Marriage Equality and
the Supreme Court
I chose an article on Salon.com about The Supreme Court
passage of Marriage Equality. This is an important and sensitive subject for
me, as I have been in a relationship with my girlfriend for close to two years.
This affects us because we would like the choice to get married someday and do
not believe that decision belongs to anyone else, and even if I was not, I
believe everyone has the right to be with who they chose. I follow these
articles closely. The link for the
article I chose to annotate is:
Characteristic Features
·
An Explicit Position
The author of this article, Andrew
Koppelman, does not specifically state his stance on marriage equality. I
believe he does this to cater to every reader’s values. However, the way the
article is written, implies that he supports marriage equality. The article itself
is written about the Supreme Court Justices and their opinions and arguments on
this subject. He quotes arguments from
several of the Justices to support why he suspects the Marriage Equality bill
will pass. He states in regards to the
Supreme Court meeting to argue this bill on April 28, 2015; “Yesterdays Supreme
Court argument showed as clearly as anything could have, that same sex marriage
will prevail. Not only because of the
strength of its argument, but because those arguments meet no resistance; the
opposing view has become incomprehensible.”
That statement shows why he thinks this bill will pass and why he thinks
it will, which I believe gives him a position on the subject.
·
A response to what others have said
Koppelman writes that the Justice Stephen
Breyer finds it difficult to find anything to defer to. When states try to justify denying same sex
couples the right to marry, Justice Breyer states “the answer we get is; well
people have always done it.” Referring
to marriage between a dominant male and a subordinate female and striking down
same sex marriage. He states “that won’t do because it was also used as an
argument to justify racial segregation.”
Another argument he hears is “because certain religious groups do think it’s
a sin.” He comments “that can’t justify
a law either.” Breyer also states “when I try to look for arguments three,
four, and five I don’t find them, where are they?” There are not many rational or logical
reasons as to why people cannot be free to love and marry who they chose, other
than the opposer’s personal opinions as to why it is wrong. Which does not seem to be enough to stand up
in court and make a law against it?
·
Appropriate background information
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg states “traditionally,
marriage was a relationship between a dominant male and a subordinate female”
In recent decades, it has become less gender specific, and sexual satisfaction
has become a more important part of it. The
older gender-specific understanding of marriage has faded so far that it is not
merely rejected, it is not even understood.
He is explaining that in decades before, heterosexual male dominate
marriages were the norm. Same sex
marriages aside, a lot of heterosexual marriages now do not follow that
anymore. There are many marriages with
the stay at home father and the mother bringing in the income and going out for
work and that is perfectly acceptable. So, arguing that marriage is meant just
for a man and a woman, because that’s just the way it’s supposed to be, does
not stand anymore.
·
A clear indication of why the topic matters
There are many people out there arguing why
same sex couples should not be allowed to marry, but they have no real
arguments as to why. These days, we are
more about what makes us happy and not so much about how things were 50 years
ago. We evolve and change as humans, so
should our laws and how life is lived daily.
They should grow and evolve with us. There are more and more people
coming out, not so scared to be harmed or judged. There are many strong same sex couples who
want to be able to marry and start a family, which would help immensely with
the homeless children population. It seems odd to say that two women who love each
other and are committed to each other cannot marry, however Brittany Spears can
marry someone for 72 hours. The
arguments 50 years ago against same sex marriage no longer apply, because we
live in a different time and it is a different world now. This article supports
that and the arguments stated show that to be true. It talks about the lack of strong, relevant
opposing views. This also goes with the characteristic of good reasons and
evidence. I think he uses good reasons
and evidence to explain why the topic matters.
·
Attention to more than one point of view
People either support same sex marriage or
absolutely do not. I personally, have not experienced any in between arguments
that say “I am okay with homosexuals and them getting married, however when
that bill passes, I will not support them and I will not be at that wedding”. Koppelman comments on the few opposing views,
with the quotes from the Supreme Court Justices. However, there aren’t many and it seems in
his opinion, they aren’t rational and won’t stand up in court.
·
An authoritative tone
The author, Koppelman, uses quotes from the
Supreme Court Justices that help give the article the authority necessary. Naturally, the Justices have a lot of
authority, so adding their personal quotes and opinions adds a lot to the
article. The author provides a lot of
straightforward information, which gives the article a tone of authority. It helps add background to the argument and
gives it a strong foundation.
·
An appeal to readers’ values
People who chose to read this article have an
interest in marriage equality, whether it is for or against it. He does a good
job of not being too strong on one side of the argument. He provides straightforward, unbiased
information without picking on anyone’s opinions or values. He strictly
provides information regarding this particular Supreme Court session and to
educate what the argument is and the direction the argument is going.
No comments:
Post a Comment