Same Sex Marriage Revelation through Media - Assignment Example

Same sex marriage – revelation through media The essay identifies two articles from recent publications centering the controversial issue of same sex marriage in order to compare and contrast the arguments of the authors in both the cases. The arguments will be analyzed in the light of ethos (persuasive ability of the speaker), pathos (arousing empathy of the audience) and logos (with respect to the projection of the truth). (Edlund, n.d.) When the issue is against a prejudice or a controversial belief the emotions of the audience will automatically be shaken, but the skill of the speaker lays in the way he or she appeals to the reader without using any enforcing tone (Cockroft and Cockroft, 1992, chapter2). The article “N.Y. Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill” by Jeremy W. Peters (May 12, 2009) discusses the reaction from various people from different fields including the common man as well as the politicians after New York legalized the same-sex marriage and became the sixth state to legalize the same-sex marriage. The second article, “Gay-Marriage Issue Awaits Court Pick” by Shailagh Murray discusses how the issue of same-sex marriage gains political importance for personal cause of the politicians just like the issue of abortion as mentioned in the second article by Murray (May 17, 2009) who related the current debate centering on same sex marriage to that of abortion or the Roe Vs Wade case and forwarded both the issues as those of political level controversies. Obama placed an opinion for both supportive and non supportive sides of same sex marriage. He says that going by Christianity he does not support it but going by rights to equal law, he feels that is gay or lesbian couples are committed to the point of being ready for marriage, they should have the right to do so. While Murray dwells upon both sides of the truth, he is also capable to striking at the empathy of the audience by appealing to equality as well as religion for the religious fanatics. Although majority of republicans conform to the norm that states should have the right to formulate their laws themselves, but Congress approves of the Defense of Marriage Act which indicates that marriages performed in other states shall be ignored and the federal denies the recognition of legal gay marriages. Using relevant quotes of scholarly critics, the Murray shows how the law and the politics meet at the flash point, which is the same sex marriage. Peters talks about the law of New York supporting same sex marriage, the author also proves his point and gently persuades the readers’ mind towards same sex marriages by highlighting the case of Ms Duprey, a republican assembly woman who had once voted against gay marriages in 2007 – “They are asking only for equal protection under the law”. Likewise Murray also highlights a law case –“Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized the practice [same sex marriage] in that state” (Murray, 2009) in the month of April, 2009. Thus, both the authors use political and legal elements to enforce the case in favor of same sex marriage. Quite skillfully, both the authors here have avoided laying too much emphasis on the case for same sex marriage and never give any personal opinion of theirs throughout the article. They merely highlight the reality and incidence of same sex marriages. At the same time they identify the legal and political dimensions which support the case in favor of the issue rather than supporting the issue themselves. At the same time they project the opposing opinions of critics and finally by highlighting the legal court cases, they try to prove that same sex marriages are being accepted by the law at a stage where ‘equality’ demands of utmost attention. In the article of Peters we find that senators were apprehensive of gaining votes in the election if they support same sex marriages but the 89 to 52 (89 votes in favor of same sex marriage) voting suggested “a way to leverage support from senators who are worried that supporting the measure could cost them politically”. Murray is liberal in his outlook and also point out another reality that this is such an issue regarding which different states differ in their judgments. He compares the issue with abortion case where various courts had different things to say. This highlights the element of logos in his writing where nothing but the truth is highlighted and yet, in such a fashion that the final goal is to persuade the audience in favor of same sex marriage. Peters also gives the opposing side of arguments based on religious grounds. He says that “opponents of the bill condemned same-sex marriage as a moral outrage and an affront to religious institutions in New York”. Seen from a logical point of view there are actually infinite reasons as to why same-sex marriage has to be legalized, for example the opponents of same-sex marriage say that it is against the religion and is an corrupt practice but if we look closely at the Bible we will find something different. We will find that there is no mention of same-sex marriage being incorrect because in Bible only union between a man and a woman is mentioned, hence it cannot be said that the Bible refutes the phenomenon.  The religious text also says that marriage contract means, both the partners should provide for each other, care for each other and be compassionate to another, it has never said that a woman should be supportive to a man and vice versa and the fact remains that if all these objectives are achieved from a same-sex marriage then what is the difficulty with such a relationship? (Miller, 2008) Murray uses less of ethos than Peters as he points out that the governor of New Hampshire seeks protection for the churches before signing the bill and enacting the law in favor of same sex marriage. This indicates religious exclusion which is given priority and the religious groups are allowed to be on their own. Peters persuades the audience with greater appeal to the emotions of the audience using ‘ethos’ or appropriate ‘proofs’ (Cockroft and Cockroft, 1992, chapter1) via quotations and anecdotes. Both the authors use voices of other important figures to highlight the main motive of the article. Peters conclude by quoting Richard Brodsky, a democrat, “We do nothing revolutionary or extraordinary today”. This shows his greater persuasive skills using which he somehow reaches the heart of the audience to establish his point. Murray mainly stresses on the aspect of logos or the logical and real picture projected with respect to this issue. He speaks about the opponents and shows how religious priority is exercised. Tatalovich, Daynes and Lowi (2004) suggest that the question remains why a same-sex marriage will not be legalized, because ethically speaking an individual’s right to choose his or her partner is solely a personal affair and cannot be infringed upon by others and this validates the argument of equality and also reasons why countries like New York may legalize same-sex marriage even after much upheaval as seen in the article by Peters. While Peters takes up a more specific case of a bill being passed by the New York court, Murray identifies issues in general about same sex marriage and show the mix of political and legal element which is the main motivation in his article. He also concludes with a quotation of the House Speaker, stressing on “freedom for all Americans”. While Peter uses more of ethos and pathos to prove his point, Murray uses more of logos in his work and leads the direction towards the issue of freedom experienced in a globalized environment where the implicit statement is that same sex marriage should not be identified as something “extraordinary or revolutionary” as stated in the article by Peters. The only difference is that the main point of argument is easily identifiable in Peters work while Murray’s work gives more of an implicit statement and encourages the readers to evaluate and dwell more on this issue in the lights of the aspects highlighted both in favor and against. The authors rightly uses the elements of persuasion and follows the basic principle –“The power of speech is not the power to command obedience by replacing argument with silence.” (Cockroft and Cockroft, 1992, introduction) Murray, especially opens the scope for further arguments by revealing logos and anti-logos. In practice we may find several debates arising centering on court judgments in favor of same sex marriages. According to Strasser (2002) it has been pointed out that sodomy could be a ground for the law not supporting same sex marriage. However logically it may be argued that the same issue which is implicitly criminalized here might also be a concern in heterosexual marriages. The authors of these articles show their modern outlook by leaving such issues far behind, implying that the present age has come to reflect on such an issue with compassion and generosity (as highlighted by the equality concept pointed out by Peters) with considerable importance given of religious exclusion from legalization of same sex marriage. The idea here is to show a real picture and the movement of the social, political and the legal system towards a modernized and liberal outlook which could best be identified by the advancements made regarding this issue. Reference     1. Cockroft, R. and Cockroft, S.M. (1992) Persuading people : an introduction to rhetoric, NY: Macmillan 2. Edlund, J. (n.d.) Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade, Writing Center Director, Cal Poly Pomona 3. Miller L, (Dec 6, 2008) “GAY MARRIAGE”, NEWSWEEK available at          http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653 , (accessed on 26/05/2009). 4. Murray S. (May 17, 2009), “Gay-Marriage Issue Awaits Court Pick”, Washington Post, available at  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/16/AR2009051602363.html, (accessed on 26/05/2009). 5. Peters, J. (May 12, 2009), “N.Y. Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill”, The New York Times, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/nyregion/13marriage.html, (accessed on 26/05/2009). 6. Strasser M, (2002), On same-sex marriage, civil unions, and the rule of law: Constitutional interpretation at the crossroads, Greenwood Publishing Group, Santa Barbara. 7. Tatalovich R, Daynes B and Lowi T, (2004), Moral controversies in American politics M.E. Sharpe, New York.  Read More