What kind of marriage is this?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Clement, the problem

is if we are totally for the States' decision that there

is a marriage between two people, for the Federal

Government then to come in to say no joint return, no

marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your

spouse is very sick but you can't get leave; people -­

if that set of attributes, one might well ask, what kind

of marriage is this?

We people marry it’s for various reasons and it’s assumed that they’re hoping to benefit from the marriage. With the DOMA same-sex couples married in one state may moved to another state and no longer be recognized as married, losing the federal benefits granted to them. Justice Ginsburg makes a good argument by pointing out what we value in a marriage and questioning the moral of it.

Here, Justice Ginsburg to speaking to Mr.Clement, but her real audience goes far beyond the physical courtroom.  Justice Ginsburg is also speaking to those in the nation that care enough about DOMA to read/listen to it. When considering her very wide audience, not everyone will understand the abstruse way of the court, the jargon, or many of the other cases that are constantly being referred to.

When Justice Ginsburg makes her argument or raises her point, she starts out with the big picture moving down the smaller picture. She goes into the specifics as she mentions joint return, marital deduction and social security benefits, which is useful because most of the audience will understand what they are and their importance to marriage.  Keeping the audience in mind, the question is straight to the point. By using simple diction it avoids confusion in addition to making the question stand out.

What allows Justice Ginsburg’s argument to work is that we, as humans have feelings and certain values. When she questions what kind of marriage has ”no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits” she’s basing this on the assumption that we as people value these factors in a marriage. Aside from the marriage status and having your love for another legally recognized, it’s safe to say that the federal benefits granted in marriage is what makes it so appealing. It can be argued that loving one another is enough for a marriage but when “your spouse is very sick” and “you can't get leave” those benefits be a lot more vital. The warrants for her claims are valid as well leading the audience to admit that such a marriage isn’t much of a marriage.

The tone is professional but also personal towards the end where it hits home. She uses examples that the audience can easily relate to that really raises the importance of the question. Most of the arguments against DOMA are that it’s unconstitutional and unfair for the reason that a couple may be married but receive nothing from it.  This question also challenges the defenders of the DOMA on what they believe marriage is. If they believe that it’s the federal benefits that are really the foundation for marriage then to deny them to a same-sex couples that is already married is really questionable  to whether or not it’s constitutional.