AP English Language and Composition Free-Response Questions
Question 1: Synthesis Essay
Directions: The following prompt is based on the accompanying sources.
This question requires you to synthesize a variety of sources into a coherent, well-written essay.
Synthesis refers to combining the sources and your position to form a cohesive, supported
argument and accurately citing sources. Your argument should be central; the sources should
support this argument. Avoid merely summarizing sources.
Remember to attribute both direct and indirect citations.
Introduction
Same-sex marriage permits couples of the same gender to enter legally-recognized marriages and
provides them with the same legal rights as couples in heterosexual marriages. Opponents of
same-sex marriage argue that the institution of marriage should apply only to unions between
one man and one woman. Some who object to same-sex marriage support the idea of civil
unions, rather than full marriage, for same-sex couples. But advocates say that such unions are
not fully equivalent to marriage and deprive same-sex couples of equal rights.
Assignment
Read the following sources (including the introductory information) carefully. Then, write an
essay in which you develop a position (support, refute, qualify) on the issue of same-sex
marriages. Synthesize at least three of the sources for support.
You may refer to the sources by their titles (Source A, Source B, etc.) or by the descriptions in
parentheses.
Source A (Smith)
Source B (Bilicki)
Source C (Krauthammer)
Source D (Musgrave)
Source E (Johnson)
AP English Language and Composition Free-Response Questions
Source A
Smith, John. "same-sex marriage." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010.
Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Oct. 2010
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/753687/same
sex-marriage>.
Early in 2008 the Supreme Courts of two states—California and Connecticut—struck down state
laws limiting marriage to the union between a man and a woman. Later in 2008 the voters in
California passed a referendum, Proposition 8, that defined marriage as a union between a man
and a woman. Proposition 8 subsequently was ruled unconstitutional in federal court in August
2010—on the grounds that the prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the due process and
equal protection clauses—though advocates of the referendum quickly appealed the decision.
Referenda similar to California’s Proposition 8 were approved in Arizona and Florida in 2008. In
April 2009 the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a state law that barred gay marriage, and soon
afterward the legislatures of Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire legalized same-sex
marriage—though in November 2009 Maine voters repealed the law. In March 2010
Washington, D.C., became the sixth place in the United States in which same-sex marriage was
legal. Not being a state, the nation’s capital had to wait for congressional review to validate the
law signed in December 2009.
In addition, some U.S. states addressed the issue of gay adoption. In 2008 Arkansas voters
prohibited same-sex couples from adopting or fostering children; Mississippi and Utah also
prohibit gay adoption. Also in 2008 the Florida Circuit Court ruled that a state law prohibiting
gay adoption was unconstitutional.
In countries where consensus has yet to be reached on this issue, the debate is unlikely to be
resolved quickly or easily. In some parts of the world, such as those plagued by war or natural
disasters, same-sex marriage is simply not an urgent matter. In others, the broad spectrum of
notions about sexuality and the purpose of marriage is compounded by national pluralism and a
tendency for secularism and religiosity to intersect in complex and unexpected ways.
AP English Language and Composition Free-Response Questions
Source B
Bilicki, Justin. Gay Marriage Debate. www.CartoonStock.com.
AP English Language and Composition Free-Response Questions
Source C
Krauthammer, Charles. "The United States Does Not Need a Federal
Marriage Amendment." Homosexuality. Ed. Auriana Ojeda.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints.
Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.
When one state, such as Massachusetts, adopts gay marriage, the full-faith-and-credit clause of
the Constitution might reasonably be applied to require other states to recognize such marriages,
and thus, essentially force it upon the rest of the nation. Federalism, however, is meant to allow
states the autonomy of social experimentation (as with Oregon's legalization of assisted suicide)
from which other states can learn. It is not intended to force other states to follow.
But it turns out that the Massachusetts experiment has not been forced on other states. No courts
have required other states to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts. Gay activists
have not pushed it, wisely calculating that it would lead to a huge backlash. Moreover,
Congress's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) explicitly prevents the state-to-state export of gay
marriage.
Should DOMA be overturned, that would justify a constitutional amendment to prevent one state
from imposing its will on the other forty-nine. But it has not been overturned. And under the
current Supreme Court, it is unlikely to be. The Marriage Protection Amendment is therefore
superfluous.
AP English Language and Composition Free-Response Questions
Source D
Musgrave, Marilyn. "The United States Needs a Federal Marriage
Amendment." Homosexuality. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego:
Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing
Viewpoints In Context. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.
Others have asked why we need this amendment given that courts in New York, Georgia, and
Nebraska have recently turned back challenges to traditional marriage. I just would like to say
these decisions simply do not settle the issues. Cases in New Jersey and Washington, to name
only two of many, remain pending.
Additionally, the Massachusetts Supreme Court's Goodridge decision legalizing same-sex
marriage in that State continues to stand. Just last week, legislators in Massachusetts put off a
measure to give the people the opportunity to decide this issue for themselves. While the
Goodridge case remains on the books, court dockets all over the country will continue to be
ensnarled with same-sex marriage litigation as opponents of traditional marriage continue to
fight to expand their agenda to the rest of the country.
While recent court victories are not unimportant, the ultimate court test, the test in the United
States Supreme Court, is still on the horizon. And legal experts agree at least four and probably
five of the members of that court will act to overturn traditional marriage across America. That is
why most legal experts expect DOMA [the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act] to fall once a
challenge finally reaches the high court, which is why it would be the very height of foolishness
to rely on the Supreme Court to protect marriage. Sadly, that August tribunal is part of the
problem. Justice [Antonin] Scalia has already warned us that the Court's 2003 Lawrence decision
was only the beginning of a road at the end of which is a radical redefinition of marriage at the
hands of the Court.
Does anyone else see the irony in the opponents of this bill calling on us to wait until the
Supreme Court rules before deciding this issue? Many of those who protested the loudest that
DOMA was unconstitutional when it was enacted in 1996 are today the ones who say we ought
to presume DOMA is constitutional until the high court tells us otherwise.
AP English Language and Composition Free-Response Questions
Source E
Johnson, James. "The case for marriage." National Review 20 Sept.
2010: 16. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 14 Oct.
2010.
IF it is true, as we are constantly told, that American law will soon redefine marriage to
accommodate same-sex partnerships, the proximate cause for this development will not be that
public opinion favors it, although it appears to be moving in that direction. It will be that the
most influential Americans, particularly those in law and the media, have been coming
increasingly to regard opposition to samesex marriage as irrational at best and bigoted at worst.
They therefore dismiss expressions of that opposition, even when voiced by a majority in a
progressive state, as illegitimate. Judges who believe that same-sex marriage is obviously just
and right can easily find ways to read their views into constitutions, to the applause of the likeminded.
The emerging elite consensus in favor of same-sex marriage has an element of self-delusion
about it. It denies that same-sex marriage would work a radical change in American law or
society, insisting to the contrary that within a few years of its triumph everyone will wonder
what all the fuss was about. But its simultaneous insistence that opponents are the moral
equivalent of the white supremacists of yesteryear belies these bland assurances. Our tolerance
for racism is quite limited: The government, while it generally respects the relevant
constitutional limits, is active in the cause of marginalizing racists and eradicating racist beliefs
and behaviors. Moreover, social sanctions against racism, both overt and implied, are robust. If
our society is truly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as equivalent to racism, it will
have to undergo change both dramatic and extensive.