Columnists

I believe that reading for this columnists because it is legit since they both write for the New York Times. I wanted to pick male and female but those two columnists fits my personal opinion. My first columnist was David Brooks. In his article “Freedom Loses One” he makes the point that by virtue of wanting marriage and military service gays are opting into society instead of asking society to change for them. Yes, acceptance can involve some change but in this case it is to be accepted as people and as American citizens, something most of us have. 

 My personal views on this issue changed a few years ago when watching the TV broadcast and something came up about the right for gays to marry. Previously I was personally indifferent but felt that marriage was as much a religious institution as a civil institution. After all, most marriages are performed by clergy and the majority are in religious settings. I felt that civil union met the needs of gays so why offend the religions? Then I saw an older woman interviewed and she had explained that she and her partner had been waiting 30 or 40 year for this day. They have lived together as a family and wanted to be married. That's about as successful as a married couple can be, still wanting to be married after all that time! And I thought, all Americans are entitled to their own pursuit of happiness. Gays who buy into a system of family values should have the same family rights as others. I also used to get grossed out when I hear same sex marriage, but then I look at Ellen DeGeneres, for example, she is the sweetest the person that could be. Opinions about same sex marriage crossed out so many times and places as well as thru out the years. Many say that time is changing and over the years people slowly will accept the gay marriage. My second columnist choice was Bob Herbert. The reason I selected him because his opinion attracted me. Also I did not agree with him on some points for example, when the United States has taken serious military action in Libya. All what Herbert thinking about was the waste of the money, and why did the U.S. Spent such good money over on another war. I believe that the goal of the United States is to free the Libyan citizens from the tyrannical rule of Moammar Gadhafi, back then first. Also, the United States has taken such actions as imposing a no-fly zone over the Libyan air-fields and removing Libya from the Human Rights Counsel, but after that the United States began firing missiles at Libyan tanks and other military weapons. It was not the White House that started the operation. The Libyan plea went to the Security Council of the United Nations – with the support of much of the Libyan diplomatic corps, one might point out. The UN resolution does not call for a no-fly zone. It called directly for military intervention to protect civilians. Herbert was wondering, Did the United States go too far this time? Experts of United States’ Foreign Policy feel that President Obama’s actions, or what is being called the “Obama Doctrine” may have crossed a line with his hasty decision to use military force. Experts of United States’ International Relations fear a decline in the United States influence over other worldly nations will drastically decrease. I believe that such action like that was very necessary to ensure the safety of the area, even if it was nowhere near the U.S. But it was close enough to disturb a large and a wide peaceful area of the continent.