An appeals court decision striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage has scrambled the legal strategies on both sides, especially about whether to seek Supreme Court review.
1. To follow up the California ban on same sex marriage, this article is on the intent of taking such a ban to the Supreme Court.
2. This ban was originally written for the state of California, but the writer would like to make it apply to all 50 states. “Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies had urged the appeals court to find that the federal Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry — a rationale that would apply in all 50 states.” Although 40 states will not allow same-sex marriage, this ban can only apply to California, and many still argue that the Constitution gives the right for same-sex couples to marry.
3. The writer’s opinion isn’t clear and is written in such a way so that the public can decide for themselves what side to take.
4. The writer does not state his opinion directly. He gives both sides of the story so that the reader can choose a side on his/her own using the facts from both ends.
6. I learn almost nothing about this columnist, as this article is solely geared to the debate of same-sex marriage.
7. This article was written for someone who enjoys dipping their feet into the controversial debate of same-sex marriage.
8. This writer didn’t sway my beliefs at all. I have always believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman and I will continue to do so. This is a topic that is very difficult to convince anyone to take your side just off of facts and personal accounts alone. Religious beliefs and upbringing also play a major role in this debate.
Via Alexis Bragg