Rights

One would think that the story of Matthew Shepard would bring people together over a tragic event. On the contrary, Matthew Shepard's death seemed to pull the nation apart, due to people's conflicting points of view. Should Matthew's heartbreaking death be seen as any other killing, or should everyone take it upon himself or herself to be responsible for what happened to Matthew?

When reading the article "Blood on our Hands", I believe that the writer had a strong position about his argument. Phil Martin states that everyone should take responsibility for Matthew's death because people everywhere reject the unfamiliar and label others without thinking about the consequences of their actions. I believe that he is correct that we in the United States do not take the time to understand people who are different than we are. Being in a minority group as a young Jewish woman, I can empathize with the writer when he talks about being angry with self-sanctimonious religious leaders. When religious officials speak out about gays, Jews, Muslims or any other minority they need to realize that people may take their words and apply them. How can anyone be shocked about the death of a gay man, when it is being taught that gay people are not deserving of God?

Nobody's cause is more important than anyone else's. Everyone should educate themselves about the differences we face in America. Understanding is the key component to making change happen. If gay activists stood for the equality of women, and if women activists would stand for the equality of African Americans, then everyone would stand for something. They would stand for the equality of all Americans in this country.

The problem with this theory of mine is that people automatically put the blame on others and points the finger the other way. In "Matthew Shepard: What is the Big Deal?" Colby Carter uses personal attacks at gays to bolster his opinion. He states that protestors at a Gay March in New York waved signs reading, "Where is your rage?" in response to the death of Matthew. I think the writer takes the word rage out of context because he insists that gay protestors were using violence to solve the problem. I see people waving signs that display the same message outside of abortion clinics. Anyone can be angry about something they believe in strongly without having someone jumping to the conclusion that they are violent. I also do not think it is fair that Carter uses his own assumptions about gay people to defend his position on the subject. He says that gay people use Matthew's death to force their lifestyles on the rest of us. He loses credibility in his argument because he has a biased opinion about gays in general. He also does not know for a fact that the gay community wouldn't give Matthew's death the time of day if he were a heterosexual male. I think this is a harsh statement that specifically labels gays