The State of Our Unions

Excellent commentary. I am a lifelong conservative, heterosexual, married, father of four. I have always found myself arguing with my conservative friends and family when it comes to gays, gay marriages, etc. I can never figure out what they are scared of that they cannot cope with this segment of our society. I couldn't agree with this article more. Keep up the good work, Mr. Sullivan.

There is one very good reason why a constitutional amendment is being proposed for the protection of marriage: It's called separation of church and state. While this separation notion has been misused from the Founders intent, it's where we are in American jurisprudence today. It should not be necessary for the federal government to be involved in this issue. Marriage, according to scripture--yes, Christianity imposes itself once again--is holy. It is ordained by God between one woman and one man. The Catholics made it a sacrament, which means it's very holy. Marriage between one man and one woman is the institution on which our society has been ordered. There are a variety of reasons why this is so and should be obvious to even the casual observer.

You speak of responsibility in your article. No one would argue the necessity of responsible actions in any situation. In my opinion, the point that is being missed is when choices are made--whatever they may be--there are consequences. You mention protection under the law in the event a partner dies or is incapacitated. There are legal solutions to provide for your wishes without marriage. Single people, for eons have made binding, legal disbursements of their worldly possessions without being married.

With all due respect, no one really cares what you or anyone else does when your door is closed. What many of us object to however, is this revisionist mentality to throw out anything we don't like at the moment. There is one supreme law for many of us; we will not add to it nor take away from it. It's just the way it is.

Marriage as an institution is endorsed by the state and blessed by religion. Why? Because it's the best guarantee civilization has that its children will grow up in stable homes.

I have nothing against civil unions for gay couples. But let me warn you, Mr. Sullivan--the wedding is romantic, the honeymoon is romantic, the day-to-day life in a marriage is not romantic precisely because it's an institution.

Anyone in a long term marriage, and who's willing to be candid, will tell you that marriage is work, mostly, I think, because that license introduces a whole new set of expectations.

If you want to marry "the boyfriend" (yes, I read your blog) because you want to share health care, and property, then you're going into a civil union with the right attitude.

I feel like I'm a nation with nukes, warning a nation without nukes--I know you think it's a good idea but you don't know what you're getting into.

Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage? Because it is wrong! God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Also, just because some misguided judges said it was OK for gays to commit sodomy doesn't make it OK. Read the first chapter of Romans (especially the last few verses). Popular opinion is not necessarily the best marker of right and wrong. You are trying to justify something that is wrong by citing opinion polls. Sounds like Bill Clinton to me.

I kept reading this article expecting to see the obvious answer to the question that was repeated again and again. Why do conservatives oppose gay marriages even now that they are legal? No matter how you try to obscure or rewrite its history, this country was founded on Judeo/Christian principals and morals. Homosexuality is a sin. It's that simple. Taking into consideration that you are either a practicing Christian or Jew, and you had to choose between the law of God or man, which would you choose? When the time comes and you meet your Creator, are you clever enough to convince Him that you had to be politically correct.

While I agree with the concept of gay marriage, I have to object to your main argument: "For if homosexuals are no longer criminals for having consensual private relationships, then they cannot be dismissed as somehow alien or peripheral to our civil society."

There are plenty of people who live 100% within the law and yet are socially ostracized. Members of the KKK, for example, can go on and on with their crud all they want, but unless they act on it, it's legal. You fully embrace them? (Don't get me wrong, I'd never compare the KKK to homosexual rights, I'm just pointing out the absurdity I see in your argument.)

There are many reasons why gay marriage is a great idea, and you've listed most of them. However, no one seems to talk about the #1 benefit of gay marriage: license fees! That's right, to get married you have to pay money to city hall. It's not fair that gay people who love each other are somehow exempt from this tax, while 'God-fearing straight people' are punished with it!

I am not sure why Mr. Sullivan is so puzzled by the social conservative response to homosexual unions. Conservative principles are not difficult to understand. We are generally pretty simple-minded. We abhor Balkanization via labeling everyone. The two men who live next door to me are great neighbors. The fact that they are gay does not make them "great homosexual neighbors." The fact that one of my good friends happens to be of a different skin tone does not change his status to "good African-American friend." Everyone should be treated based on his unique talents and abilities not "protected class."

The institution of marriage has been given special status for eons because the stability of society depends on that special commitment between a man and a woman which comes only from a family established through heterosexual union.

Nothing radical here. Is this really so tough to understand?

What Mr. Sullivan refuses to see is that extending marriage to homosexuals is not an extension of basic civil rights, it is the creation of special privileges to a minority, based on that group's actions towards changing definitions and trying to convince society to join them in their delusional state.

This is evident, as well as Mr. Sullivan's lack of honesty in his argument, by his slipping in of the word "spouse" in the sixth paragraph after giving a slowly persuasive, straw man argument against those who are merely stating reality, but whom he would have you believe are inconsistent, bigoted and simpleminded.

Mr. Sullivan should be open to honest, reasoned and clear debate. He must also realize that if he loses such debate, maybe it is his ideas that are flawed.

Thank you for your time.

I am not gay, happily married for 14 years, and strongly support marriage for homosexual couples. From my conversations about this issue with numerous conservatives, I can find only one core basis for objection to gay marriage--religious belief. Yet marriage exists in two arenas in America: church and government. Neither recognizes the authority of the other. A church marriage is not sufficient for legal purposes for any couple--they still must complete paperwork and pay fees to achieve a legal marriage. And no church recognizes a legal marriage as a marriage in the eyes of God. If we want to continue a free America with the rule of law providing justice for all, we cannot let our government become a theocracy. Providing a legal basis for gay couples to marry and take responsibility for each other, as Mr. Sullivan argues so well, in no way requires any church to offer or recognize gay marriage. There is simply no rational reason to deny equal rights to gay people in America.

There are two main reasons for opposing gay marriages and the endorsement of gay relationships as a matter of public policy:

First, the supreme problem before any society is the perpetuation of its traditions and values, and that can be done only by a man and woman bearing children to create the next generation. Gay relationships are by definition barren, and cannot solve this problem. Indeed, the truly supreme problem before the human race as a species is its continuation of the line, and gay relationships detract from this by removing two members from the principal task they have during their short stay on this earth: To reproduce.

Second, the gay life style is associated with a one to two decade drop in life expectancy. Public policy should not encourage life styles that lower what is already a short span of years and burden the present generation with unhealthy individuals that require extraordinary support and by doing so impede society's advance.

Public policy does not have as its goal what is good for the individual. Rather, it shapes the environment within which we all interact for the larger purposes of society as a whole. In this regard, there is nothing more important than the continuation of our culture and civilization and the perpetuation of mankind.

There are of course other reasons for opposing any endorsement of gay relationships. But these two reasons are so overriding that they must prevail in any discussion of public policy.

Thank you Mr. Sullivan, for a cogent, logical argument in favor of legalized gay marriage. I am a straight, conservative, mini-van-driving, suburban soccer-mom who is in favor of gay marriage. Conservative justifications for blocking this movement are drawn from the same Biblical authority formerly used to keep women from voting and racial minorities from school. It is an embarrassing, hypocritical, and intellectually bereft position that is also ultimately socially detrimental, as Mr. Sullivan so effectively points out.

For much of the early history of this country it was against the law for blacks to have relationships with whites and of course they could not marry. As the criminality was removed from those relationships, blacks and whites were permitted to marry, although public acceptance is still lagging behind. I hope that the hatred and bigotry of race does not find a comfortable place in the issue of sexual preference. In a country often lacking in personal commitment, marriage of any two people is an affirmation of all that is good and positive.

I disagree with your position about gay marriage. The traditional historical context of marriage is between a man and a woman. All societies are built upon this basic historical position. To allow deviations from this historical context is to undermine a basic building of a healthy society.

One of the anti-gay-marriage contentions I don't understand is the threat that if gays marry, it will destroy society's basic family unit--or something like that. I don't see how allowing gays to wed will somehow prevent heterosexuals from continuing to marry and rear families, but then I am a simple product of the Texas school system.

In homage to something my grandmother once told an aunt of mine, why shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to marry, and create a hell of their own?

As a conservative and a Christian I can tell you what the main issue is for me in giving all these rights to homosexuals. It has to do with my rights. I anticipate that in the near future it will be also discriminating or hate speech to speak out against the sin of sodomy. As a Christian I must speak against sin and for repentance. I also can anticipate a time when religious institutions will be forced to hire homosexuals--even to perhaps have some quota that so many of your pastors must be homosexual or some such thing. This is where it all seems headed.

What will result is that homosexuals will be given their freedoms but Christians will lose theirs. The right to free speech and free practice of religion are what is at stake and I don't understand why this is never addressed in the media as truly that is the issue in this whole thing.

I don't want to criminalize this behavior but I do want to have the right to disagree and say so and the right to not have to rent a room in my home to a gay couple, and the right to tell my children that some things are wrong. What happens when gays are given all the rights they want? As I said, I will lose mine as will all Christians who are faithful to the Scriptural teachings. There simply cannot exist both equality for gays and freedom of speech/religion.

Marriage has come to be two different things. In at least the Catholic church it is a sacrament of service. It means that as a married person your commitment in life is to your spouse and the children the union produces.

In secular society it means a contract. A very unusual contract at that. Live together a certain length of time you may or may not be "married" depending on the state. It is a means of organizing wills and insurance policies, it changes the way social security and other government handouts are made. It establishes some level of responsibility for children. Finally a civil "marriage" can be ended in 20 minutes at the courthouse if both parties agree.

I am aware of at least one couple who is married in the church but does not marry in the secular world because of loss of benefits and higher tax rates. I am aware of many others with secular "marriages" that do not get their vows blessed in church because of not believing in G_d.

The solution first is to get the government out of the "marriage" business. It is inconsistent and mostly meaningless. Instead there should be some level of guardianship where the guardian can make medical decisions, assign benefits etc.

That would leave the church marriage as a sign of commitment beyond the civil status. It will still mean a solemn sacrament within the church.

Specifically on homosexuals as a secular society we need to know where do we draw the line for moral purposes. Should there be any moral laws about adultery, polygamy, incest, relations between children, adults and children, humans and animals? Do we allow sex or nudity in public? All of the laws against these activities have a religious foundation. Should the all be thrown out on the mythical "separation of church and state."

As a religious person, I believe that much of the homosexual lifestyle is sinful but so is much of mine. My duty is to repent of the sin, seek to do good and spread the gospel. I also am to encourage them to do the same. However, I cannot say that their relationship, or one that is adulterous, cohabitation, or involves something else is the same as the sacramental marriage that forms the foundation of society. Therefore I cannot honor their commitment in the same way as the commitment between man and wife.

To make an answer to your query of the question, "Why not allow gays to have marriage and the advantages it bestows?" let me say simply that marriage is an institution, by definition, that occurs between a man and a woman with the basic societal idea of forming a family to have children to continue the race. This may be an irritatingly simple (and somewhat in the way of some people's primary goals) definition, but it is a true one. Gays may have a union of sorts, but marriage is not one of the terms to describe it.

Marriage can be two parts, legal and religious. It can be completely logical for the state to recognize a legal marriage while the church can deny a religious union. Fine. Religions have their rules.

Why is it that we heterosexuals have the misguided notion that we occupy higher moral ground than homosexuals? We don't. In fact, by our exclusionary biases against this segment of society we illustrate our fears, prejudices and ignorance.

Homosexuality is not a threat to conservatism in America. Liberalism is. Homosexuality is not akin to liberalism any more than being Black is akin to liberalism. It's a birth phenomena not a choice.

Allow gays to marry.

Allow gays to raise their children.

Allow gays to adopt.

Keep the government out of consenting bedrooms.

Good luck with the fight Mr. Sullivan.

If Mr. Sullivan cannot be honest about the problem, how can he expect an honest solution. Social conservatives do not make laws. Unless the gay community outs its alleged supporters in the various legislatures, there will never be significant progress.

There will be another "debate" among the Democratic candidates for president this Thursday. So far, Mr. Sullivan's issues have received the Clintonian don't ask/don't tell treatment. Isn't it time that each candidate is called on to publicly declare his/her position on this important issue? Or are some issues better left in the closet.

I have no objection to homosexual couples filing joint tax returns, or sharing pension benefits, and so on. I do have deep misgivings about allowing them to adopt children, but in the U.S. that issue has been settled (at least temporarily).

I find myself drawing the line simply at the use of the word "marriage" to describe the living arrangements of homosexual couples. I don't much care whether those arrangements are labeled "civil unions" or something else, but I want the label to indicate a difference from the arrangements we have called "marriage."

Why make an issue of the use of a word? Because different things need different names. I think anthropologists would tell us that the testimony over space and time has been that, overwhelmingly, humans have seen a world of difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual arrangements. Mr. Sullivan's argument is not with contemporary American social conservatives, but rather with the almost unanimous voice of people in most times and places.

I urge Mr. Sullivan to be content. The U.S. has seen several changes he has welcomed, and he has had the satisfaction of seeing the word "progress" applied to those changes. Leave the word "marriage" alone. Don't ask us to agree that we can no longer see much difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual arrangements--that difference has always been obvious, it is one of the things we cannot not know.

How you choose to live your life as an individual is none of my concern and I respect your choices, but how it effects society as a whole, all of us collectively, is and should be society's concern. When it involves marriage, military service, children, etc., it does effect us all. Morality aside, it seems to me that societies are like living organisms that require certain key elements to be healthy, sort of like laws of nature. Some form of marriage between a man and woman is one of them, involving children and a protective, nurturing environment in which they are born and can grow. This effects society as a whole. Military service also effects us all. How soldiers conduct themselves and how that conduct effects performance of required duties is vitally important. So, the extent to which your lifestyle impacts society as a whole, that is an issue, not so much the lifestyle itself. Am I making any sense?

Marriage is a natural action between a man and a women which overwhelmingly leads to children. When gays can have children naturally then we can talk about them being married. Please do not tell me that being gay is natural. Yes they may be born that way or become gay later on in life but it is not the natural way because they cannot have children on their own.

If the Republicans endorse gay marriage they can kiss the religious right and the Bible Belt goodbye. The same way the Dems lost the South after the '65 civil rights signing.