Stage 8

For my second critique of a colleagues work, I reviewed Kali Mellor’s editorial on how she felt the government has been overreaching into the state and local governments. She begins her article with a blunt statement that out national government struggles with “staying out of our business.” She elaborates that she feels her main concern is the national government’s control over marriage. While she states that the government is over-controlling marriage, she makes a somewhat irrelevant claim that religions are being attacked by the government for not engaging with same sex marriages. I didn’t feel as though this was a legitimate claim, as there was little evidence to back up this claim of religious persecution. I personally, have never witnessed the government attack religions over their opposition to gay marriage, and I felt like bringing up social groups was completely irrelevant to her original claim that the national government is overreaching into state governments. I didn’t understand the connection between her claim that the federal government is “way to close” to state and local governments, and her claim that religions are being attacked by social groups for opposition to gay marriage, and I thought her reasoning was flawed. She did not ever indicate what laws or mandates she was referring to when she stated “the government should stay out of marriages in general.” Because she brought up same sex marriage, I almost feel as though she is referring to the legalization of gay marriage just a few years ago. If so, I strongly disagree with her. How can allowing gay Americans to marry constitute as “federal government getting way too close to state and local governments”? The connection is completely unrelated. If anything, the legalization allowed for greater freedoms in America and pushed us towards less government control over marriage. She states that the government is “here to simply lay down the laws and enforce them.” Was legalizing gay marriage not just that? Laying down the law? Is it not the government’s job to change and develop laws to serve the changing desires of the people? She articulates that it is not the government’s job to control “every aspect of our personal decisions.” I completely fail to see her point, as legalization of gay marriage was the OPPOSITE of controlling every aspect of our personal decisions. She says that she lives by “if what you are doing does not affect me, I do not care.” This is quite contrary to everything else she is saying, if she believes that the advent of gay marriage rights was an act of an overreaching government. How does allowing gay people to marry affect her? She says that “it is becoming harder to say we life in the land of the free.” How does finally allowing gay people to marry make America less free? If anything, this act extended freedom to a minority group that has had their rights limited all throughout history. I had many issues with this editorial and little respect for the author and her ignorant opinions.