Gay_Marriage

“In sickness and in health, ‘til death do us part” is the opening quote that Thomas B. Stoddard uses in his argument in favor of gay rights in the article “Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal.” This immediately gives us a good clue about what the context of the article is going to be. The title is a strong demand that also leads the reader to the same inference. After reading the article, I concluded that Stoddard has a very strong argument with enough supporting data to validate his efforts and point of view. He begins with an inductive logic approach by opening with a specific case between two women in partnership. Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski had basically merged their lives in every aspect that a typical married couple would, except their state of Minnesota refuses to permit same sex marriage. Therefore, legally they were no different than neighbors. On November 13, 1983, Ms. Kowalski was victim of a drunk driver accident where she was left without the capacity to walk or speak. Ms. Thompson sought legal guardianship over her partner, but Ms. Kowalski’s parents opposed such and won sole guardianship. Ms. Kowalski was moved hundreds of miles away to a nursing home, and no visitation was permitted to Ms. Thompson. One could only believe this would be heart breaking if it was someone’s wife or husband who had been taken so far from their spouse. That same concept applies in this scenario all the same. After much grief and injustice a reevaluation of Ms. Kowalski’s mental competency led to Ms. Thompson being granted visitation. The basic topic is the injustice of two people not having a say so in their own personal wishes and how that affects them personally as well as legally. In the beginning paragraphs he opens the reader’s hearts with sympathy explaining the tragic victimization of being hit by a drunk driver and then being robbed of the opportunity to support their loved one through a time of recovery. This is smart in my opinion. It opens the ear of the reader to hear the rest of his argument. For the author to start with inductive logic lays a solid foundation to the concept that this same situation can be applied on such a global level. The odds of gay couples all over the world experiencing similar problems are very high. The author has a strong thesis which is stated at the very end of his article which is “Depriving millions of gay American adults the marriages of their choice, and the rights that flow from marriage, denies equal protection of the law. They, their families and friends, together with fair-minded people everywhere, should demand an end to this monstrous injustice.” This is said with confidence and conviction and is a powerful demand. There is very good support of his thesis from beginning to end. He brings in deductive logic by quoting the Supreme Court declared that marriage is “one of basic civil rights to man” and that freedom is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness”. This is a good piece of supporting evidence in the fact that it is reminding the reader that we all have a legal right to marry another and it plays a big roll in one finding contentment and satisfaction in life. The Supreme Court also declared miscegenation statutes unconstitutional in 1967. Stoddard states this fact as an analogy of how the injustice based on race and the injustice based on sexual orientation are so closely related. The types of evidence are strong because they fall under a legal umbrella. Plus, switching over to deductive logic only supports the ideas of how this broad statement, that should be applicable to everyone, can be threaded all the way into couples’ lives on an individual specific level, such as the case between Ms. Thompson and Ms. Kowalski. His opinion is actually left out of the entire article until the very last sentence. Therefore, there is a high chance of getting the reader who opposes same gender marriage to see that he has good logic and a strong argument that is worth contemplating. The tone in the article has a very factual air to it. He does give off the impression that he is an ally for those fighting for the right to marry in the same gender but is not combative in his diction. His thesis is said with confidence and conviction and is a powerful demand, but his persona seems to be one of a compassionate heart that believes in equality, fairness and justice. These attributes only help his argument to be welcomed and understood on a deeper level. I personally agree with Stoddard’s argument. We all should have the right to marry whom ever we feel moved to. It should not be contingent upon race, gender or religion.