California gay marriage vote negates fundamental freedom

The day after the election, I woke up invincible; Barack Obama was elected to serve as the president of the United States of America. The voting population looked past the color of the man's skin and voted for him based upon merit.

However, my restored faith in humanity was short-lived. "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible," declared Obama on Nov. 4, "who still wonders if the dream of ... Full Story »

Posted by Dale Penn

See All Reviews »

Review

Michael Bugeja
3.6
by Michael Bugeja - Nov. 14, 2008

The writing of this op-ed on the short-lived thrill of Barack Obama's election--only to experience disappointment at California's vote on Proposition 8, restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman--is a poignant reminder that equal rights for all, in this case rites of marriage, have not yet been fully achieved. The high school senior gets wrong the history of marriage, associated with religion, and she should have informed her opinion with more research on that count, as she would have been able to dismiss arguments on procreation--at the root of why marriage has been consigned to man and woman. The writer's argument, partly based on her thesis on the pursuit of happiness, would have been stronger had she added a legal analysis based on the United States separating church and state. On that point, the courts may inevitably turn, even when people do not, concerning fundamental rights.

I believe that the pursuit of happiness is the legal key to legalizing gay marriage, and in this, the author as student journalist should be complimented.

See All Reviews »

Michael's Rating

Overall
3.6

Good
from 16 answers
Quality
3.6
Information
4.0
Insight
4.0
Style
4.0
Accuracy
2.0
Balance
2.0
Context
3.0
Depth
2.0
Enterprise
4.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »