Banning of Gay Marriage in Virginia - Case Study Example

Rhetorical Analysis: Banning of Gay Marriage in Virginia Rhetorical Situation The appeal to ity (ethos) is somehow centered upon the character of U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, whose opinions dominate the news article. This therefore means that the article’s ethos must not necessarily be based on the writer’s character. As for Judge Wright Allen, the writer’s emphasis that Wright Allen is a judge is already an appeal to her authority. She is a judge and should therefore be regarded as an authority when it comes to the law. Moreover, she has served both as a prosecutor and a federal public defender before being nominated as judge by President Obama in 2011. In fact, the way the writer defended Wright Allen showed that the writer was somehow in favor of gay and lesbian marriages in the United States particularly in Virginia, where the controversy is located (Barnes). When it comes to pathos or appeal to emotion, the article has so many examples of it. Thus, it seems that this article is more like an appeal to the reader not only for them to empathize with same-sex couples but also for them to understand that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits such marriages. One of the examples of appeals to emotion in the article is what Wright Allen herself wrote: “Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships” (Barnes). This statement clearly implies an appeal to the reader’s emotion in order to make him more responsive to the pressing need of homosexuals to exercise their constitutional right to marry. Moreover, the fact that Wright Allen also wrote that “such [same-sex] relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices [and therefore] must be free from unwarranted government interference” also has the same purpose of appeal (Barnes). Another appeal to the reader’s emotion was the opinion of another lawyer, which focused on the separation of the laws of the State from one’s constitutional right to marry. According to lawyer Theodore Olson, who supported Wright Allen’s stance, “Laws excluding gay men and lesbians from marriage violate personal freedom, are an unnecessary government intrusion, and cause serious harm” (Barnes). Although Olson did not define the extent of such “harm,” it is clear that he is merely referring to indirect harm. What is more appealing to the emotion in this statement is actually the claim that the government serves as an intrusive force against same-sex couples. Olson makes such a statement but he does not explain what he exactly means. Nevertheless, despite the lack of stated reason, a lot of people will naturally agree with Olson. Appeals to reason or logos also exist in this report. One of these is the instance where Wright Allen mentioned about tradition in order to clarify her approval of same-sex marriage in the context of the tradition which has always been protected by the conservative people of the State of Virginia. When Wright Allen said, “…tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage” (Barnes). This means that, for Wright Allen, tradition is right but it is definitely not enough to be able to embody the democracy and the freedom that is at the core of the Constitution of the State of Virginia. This is therefore a logical appeal to the reader who has conservative views about how marriages should be conducted and viewed. Wright Allen’s point is that although the present system is right, there must still be room for something better. Another appeal to reason that the writer emphasizes in the article is that, in the words of Wright Allen, the ban on same-sex couples from the right to choose their own partners and to unite in marriage is based on a legislation that actually has no “legitimate state purpose” (Barnes). This means that although it is legal and constitutional for the State of Virginia to ban same-sex marriage, this prohibition does not have a definite purpose and does not even contribute to the welfare of the state. In short, it has no cultural or practical value at all. Although this may be an emotionally-driven statement, it is clear that Wright Allen was telling the conservative reader that the constitutionality of a law must actually include a practical aspect. Otherwise, it cannot serve any legitimate purpose. Still, another appeal to reason that Wright Allen emphasized is an appeal to equality. According to the Judge, “…every Virginian deserves to be treated equally and fairly” (Barnes). Although this is another thing that creates an appeal to pity, it is but reasonable to think under the banner of democracy that all men are created equal. The Civil War and the American War of Independence have always had the same purpose in history. It is therefore imperative that the laws of the State of Virginia to embody such spirit of democracy. Purpose The purpose of the report is clear – to make an appeal for the approval of same-sex marriage in the State of Virginia, or perhaps just to explain the reasons behind such appeal. The article uses appeals to emotion, logic and authority using the claims and opinions of Judge Wright Allen as the primary basis. Audience The audience would mainly be the people of the State of Virginia, who are the expected readers of this article as the controversy directly concerns their laws. Specific Claims Among the specific claims of the article in the words of Wright Allen include the claim that gay marriage does not interfere with the laws of marriage as previously instituted by the State. Moreover, the article claims that laws that ban gay marriage do not have any legitimate purpose. There is also a claim that the government is merely intruding into same-sex couples and is actually depriving them of their constitutional right. Ultimately, however, this article claims that same-sex couples deserve to be happy and to love each other freely and to unite in marriage in a democratic country like the United States. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited Barnes, Robert. “Federal judge strikes down Va. Ban on gay marriage.” 2014. The Washington Post. 14 Feb 2014. Read More