My college report on the FMA. Please grade it

Imagine if you will, there are two people living somewhere in the United States. They love each other very much and want to get married. However they can not and they will never be able to get married or reap the benefits in a civil union which offers a couple the benefits of marriage without saying you are married. Why? It is because they are both of the same gender and if a proposal known as the Federal Marriage Amendment becomes law, they will not be able to marry, or have the benefits of it, inside the United States, ever. Is the Federal Marriage Amendment or any Amendment pertaining to marriage and gender fair? Does this Amendment discriminate against one particular group of people, or can it be destructive for all Americans? The Federal Marriage Amendment can remove not just the right of marriage for a certain group of people; it has the potential to be harmful for all Americans. Who is against this Amendment? What are the misconceptions surrounding it?

There are several Civil Rights groups opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment; and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is one of them. The NAACP is an organization that was formed to defend African Americans who were mistreated, denied the right vote, and they defended them in many other ways. The Federal Marriage Amendment appears to be a form of discrimination, so it seems pretty obvious that they would stand against it. Hilary Shelton, who is the Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau states “Adoption of this so-called Federal Marriage Amendment or any other discriminatory constitutional amendment on marriage rights would mark the first time that a constitutional amendment has denied or diminished, rather than established or expanded, civil rights for groups and individuals. It would be a dangerous and a sorry departure from a long celebrated history of the expansion of rights important to all Americans. It would also be contradictory to all that the NAACP has fought for.” Julian Bond, who is on the NAACP's board of directors, says “I see this as a civil rights issue, that means I support gay civil marriage." The NAACP is a group that has fought for Civil Rights ever since it was created, I believe they are right when it comes to this issue, and I also believe this is a Civil Rights issue.

It is also not true that all religious leaders have supported the Federal Marriage Amendment. Rev. Peter J. Gomes, he is an American Baptist Minister has stated “The way to the future is always paved by extending, not restricting, liberties, especially to those who heretofore have been excluded. The health of a republic may well be determined by its capacity to adapt itself to the extension of its own privileges and responsibilities to those whom it would be easy by custom and conviction to ignore…To extend the civil right of marriage to homosexuals will neither solve nor complicate the problems already inherent in marriage, but what it will do is permit a whole class of persons, our fellow citizens under the law heretofore irrationally deprived of a civil right, both to benefit from and participate in a valuable yet vulnerable institution which in our changing society needs all the help it can get.” And Rev. William G. Sinkford, who is the President of the Unitarian Universalist Association has stated “Allowing gay and lesbian couples to unite in civil marriage will in no way affect the religious practices of any faith community”. Not all religious leaders and religious people believe the same as these two people, but they do represent a belief that is not shown enough.

There has also been opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment from both sides of the political spectrum. John Lewis, a Democratic Congressman from Georgia has said “It is time to say forthrightly that the government's exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families. This discrimination is wrong”. There has also been opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment coming from the Conservative side, and there is a large amount more opposition to this proposed amendment than some people might think. Alan Simpson, a former Republican Senator from Wyoming has stated “I don’t think the Federal Marriage Act is appropriate. I think that minimizes the Constitution.” Chuck Hagel, a Republican Senator from Nebraska has said “I don’t think the Constitution was ever written and set up for those kinds of amendments.” John McCain, a Republican Senator from Arizona who also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment has said referring to it “My gut reaction is the most enduring contract between the government and the people should be only as a last resort amended." And finally, George Will, a Conservative Columnist has said “Amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman would be unwise…Constitutionalizing social policy is generally a misuse of fundamental law.” It is apparent that people who have different ideologies are coming together to oppose this amendment, and it transcends partisan politics.

There are many people who oppose this Amendment, and they include the people in Civil Rights groups, Religious leaders, and people who have Liberal and Conservative Ideologies. This amendment failed before, but there is a very good chance it will come back. This amendment is an infringement on our Constitution and our Rights, so let us make sure it never passes.

A+ + + + + + +!
Great job!
bhn

to pass the class I'm in.

Want some?

Please, what kind of class is this? (If it's an English class, my responses will be more related to grammar/mechanics than they would be for, say, a poly-sci class.)

And yes, please criticize as much as you need to

and I'll dig in.

/eom

How many times have you gone through the standard read-revise process on your own with this?

Please, take any advice as an attempt to help--I don't want you to feel like I'm criticizing you or your position.

I can see you've done good research and can see the underlying structure of your argument. Good job. Your intent is clear and unambiguous.

¶1--Formal papers shouldn't include the informal "you." I'd redo the intro to start as a very broad topic and narrow it down to your topic. Don't confuse "gender" with "sex"--gender is a social/perceptual classification while sex is the physical classification. Once you've identified the FMA, you might consider using the acronym.

¶2--You begin by stating that there are several civil rights (don't capitalize this) rights groups that oppose the FMA, but only refer directly to the NAACP. Consider rewriting as "Some civil rights groups, most notably the NAACP..." or something like that. The semi-colon in that sentence should be a comma. Sentence 2 is vague--I'd consider a more concrete phrasing (eg "The NAACP was founded to help defend African-Americans against discrimination, vote-intimidation, and institutional racism." Or something like that.) Sentence 4--eliminate "who" and put a comma after "states." (GREAT use of quotes!) Final sentence--reconsider using "I."

Had enough? I hope I'm not freaking you out.

...because I haven't commented on the last three paragraphs yet.

Mwah ha ha.

¶3--Present the argument and then refute it in sentence 1...maybe something like, "Some of the most vocal proponents of the FMA are religious groups, such as the Christian Coalition and Jerry Falwell's Morally-Superior-Yahoos; however, many other religious leaders do not support the amendment." Sentence 2--eliminate "he is" and add commas after "minister" and "stated." Sentence 5--Don't begin a sentence with "and"; eliminate "who is"; add commas after "association" and "stated"; final period belongs inside quote marks. Final sentence--a little weak. Consider something stronger: "While it is true that some conservative religious groups are in favor of the FMA, others see it as an attempt to deprive a minority of civil rights and protections and do not support it." I don't know--something firm.

¶4--Omit "also" from first sentence; don't use "sides" with spectrum (it's not binary.) Sentence 2--add commas after "Georgia" and "said." At the end of the quote, keep the period inside the quote marks. Sentence 6--I'd use a "lot" instead of a "large amount" (sounds like you're stretching to meet a word count.) In the following 4 sentences, you should add commas after the appositive and before the quotes.

General mechanics--agreement in ¶2 doesn't match with ¶3 & ¶4--that is, "Julian Bond says...Hilary Shelton says..." while later, Rev. Sinkford has stated...John McCain has said." See what I mean?

I might consider including (maybe in the intro?) some of the rights that same-sex couples are not afforded under the amendment.