During the high awareness of proposition 8 SignOnSanDiego.com published two opposing articles regarding the proposition. The first article was titled “Consequences of gay marriage already here” by Charles LiMandri. In this Article LiMandri says “Yes on 8,” he believes in the negative effects of passing the proposition and ultimately disagrees with gay marriage. The second article, “It’s about treating every couple the same” author Harry Mathis feels quit the opposite. Mathis says yes “No on 8,” and speaks to the reader on a very personal level.
Charles LiMandri describes in his article how the effects of legalized gay marriage are affecting the impression of traditional marriage and also affecting schools. LiMandri talks about how legalizing gay marriage also elevates gay couples to the highest position under the law know as a “protected class.” By doing this, anytime an individual, church, teacher or business collide with the desires of a same-sex couple, actions can be instantly defined as discrimination. LiMandi also touches base with the fact that if this proposition is passed, gay couples will not just stop there but continue on in effecting our schools and what our children are taught.
LiMandri obviously does not believe in the legalization of gay marriage, his premises support this. Firstly, he talks about a teacher took her class to see her marry her lesbian partner, and how the pictures of the children’s faces created an image Californians would not forget. He argues here that by legalizing gay marriage not only is it effecting the lives of the couple but ultimately it is now effecting children. Secondly, LiMandri used children in his second example and described a situation in Massachusetts where a second-grade teacher introduced gay marriage to a class during story time. When the parents questioned the material, they were shot down because Massachusetts is a state where gay marriage is legal. The parents in this situation had no choice, and there child was exposed to information and a lifestyle that perhaps the parents did not agree with. Lastly, LiMandri supports his Yes on 8 opinions when he described a situation where two lesbian couples wished to be married in a Methodist church. The church reserved the right to use the building for activities that were involved with it’s beliefs, but when the couples complained to the state, New Jersey had to honor the couples wishes and punish the Methodist Church for discrimination. LaMandri strongly believes that by legalizing gay marriage we are putting gay couples on a pedestal and allowing them to do and say whatever they wish.
Harry Mathis is a father of two daughters-one happily married to a loving husband for 11 years, and the other happily married to her female partner for 16 years. Mathis’ article is very personal and persuasive. Mathis uses a lot of techniques to touch the reader and acquire a relationship with them by relating to them through family. Mathis says No on 8, and uses his personal life to display why.
In Mathis’ article you cant help but relate to him and the emotions he bestows. When thinking about our families and they lives they live, you can only hope that they will be happy, healthy and not let anyone take those things away from them. Mathis’ uses premises that are reflected in his own life. Firstly, he compares the life of his straight daughter- stable, loving and happily married, with three children. He then describes the very similar life of his lesbian daughter- stable, loving, happily married with two children. He then asks the reader that how these loves are any different, and who should tell them they should act or feel differently. Mathis’ then directs his article to the joy he was able to view from all the same-sex couples that were given the opportunity to make there love legal. Mathis feels that nobody, whatever there power, should have the right to tell somebody who they must love. He states that “both daughters deserve to have the same laws apply to each of them without discrimination.”
After reading both these articles I really had to step back and take all the information and really analyze what the authors were saying and how they were saying it. LaMandri uses a lot of “case scenarios” and talks about what he believes the negative outcomes are, of these situations. He doesn’t’ touch base about what the positives could be. For example- by allowing the class to participate in the audiences of the wedding the lesbian teaching is not painting a false picture for her students. She is allowing them insight into the real world, and by doing this she is benefiting there ability to be more open minded and allowing diversity in the world. I feel that if LaMandri was able to incorporate these types of positives outcomes his article would have been more impactful. Harry Mathis only used his personal life to serve as the backbone to his article. Although this type of writing is incredibly influential and you are able to relate to the author, it doesn’t have any credible sources or situations. Had Mathis described a situation were his daughter and her partner were discriminated by the law and how this effected her-this might have made a more powerful article. After all is said and done, I respect what each other says but still believe that gay marriage should 100% be legalized. I feel that ever person should have the right to marry whoever they love. Nobody on this planet should ever tell somebody they shouldn’t love-if we are lucky enough to find love, we should be able to display it however we feel we should.