Wolfson number 5

5) Wolfson uses this passage about the right of prisoners to marry because he believes that homosexuals looking to marry are going through the same issues currently that the criminals already worked through. He doesn’t mention the fact that they are prisoners because by hiding the truth of his story until the very end, its ads a sense of SURPRISE and GOTCHA to his telling. He tries to make it seem that he is telling a story about homosexuals. That way he is hoping to get his readers to think, wow if prisoners have the right to marry, and homosexuals are going through such a similar set of circumstances, why shouldn’t we give them the right to vote?
I personally think that to gay rights supporters it would be quite effective, as it would most likely evoke outrage that a class of citizens that can’t vote have the right over non-incarcerated homosexuals to marry. However, for those who don’t already support his way of thinking, it isn’t quite as effective. Personally, I don’t think that the two are related. It’s almost the apple versus oranges debate. For the prisoners, their lawsuit has to deal with the right to marry behind bars, but still between a man and a woman. Gay marriage on the other hand, flies against traditional marriage in our country. In the US especially, marriage is a religious institution that has long been between a man and a woman. To allow same sex marriages would be to change a staple of life in the US while simultaneously ignoring how other groups, especially religions, feel about the topic. It might look the same on the surface, but convicts marrying and homosexuals marrying are definitely not the same thing.