“Gay Marriage: A Milestone”, is an article published by the New York Times on June 26, 2011. The author of this article is not stated. This article covers the law that was passed in New York to allow the marriage of two same-sex individuals. Though this is a significant stepping stone, the federal government still does not recognize same-sex marriage; and all other states that have not passed this law, have the right to refuse the recognition of another state’s unions.
The author of this article displays some strength but more weaknesses in the writing of this article on gay marriage. The author respectfully presents both sides of the story. First, they state how same-sex marriage is now legal in New York. Then the author acknowledges there are still opposing conditions that the new law has no rights over; such as the right for certain entities to refuse a wedding or wedding party for same-sex couples. The author shows a tone in which he is for gay marriage.
This is evident in his negative tone towards everything that is still wrong with the laws and rights for same-sex marriage. I believe the tone the author uses is a strength considering they are for same-sex marriage. In this article, the author uses minimal facts, and no quotes or expert opinion to support his writing. The organization of this article is poor, in my opinion. One example of this is how the author went off topic in the second to last paragraph of the article. The author states other laws and bills that were passed during the legislative session.
Other than how the author implies that the marriage equality law was the most important of the legislative session, I do not see benefit to bringing this into the article. Overall, the article was informative and easy to read. The author did an exceptional job at stating what is still wrong with the gay marriage laws. But failed to write much about the positives and how gay marriage is “A Milestone”. I would say the article holds strong effectiveness for the average reader. But for someone who is critically reading the article, it could have been written with more depth.