Dr. Marichal, I would appreciate an email or comment confirming everything is working, thank you.

http://jordanaricampbell.squarespace.com

i'm sorry it's 3 minutes late, but slide rocket was having trouble embedding in my website

here is the url

for the pecha kucha http://app.sliderocket.com/app/FullPlayer.aspx?id=97990FDF-599C-AAF3-4B24-9154B3475262

Rights

A right that relates to my issue is the right to get married. Currently it is a right that is only granted to heterosexual couples. Some may not consider marriage as a right that should be granted to all, but many disagree with that. It is debated because some believe that if the right to marry is granted to homosexual couples it will lower the value of the marriages of others. Another argument is that if one can define marriage outside one man and one woman then it could potentially lead to a complete lack of sanctity in regards to marriage. I understand the desire to keep marriage a sanctified institution, but don't understand how gay people marrying could possible de-sanctify that institution. The way the law currently stands is discriminatory. 

Facts

The "rational ideal" as referred to in Stone emphasizes truth and facts as method of resolving conflict. While this idea only works perfectly in the ideal I think many issues could be resolved by providing proper information. Keeping in mind it is nearly impossible to properly educate an entire polis, I think the health care debate would be much simpler and stream lined if we were more educated on the subject. If the Democrats politicians were 100% clear on the cost, and Republican politicians didn't contribute to the lies spread about Obama's health care plan, we would have a more efficient model of legislation. 

One "fact' about abstinence only education is that it's, "programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time." These are words taken not from opinions but results, and if treated rationally would eliminate public funding for abstinence only education.

Facts, while possibly changeable in perception to slight degrees stand on their own. Most people would agree that facts, opposed to political rhetoric and the framing of facts, should be the biggest influence in public policy. At least with the issues I discuss this is not really the case.

Gay marriage and sex education and creationism in public schools are issues all about rules. Laws are rules, and currently there are rules preventing to people of the same sex the right to marry one anther. The only way to really make the rules regarding gay people "good" is to allow them to marry each other, but I think a compromise, civil unions, which would stop the rules which restrict and harm the lives of gay people is the next best step.

Policy Outcomes

Policy outcomes for issues with religious interests don't vary too drastically. Gay marriage is the most obvious example of this, with elections being held in different states to pass gay marriage legislation. While some may put an unnecessary emphasis on these outcomes to sensationalize them. But those states, all of whom have opposed the legalization of gay marriage, are almost all very likely to pass civil unions that would allow gays to essentially be married in every sense other than title. While many people probably oppose these civil unions many would be hard pressed to justify their reasons. Not that gay people ruin marriage for straight couples is a logical argument. Anyway, a marriage equivalent civil union is an outcome that will become extremely common in the next couple years. I think it would be hard to use any sort of policy tool to change or reward any behavior since the benefits and negative consequences are solely related to the issues surrounding my different issues. Creationism being taught in public schools is practically an extinct practice, and it would be hard to change the outcome with inducements or sanctions. The only issue I could see sanctions being useful would be sex education, stopping funding for sex education to schools that use abstinence only education as their sole provider of sexual health related information. This could be mildly effective, but I think that would have to be the extent of it because I can't see rewarding schools for teaching kids how they should, not particularly well just how they should, is not a good political policy.

 How are the targets of your policy study constructed? How does this affect policy? What if the targets got to use their "local knolwedge" to make policy on their own?

The targets of my issue are people affected by the government policies that result from religious influences. The two largest targets are religious activists who are portrayed either as upholding what is morally correct or preventing equality. Some portray the religious activists in a postive light because they promote virtuous values or because they are spreading the word of God. They are also portrayed negatively because they are preventing proper education in schools. There are very few "attacks" on gays because that would be an unpopular message, so they are not as much a target, however maybe because people who are against gay marriage say marriage should be "protected".