It was clear that pathos appeal was used in this film to make the arguments and claims. The appeal to emotions was apparent in the way the narrator set the scene, trying to make the audience feel the way she did the day the accident happened. She pulled the audience in to create a feeling of empathy in the audience. I think this was effective because of the nature of her story. This is why this story is effective in argument for the rights of gays.
I thought it was interesting when we were able to view the debate that took place to pass the bill. We could see the arguments used by both the opposing sides in the film. It was interesting to note that those against the bill were not using logos or ethos, but trying ineffectively to use pathos to support their claims. They compared gay union to incest and bestiality, and even tried to spark fear in the audience by stating that if this wasn't America they would use bombs to solve this issue. I thought this was interesting that they did not have more support for their arguments.
On the other hand those for the rights of gays had very direct and meaningful arguments by use of ethos, pathos, and logos. I particularly values the testimony of the older woman at the end of the viewing. She first stated how long she had been married giving ethos to her claims, then proceed to tell her views and tie those to the audience (pathos), and then used all that to provide reasoning to her claims (logos).