Summary-à Peter Sprigg, a writer for
USA TODAY debates the issue of same sex marriage.  The editorial title is “Opposing View: No Wedding, No Benefits.”  The major point of this article is that only married couples deserve financial support from society.  “Society gives “benefits” to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society.”(Sprigg par.1)  The benefits that the author is speaking of are children.  “Only the union of a man and a woman can result in the natural reproduction that is essential literally to continue the human race.”(Sprigg par.2)  Research shows that married men and women—and children raised by their married, biological mother and father—are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than people living in any other living situations.  These things are the “benefits” of marriage. 
Michigan voters adopted an amendment saying, “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement for any purpose” (Sprigg par.6).  “It was clear that the states recognition of a “domestic partnership,” created for the purpose of obtaining state-sponsored health insurance benefits would be illegal.”(Sprigg par.6).  

Commentary-à I am in full agreement with what the author is saying.  I too, am a firm believer in the fact that children are happier when they live with their married, biological parents.  
Michigan clearly drew the line when they stated that marriage is for one man and one woman.  I pat the voters on the back for stepping up to the plate and swinging for what they believed in.  To me it would make no sense for the state taxpayers to fund the financial benefits of marriage for people who aren’t married.  Therefore, I agree with the title of the editorial: No Wedding, No Benefits.

Evaluation-à This editorial came from
USA TODAY and was written by Peter Sprigg.  
USA TODAY has grown and people around the country are using it for their research on hot topics.  Mr. Sprigg uses ethos and pathos to get the attention of the readers.  To my knowledge there were not any fallacies.

Sprigg, Peter. “Opposing View: No Wedding, No Benefits.” USA TODAY 25 June 2007. 12 Nov. 2007 <http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/06/post-6.html#more>.

Summary–> In the article Conservatives: Keep Gay Marriage Out of the Courts by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, the authors believe that Americans should leave the marriage amendments to the states and that we should not try to raise it to the higher courts.  They also believe that we should stop arguing over the situation and just let it be.  Decisions about this made by the state legislature would be in the best tradition of federalism, or the federal principle of government in which power is divided between a center authority and constituent politcal units.  “The definition of marriage is, of course, of critical importance to individuals on both side of the issue and to society at large.”  “But at least since independence, the question of who may marry and under what conditions has been the province of the state legislatures.  And it should have remained that way.” (Rivkins, David B. “Conservatives: Keep Gay Marriage Out of the Courts.” Editorial. New York Times 17 Nov. 2006.)  The importance of marriage is no more crucial than many other issues of individual autonomy and morality that have also historically been decided by the legislatures; for example, adoption and child-welfare.

 Commentary–> Although I do not agree with same sex marriage, I do agree with the authors when they say that this sitation should be left up to the state legislature instead of taking it to the higher courts.  I agree with this because if it was sent to the Supreme Court then it could come back to haunt those of us who do not agree with homosexual marriage, or homosexuality in general.  It could end up being passed through and become a law that is it legal in all stated to marry a gay couple, or be married as a gay couple.  The best thing for people who disagree with it would be to let it be taken to our state legislature and the people of the state vote for whether or not we should make it legal or illegal.

Evaluation–> The article that I chose came from the New York Times, which in  my opinion is a relieable source. The New York Times is a well known and respected newspaper.  I believe that the authors were very knowledgeable and knew what they were talking about in this article.  They used several legal terms which in my opinion took alot of research.

Rivkins, David B. “Conservatives: Keep Gay Marriage Out of the Courts.” Editorial. New York Times 17 Nov. 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/opinion/17rivkin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Welcome to Learnerblogs.org. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!