"... Sullivan disagrees with my contention that gay marriage is not really a civil rights issue by referring to the famous Loving v Virginia miscegenation case in which Earl Warren says, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." Sullivan then adds an addendum of his own: "The right to marry whomever you wish is a fundamental civil right." This, of course, is simply not true and in no way reflects Warren's meaning. You may not marry your sister or your pet even if you wish to, and this bar to your wishes is not considered a denial of civil rights. Because marriage is defined as a heterosexual institution, its exclusion of gay unions doesn't really qualify as a denial of rights. Gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals as long as they marry the opposite gender--as many do. If the gay marriage movement succeeds in expanding the definition of marriage to include gay unions, and if gays are then still prohibited from marrying, then we would have a clear civil rights issue. As things stand there really is no precedent or "jurisprudence" on the side of gay marriage, only on the right of all citizens to heterosexual marriage. The Loving case only made the point that interracial marriage is no bar to this right.
Sullivan then compares the old arguments against interracial marriage to my argument against gay marriage. And this points to an important theme of my argument: Racial difference is an innocuous human difference that in no way redefines the heterosexual nature of marriage or effects its procreative function. Interracial marriage has no effect on the institution of marriage. But when marriage is redefined to include homosexuality, it ends the heterosexual definition of marriage and moves marriage farther away from its grounding in procreation. It effectively makes marriage an institution more purely devoted to romantic love and adult fulfillment than to the heavier and more selfless responsibilities surrounding procreation. Of course, adult love and the responsibilities surrounding procreation are not mutually exclusive, but the gravity of marriage as an institution comes from its demand that love be negotiated through these larger responsibilities.
To be sure, there are childless heterosexual couples and homosexual couples with children. But to define an institution as important to society as marriage by exceptions to the norms of both sexual orientations--rather than by the norms themselves--makes little sense. It could be argued that marriage is quite literally an outgrowth of heterosexuality itself, an institution that follows from nature's requirement that men and women sexually merge to perpetuate the human species...
Marriage will always be heterosexual because it exists to manage the explosive natural force of male-female sex. It socializes that inherently creative force into that most fundamental of human institutions, the family. Heterosexuality is not imposed on marriage as an exclusionary ideology; it is the same thing as marriage. Homosexuality, on its own, would never generate all the complex social and cultural apparatus of family. It is impotent precisely where heterosexuality is potent; and marriage evolved out of a struggle with this potency. Without this potency, homosexuality is naturally skewed more toward adult love and fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with this. But marriage today is already declining from too much emphasis on love and too little on its role as a civilizing institution..."
"If a lie is repeated often enough, those who hear it will begin to believe that lie is the truth. Such has become the fate of fair and balanced legal academics. Some have heard for so long that homosexuality and marriage ought to be united, that many refuse to believe anything else, even when biology refutes it, the law negates it, and that statement is exposed as a lie. Many academics and other communicators have indeed closed their minds to both sides of this debate, determining there is no debate. That debate, however, is alive and well in the minds of open-minded legal academics. Although Stanford’s Law and Policy Review solicited the other articles contained in this journal issue, its refusal to publish them has allowed Regent to inherit a fabulous law review edition.
This article will introduce these well-written pieces. They are not legal research articles, but their publication is equally important. If Stanford will not publish them, Regent will gladly do so. Due to the nature of these articles, it is quite possible that the readership of this issue will be much wider than legal academia. With that readership in mind, this article, in order to more adequately introduce these pieces, will first discuss some of the fundamental concerns in discussions about homosexuality, such as what sexual orientation actually is and what it means to integrate one’s experiences of same-sex attraction into a "gay" identity in contemporary culture, as well as what it means to dis-identify with experiences of same-sex attraction. We then turn to the two most significant legal issues surrounding the debate on what it means for two persons who have integrated their experiences of same-sex attraction into a gay identity to pursue same-sex "marriage."
The purposes of this article are to understand the context of the arguments about homosexuality with respect to what it means to have integrated experiences of same-sex attraction into a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, set out the two main arguments pertaining to same-sex marriage, and to follow that discussion with an introduction of each of the other articles appearing in this journal issue.
Section I will introduce the reader to a debate about what sexual orientation actually is as well as a model of sexual identity development that takes seriously one’s personal creed or valuative framework and how that may impact subsequent identity synthesis. This will serve as a foundation for a proper understanding of what it means to then consider marriage between two persons who have integrated their experiences of same-sex attraction into a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. Section II will discuss the arguments surrounding the contention that marriage is a fundamental right and ought to be available to all citizens. Reviewing and clarifying the constitutional arguments and politically charged rhetoric is the goal of this section. Section III will discuss the sanctity of marriage argument. Postmodern legal academics purport to dismiss this argument as based purely on tradition. This section, however, will demonstrate the reasoning behind this argument, to help the general reader determine the place of the sanctity of marriage in our law today. Finally, Section IV will introduce each of the other articles contained in this issue, and state the relevance of each in this vital debate.
The objective is to clarify misconceptions and stimulate proper thinking on this crucial matter, and simply to be fair. As you read, may you approach these pieces with an open mind, and be educated in the contours of this debate as you strive for the truth..."
Related replies in this thread: 123, 143, 160, and 212.
Related links posted in the following replies in this thread: 62, 119, 124, and 275.