The debates that rocked the nation

We've all seen it on Facebook — the tiny notification in the upper right corner of your screen signaling a group request, this one asking you either to support or appeal Proposition 8. Passed in California on Nov.  4, Prop 8 is a law outlawing same-sex marriage in the state.  Since that time, it has been met with mixed emotions — from outrage to ecstasy and everything in between.

While many gay rights supporters have been lobbying to overturn the law next year and reinstate gay marriage in the state, more recent news said the chances of this being a successful effort are slim. On Nov. 30, the Associated Press reported, "Rick Jacobs, founder of the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, said Monday that polling and other research his organization commissioned shows that gay marriage supporters do not have the financial backing, leadership or edge in public opinion to try to overturn Proposition 8 in 2010." However, lacking the backing of established organizations will not stop gay rights groups from gathering signatures in support of a gay marriage measure for the next ballot in Nov. of 2010.

But not everyone is aching to take back the new law. Those who are for laws similar to Prop 8 are finding their own ways to show support. The leaders in a large Orthodox Jewish community in New Jersey recently decided to form a coalition, made of Roman Catholic bishops, evangelicals and some black and Latino leaders, to promote their anti-same-sex-marriage sentiments. Gay rights activists are trying to push a same-sex marriage bill through legislature before Jan. 13, when the new Republican Chris Christie takes office as governor of New Jersey. The coalition of religious leaders and their followers are trying to raise support to hold any bill until after Christie takes office, since he openly claims he would veto any bill proposing the legality of same-sex marriage in New Jersey.

Clearly, gay marriage is a national issue, but Proposition 8 served as exceptionally strong fuel to what was already a fire of a debate. Gay rights activists and those in opposition have been battling the issue. For now, the decision is up to each state, but before long this civil rights question may call for national legislature.

Now that things with the economy seem to finally be calming down, the next big issue is the country's health care system.

Since the 1935 election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who wanted to include a health care plan to go along with Social Security, almost every Democratic president and some Republican presidents have attempted to create a national health insurance plan. The purpose of such a plan is to provide all citizens with more affordable health care. Passing a bill on health care is one of the Obama administration's top concerns. On Nov. 7, the health care bill passed in the House of Representatives. Another bill was recently passed in the Senate.

The proposed reforms include expanding coverage by making more individuals eligible for Medicad and by offering subsidies to help moderate-income citizens buy insurance. They also prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The reforms suggest a government-regulated marketplace where individuals and small businesses go to purchase insurance coverage. Those who get insurance through their employer would keep their coverage, but everyone would be required to have some form of insurance or be charged with a penalty. Businesses would also be required to provide insurance or in some way contribute.

The House and Senate bills are for the most part very similar, but diverge on a few key issues. Both state Americans must have a minimum form of health insurance or pay a penalty fee. However, the House bill says the penalty should be a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the adjusted gross income over certain limits. There will be no penalty if the cost of the cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income. Both plans exempt American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship from the penalty. The bills also differ in bigger issues such as abortion, immigration and a new government insurance plan.

The Congressional Budget Office said both bills should reduce the federal deficit over 10 years. However, Republicans are still against the plans, considering them to be expensive and infringing on individual rights. Democrats insist doing nothing for health care would cause prices to skyrocket and the number of uninsured citizens to increase.

Though the debate is still raging, Congress is closer than it has been in the past 75 years to reaching a consensus on a national health care plan.

Even before President Obama took office, the nation was wondering: what's this new brilliant stimulus bill we've been hearing so much about? You know, the one that made up a bulk of his platform throughout the election process? Well, now I guess we're starting to find out.

In February, Congress the requested $787 billion towards a stimulus package proposed by Obama. The money would be used to improve the nation's economy, which had been devastated after the credit crisis that fall. The Republican Party has fairly consistently resisted the bill. None voted for it in the House of Representatives, while only three voted for it in the Senate. Some governors, like Sarah Palin, even tried to refuse to use the stimulus money they received.

Liberal economists insisted more money was necessary to really get the stimulus moving, while conservatives said the package has been wasteful and unsuccessful. In November, with a quarter of the stimulus package funds spent in nine months and an unemployment rate of 10 percent, analysts finally began to notice an improvement in the state of the economy. Obama's promise to save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010  appears to be on track, though most areas are opting to focus on saving jobs as opposed to making new ones .