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".

Intrests

Those who interested in opposing gay marriage, evolution being taught in schools, and sex education that includes information about the importance of birth control are primarily religious groups. Not all people who oppose gay marriage oppose non-abstinence based sex education, and an even smaller part of that group oppose the teaching of evolution in schools. However, the people who support religion in government policy, logically, are primarily certain religious people. They have an interest in these issues because they believe these policies have the moral high ground according to their religious affiliation. Those who have interest in the opposing side are anyone who opposes the beliefs of some people imposed on a nation. This includes gay rights activists to people just interested in seeing the amount of teen pregnancies. This is a topic that is primarily focused on gay marriage right now, and I don't know if my classmates have an obligation to do anything about it besides vote. This may seem apathetic, but I don't think you have an obligation to change something that you're not passionate about or effects you personally.

Casual Stories

There is a lot of casual discussion about the separate issues that religion plays a part in, while maybe not maybe not as a whole, there are a lot of conversations about gay marriage, and sex education is often on the political agenda. The news often has a story about abstinence only education or teen pregnancy. Evolution vs. Creation discussions are less common because the issue is less divisive. The divisiveness of the issue often determines the frequency of discussion. Based on the prop 8 vote in California people are fairly split on gay marriage, and as a result a lot of casual stories

Data

"The only positive, statistically small, was that those taking the pledge had 0.1 fewer sex partners over the five year study than did those who did not take such a pledge." This statistic shows the ineffectiveness of abstinence only education. A type of education that continues to be taught in public schools across the country. I find it interesting that such a ineffective method of teaching sex education is still sponsored by the government, I mean, we would throw a fit if the government allowed some schools to teach less efficient or accurate way of doing arithmetic. If this method caused large portions of students to do very poorly on the SAT and therefore the education they received had harmful consequences on the rest of their lives. The reality is no different except certain people believe that this is what they believe is morally correct and therefore push their beliefs onto other peoples children. One of the poster children of abstenence only education is Sarah Palin and it is very ironic that her daughter got a bun in the oven during her vice-presidental run. I don't think it will be long until the people or the government take the initiative to lower funding for abstinence only education.

According to Mills, freedom should only be restricted by what harms others. If this was a model we were to take with gay marriage, there are two arguments. The “marriage preservationist” would argue that allowing gay people to marry would harm the marriages of straight people. This act would devalue marriage to them and therefore be harming them. While the gay marriage activist would argue that not allowing gay people to marry is harming gay people because they aren’t able to put a legal label on their relationship and it restricts their freedoms. Probably more importantly in restricts legal rights that are given to married couples, such as visitation rights, tax benefits, insurance, and other legal matters that improve and simplify peoples lives. At least in regards to liberty allowing gay marriage harms far fewer people than prohibiting it especially considering that the “harm” that it causes doesn’t actually change or affect the people who oppose it. However, many people who oppose gay marriage support civil unions which give gays the same legal rights as married couples. Civil Unions essentially are marriages except for minor differences and terminology. This is probably the most equitable and therefore common solution in the near future. 

A ring as a symbol of marriage may seem cliché, but I think it is a symbol that represents the core of the discussion. Laws are being voted on this November to give gays the exact same rights as married couples, but without the wording ‘marriage’. Essentially allowing a compromise that leaves both parties better off or established. The rings represent marriage and show the distinction between marriage and the civil unions. The debate and arguments are over the possession of the rings. Gay marriage in that sense is very much like Lord of the Rings. 

I feel like the public isn't manipulated to a great extent on the topic of gay marriage, or school curriculum. These are topics that are personal, and are derived from either religious beliefs or moral convictions. These different opinions come from Church, a family, or a community. While people view these topics because of the way it was 'framed' to them, I believe the political world is interpreting the views of the public into policy opposed to the other way around, which seems to happen more often than not.

Secure Outcomes

Insecurity is very prevalent in both gay marriage and the debate over education. This insecurity stems from the discrepancy between state and federal laws, similar to the issue over the use of medical marijuana. This unsure outcome has created a lot of insecurity especially to gay marriage. I think that the best outcome to create security is to make the state laws in congruence with the federal laws. This is different from the outcome that I think would be equitable because this outcome leaves a lot of people unhappy and unheard.

Efficency

Efficiency is all about getting something done the fastest with the least amount of energy. I think it would be simple to find efficient outcomes to gay marriage and science curriculum's. Holding votes would be the most efficient. However, I do think that allowing people to interpret the law and what defines progress is a bit backwards. If during the civil rights era we held elections to decide whether or not to integrate schools, it wouldn't have happened or at least take much longer. I think it is necessary to push society in a positive direction sometimes.

Equitable Outcomes

It is difficult to think of equitable outcomes for the influence of religion because while the vast majority of both sides would agree with the separation of church and state as defined by the United States Constitution, while not specifically stated in those words. Both sides disagree in the definition of separation and that is when disagreements and issues of policy are debated. It is the realities of those different interpretations that cause the debate over pertinent issues like gay marriage and what is written in textbooks. I think there is a difference between what is justified and fair and what is an equitable outcome. What I would see as an equitable outcome would be to compromise on the issue. I think this isn't fair because I don't think there is an actual argument against gay marriage besides that the bible says that it is immoral. A compromise in regards to gay rights in my opinion would not be a merit based solution, but more a democratically decided one; however, both sides would make progress in defining what they want and get closer to finding common ground. I think a compromise to the gay marriage debate would be to allow the states to decide for themselves whether or not they want to allow gay marriage. In regard to the science curriculum in public schools, I think things should remain the way they are. Leave it up to the states to decide what they want to teach their kids, within reason. Abstinence only education is also an issue that is morally deeply rooted in religion, and it is a type of education in public schools. In regards to this issue there is a direct negative effect on those who subscribe to these beliefs and especially those who do not. Abstinence only education leads to greater pregnancies because (for some reason) it doesn't effectively convince kids to wait till marriage to have sex. "Abstinence Only Education" needs to be "Abstinence Supplemental Education" because it can have very detremental effects on the lives of teenagers. These aren't easy issues to figure out equitable outcomes for, but these are outcomes that would be progressive and acceptable to both sides.

Project Idea

Despite a constitutional separation of church and state religion plays a major role in the way the United States is run. Religion influences important topics of discussion like abortion, gay marriage, sex ed., and the way science is taught in public schools. I chose this topic because I want to know more facts on the topic, and feel that some arguments used in this issue are irrational. 

sample