Jordan Brown

English 1010/ MWF/ 0800-0850

25 September 2015
Rhetorical Analysis Essay, Final, Article 1
Its not necessarily a good thing to misinterpret a situation. In the article Kim Davis like
Wallace, not King by Van Jones, Jones overall argument is that the opposition to same sex
marriage should not be compared to the supporters of the civil rights movement. Jones intends to
educate those who view Kim Davis (the Kentucky clerk who denied marriage licenses to same
sex couples in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court based on her religious/personal beliefs) as a
hero, as the exact opposite. The article is faulty and heres why.
Jones states a personal opinion in the article saying: I, too, believe that each individual
has the moral duty to defy any law that he or she deems unjust. It seems Jones agrees with Kim
Davis actions. This statement detracts from what the perception of the articles title is trying to
point out. Its unclear what the author is truly supportive of.
A second thing to consider is the inaccurate comparison of Kim Davis to former
Alabama Governor, George Wallace. Wallace was an ardent segregationist Jones writes,
meanwhile there is nothing in the article suggesting Kim Davis is against the integration of racial
groups. The actions of Kim Davis pale in comparison to George Wallace. Wallaces goal was to
oppress a certain races basic human rights, whereas Davis goal was not.
Nowadays its debatable whether or not one is born with a certain sexual orientation, but
when it comes to being born of a certain race, the debate is nonexistent. Dr. Martin Luther King

Jr. never chose his race, its something he was born into and something he could never change.
Sexual orientation is not comparable to having more or less melanin in ones epidermis. It is
more comparable to choosing which restaurant to eat at. It is the psychosocial versus the
physical. Two completely separate dimensions.
Lastly, the tone of the article is misleading. Jones writes, Kim Davis is the living heir to
the long tradition of local segregationists, whom King specifically denounced at the 1963 March
on Washington. Jones is quite the antagonist. A sentence later Jones writes, The key to
nonviolent civil disobedience is the willingness to step forward honestly and accept all the
consequences, legal and otherwise, for one's stand. Kim Davis and her supporters should do so.
One of the consequences is that future generations will view her as exactly the same kind of
person Wallace was. Its not clear whether we should dislike Kim Davis for how she acted or
feel sympathy for her because future generations will view her as exactly the same kind of
person Wallace was. Unless one claims that their race is superior to anothers, no one should be
viewed as exactly the way George Wallace was viewed.
Hopefully not everyone is convinced right away after reading this article. Jones summed
up statement saying that individuals have a moral duty to defy a law that is unjust contradicts her
title and perceived argument; the comparison between the civil rights movement and the
opposition to same sex marriage is a truly bad comparison; and Kim Davis is hardly like
Wallace.