ITS JUST COPY AND PASTE

April 17, 2015

STODDARD, T. (1990). Gay marriage - yes - marriage is a fundamental right. Aba Journal, 76, 42.

There are two authors: Thomas Stoddard and Bruce Fein. Stoddard is the executive director of a gay rights organization called Lambda Legal Defense Education Fund and Fein is a lawyer in constitutional and international law. Stoddard’s purpose is to explain to the reader that gay marriage should be allowed. His audience is supporters of gay rights and people who do not agree with gay marriage. On the other hand, Fein’s purpose is to show how gay marriage is more threatening than it is helpful. His audience is lawmakers and supporters of gay rights.

In this article, the debate over the legalization of gay marriage is discussed. The side supporting gay marriage states that it should be an individual right, not government right. The government should extend the rights for gay marriage. The opposing side states that marriage should only be allowed for heterosexual couples. The reason is that a child benefits more from heterosexual marriages where he/she can learn different things from each gender and be a balanced member of society. Both sides agree that legal issues regarding homosexuality should be examined in order to balance individual freedoms with general interest.

There are indeed fallacies in this article, such as wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is the assumption that if x is true, then y is true. In the article, Stoddard states that if gays are not given the right to marry than it can directly lead to the suffering of others. He is very vague on his meaning of suffering. There could have been more evidence in this article. However, the author brought up a story that helped his support in favor of gay marriage and gave good factual evidence by bringing up the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia. This evidence is reliable because it is historical evidence. However, the writer also brings up how not giving people the right to marry who they want can be detrimental which is unreliable evidence because it is biased and does not include any factual evidence.

The strengths of the article were how they gave two sides to the debate and the pros and cons for each. Another strength was how the writers both brought up different court cases to explain the legal issue of homosexuals. Some weaknesses in the article were instances where the writers brought up very biased opinions about the effects of allowing gay marriage. There was no factual back up to explain. I did come to the same conclusion as the author because I agree that we should examine each side and balance it with a solution to benefit individual right and help with society’s interests. This would be a fair way to come up with

As a whole, this article inspired me to take a look at past court cases and how they were dealt with in order to understand the thought process during this time. As an advocate for change I would like to actively discuss the issues with other activists and peers to see other opinions to this issue, and develop some solutions.