wonderful world it would be: comparable to Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. Now, realistically speaking, a higher education is not free. It directly benefits a person, not society, and it should be a personal expense. The country can only be optimistic and hope that our next president will allay the burden for financing higher education in the future. Meanwhile, turning to the government to entirely finance higher education is not the wisest decision.

A

the

Rules of Thumb

Annandale High School 4700 Medford Dr. Annandale, Virginia 22003

Vol. 54 No. 4 Nov. 20, 2008

Staff

RABID FOX LOCKS ON JOGGER While jogging at a park in Arizona, a woman encountered a rabid fox which bit her foot. She tried to pick it up, but it locked onto her arm. The woman continued to run a mile with it attached to her arm, and then drove to the hospital.

Editors In Chief: Shriya Adhikary Waliha Gani

Rule: Bring pepper spray when jogging in case of attack by rabid animals.

Editorials Editors: Aya Saed Erin Johnson

ENGLAND INVENTED BASEBALL? According to a British author Julian Norridge, the American pastime baseball was actually created first in England. He bases this thought on a quote from the Jane Austen classic “Northanger Abbey”, which mentions the sport. Rule: Always read books carefully in case you find shocking historical facts.

WOMAN ASKS POLICE FOR HUFFING CAN In Arkansas a woman was arrested in a car that was parked at a Wal-Mart store for huffing a can of air. The police officer asked her what she was doing, and she replied that she would answer any question, but wanted her can back so she could “finish getting high”. Rule: When being arrested for huffing, keep an extra can on hand.

(703) 642-4229 email: theablast@gmail.com fax: (703) 642-4299

Managing Editor: Laura Simpson News Editors: Brianna Fagg Emily Fruchterman

Webmasters: Ben Wilson Video Staff: Joey Panther Natalia Schwien Emily Bagot Photography Editors: Tanya Bellingham Annika Jessen Copy Editor: Jane Aman Ad Manager: Meredith Rutherford

In-Depth Editors: Nathalie Spita Charles Simpson Sports Editors: Kelsey Knoche Scott Plunkett Sports Xtra Editors: Logan Miller Marcus Mavlian People Editors: Laura Ambrosio Stacey Irwin Weekend Editor:s Marie Benavides Marisa Tordella International Editors: Ndidi Obasi Manal Elhak Entertainment Editors: Kelly McGarey Lyndsay Jacobs Academics Editors: Doreen Bond Emma Barker Art Editors: Brooke Barlow Travis Valle

Circulation Manager: Kelsey Price Meredith Rutherford Online Staff: Connor Goolrick, Adeel Shams, Jeff Shim Staff Writers/Photographers: Jennifer Oakes, Mariah Pollet, Alley Adcock, Gessica Azzam, Jake Barnes, Jose Candia, Rachel Coulter, Rachel Gallogly, Erin George, Daniela Guevera, Kristen Hennessey, David Hookey, Bum Lee, Brandon Mitchener, Bob Stevens, Katie Vu, Ben Wolfenstein, Carly Bouchard, Andrew Craig, Stephen Craig, Adam Kasdorf, Elizabeth Marcois, Nathan Miller, Kelly O’Brien, Brenna O’Neill, Jerald Sheppard, Alexandra Torre, Jenn Allshouse, Maggie Craig, Victoria Deible, Connor Goolrick, Cassady Keller, August McCarthy, Julia Moeller, Melissa Purvis, William Risse, Jeff Shim, Hope Stadulis, Amy Stevens, Travis Valle,Aishwarya Venkat, Melissa Walter, SamYoung. Adviser: Alan Weintraut

The A-Blast is an award winning newspaper that strives to inform, educate and entertain the student body and community. Published every three weeks, The A-Blast will not print any material that is obscene or libelous; or that which substantially disrupts the school day, or invades an individual’s right to privacy. The A-Blast is an independent, open forum for discussion that is printed at the Springfield Plant of The Washington Post. Signed letters to the editor of 250 words or less may be submitted to room 262 or mailed to the school. The A-Blast reserves the right to refuse advertisements. All submissions become property of The A-Blast, Copyright, 2008.


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.