If only God had made Adam & Steve, instead of Adam & Eve…

Comp-II, Sec-003


In “Let Gays Marry,” Andrew Sullivan responds to conservative objections to same-sex marriages, by arguing that allowing such unions would actually promote traditional values, such as fidelity, monogamy, and love. It should logically appeal to straight conservatives, who deplore gay male promiscuity, that the declaration of Supreme Court: “A state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,” now assigns equal rights to gays and lesbians. Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at The New Republic, a magazine he edited from 1991 to 1996, and the U.S. columnist for the Sunday Times of London. He has a B.A. in modern history and modern languages from Oxford University and a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University. He lives in Washington, D.C. The real problem is that there are really only three arguments against gay marriage: One is rooted in entirely God\'s preferences, the second cites inconclusive research on its negative effects on children, and third, the integrity of a marriage as a legal document.

Sullivan effectively presents his case in a very logical fashion, calmly displaying his points, and using a statement declared by the United States Supreme Court, under which no gay men or lesbians will be considered strangers in America. They (Gays) are human beings just like you and I, “the sons and daughters of countless mothers and


fathers,” and should have the same opportunities to pursue happiness by marrying the one that they love. A natural process, where two people fall in love and decide to get married, is not any different for gay people. Therefore legalizing gay marriages does not provide gays with any special rights or place in America, but instead people will consider them to be an equal part of the society. The main idea is homosexuals should have the right to get married legally.

Sullivan does not want churches to make any change in their practice, but to allow everyone to be who he/she is, a principle that the United States was created on. Plus, the concept of marriage has changed within the past one hundred years. The inter-caste and the inter-religion marriages which were once prohibited or forbidden between couples, has now become socially acceptable. Gay marriages do not change anyone else’s rights or marriages in any way. Marriage is not just about raising children because the fact that many notable “childless heterosexual couples” exist in today’s society, such as Bob Dole and his wife Elizabeth Dole, etc. Sullivan concludes by telling the general public to accept homosexual marriages and the fact that they will not be the turning point for the downfall of all society.

Although I agree with Sullivan when he says, legalizing gay unions would not change anyone’s right to marriage, I find Bennett’s view more powerful, that it would weaken the institution of marriage, and contradict natural, moral, religious, and sexual realities. After reading Sullivan’s article, I question his credibility, as he didn’t provide enough evidence to get his point through. His approach toward his readers is with a lot of pathos, rather than logos. For example, when he states “And what we


seek is not a special place in America… to give back to our society,” it is not clear as to what he means by giving back. When he argues about the definition of marriage, Sullivan fails to see the change, which was brought about for the welfare of the people (inter-caste marriages, inter-religion marriages, etc.), consisted of a “man” and a “woman”, not two men, or two women. I would have agreed to the assertion, “the most simple, the most natural, and the most human instinct,” if it was used to prove the relationship between a male and a female. But using it to persuade about the same sex marriage doesn’t cheer me up.

To answer the question of whether gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, the question of why the institution of marriage is valued so dearly in society today must be answered. To do this, the meaning of the word marriage must be found, remembering that there are different levels in which marriage can be interpreted and/or evaluated. As with many