Prop 8 Rhetorical Analysis

Prop 8 is a proposition that eliminates the right for same-sex marriage in California, voted for by the people in 2008. Throughout this essay, I will introduce Ron Prentice, Samuel Thoron, Ellyne Bell, and Dr. Jane Anderson along with their arguments and rebuttals pertaining to prop 8; with the main question being, why should or shouldn’t prop 8 be passed in California? I will also provide a rhetorical précis for each argument and rebuttal on prop 8 in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the writer’s rhetorical strategies and go into depth their use of ethos, pathos, and logos. In their argument in favor of proposition 8, President of the California Family Council Ron Prentice and others argues that the proposition will restore the meaning of marriage and protect children from being taught that “same-sex marriage” is no different from traditional female-male marriage. He supports his claim through ethos by including the voices of multiple authors in order to reach a variety of people, through pathos by repeating words and involving children in his argument to catch the hearts of readers, and through …show more content…
Prentice and Anderson includes a lot of logos, such as over 61% of voters have previously passed the proposition. They also write “YES” a lot in their arguments in order to try to sway voters to vote in favor of the proposition. All four authors on prop 8 use a large variety of capitalization in their writings to emphasize important points that they are trying to bring out to the readers on where they stand. They also bring up children multiple times to express their protectiveness over how they should be raised and what type of environment would be suitable for them. The writers are all professional and detail-oriented in what they say to provide as much information as they can to those who aren’t fully aware and to try to pull them towards their