All Americans in the middle class can agree that money is hard to come by. The inflation in the economy has really taken its toll our pocketbooks. Unfortunately, the crisis has been more difficult for more than most. Some people who don’t have support financially alone, depend on the government assistance such as food stamps and public housing programs etc. The author is making the audience more knowledgeable of how the government is planning and hoping to raise the monthly minimum rent per month for that using public housing assistance. The audience is intended to for the citizens in need of the assistance. I agree with the author that making housing more expensive will become an inconvenience to some people. Twenty five dollars may not be a lot to someone who works and supports themselves. To someone who is whose main support is the government twenty five dollars is half of rent. Budgets will be adjusted and throw off many people. I don’t feel the author was all that credible. If the author explained the raise in rent or the full in depth plan the government has it would and could have been more put together. The editorial is straight to the point. I didn’t get a lot of background information. I couldn’t really distinguish what side she was taking; I assumed she had taken on the side of not raising the monthly rent. I personally think that the rent should remain where it is. In order to get into a situation where you cannot afford to keep a roof over your head how can anyone think that making it more expensive will do anything but put someone in an even worse situation??

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/keeping-the-poorest-in-housing.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.

The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.

The ruling came more than a year after the appeals court heard arguments in the case.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker's ruling on both constitutional grounds and because of the thorny issue of the judge's personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.

This article brought up a question for me .That if one state finds the ban of gay marriage , every state would doesn't allow this marriage unconstitutional. It would take one couple to sue the state to reverse the law in the state they were hoping to be married in.Also the fact that the judge was gay and also had a long term relationship with the man. Did this have something to do with the ruling of this case ?http://hosted2.ap.org/txdam/54828a5e8d9d48b7ba8b94ba38a9ef22/Article_2012-02-07-Gay%20Marriage%20Trial/id-24f1d36d612c433a955fd352b916c2fc