Close Reading #2

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/opinion/another-defeat-for-the-defense-of-marriage-act.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This editorial from the New York Times is about the forthcoming defeat of the Defense of Marriage Act.  The author uses diction, detail, and syntax to support her passionate tone of opposing the act.  

The author's writing is rife with diction, perhaps the most used technique in the piece.  In the second paragraph, the author says, "Any sensible reading of the Constitution and basic fairness demand a repudiation of this discriminatory law" (para. 2 ln. 1).  The words sensible and basic give the sentence a tone like it should be obvious to anyone that this law must be removed.  At the end of the sentence, the word discriminatory brings up images of hatred and unfairness that goes against the very ideals that the United States was founded on.  Anyone reading this will feel the same opposition the author does if they have any sense of what is right and wrong.  

Detail is also a key technique present in the piece to deliver hard hitting and fact-supported blows to any differing opinions.  In the third paragraph, there is a story about a real woman getting shorted because of the Defense of Marriage Act.  The full details of the story are given when the author says, "The 2-to-1 ruling on Thursday came in the case of Edith Windsor, who married her partner of more than 40 years...and was required to pay $363,053 in estate taxes" (para. 3 ln. 1).  The author chose to include this because the implications of the law are put into a real life context with a real person with a name.  The reader can relate to the woman who suffered which further would convince them to oppose the law.  

Finally, the author uses syntax to support his/her opinion.  The clause surrounded by hyphens is used to strengthen a sentence as extra support when the author says, "It is the first federal appeals court ruling to recognize that discrimination against gay men and lesbians — like discrimination based on gender or directed against children born out of wedlock — must be subject to “heightened scrutiny”" (para. 5. ln. 1).  The author likens gay discrimination to gender discrimination by the added clause so that readers think discrimination of gays is just as severe.  Another example of use of syntax is the author's strategic quoting of government officials.  He/she says "As Judge Jacobs explained, the law is “not related to an important government interest” and gay people “are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public” (para. 6 ln. 1).  Not only does the quote support the author's opinion, the fact a judge said it adds authority and weight behind the opinion.  The reader will validate the opinion because a judge supported it.