Andrew Sullivan's 1989 "se for gay marriage" is still the bt I've ever read - Vox

Contents:

• ANDREW SULLIVAN: WHY GAY MARRIAGE IS GOOD FOR AMERI
• ANDREW SULLIVAN'S 1989 "SE FOR GAY MARRIAGE" IS STILL THE BT I'VE EVER READ
• FROM THE STACKS: ANDREW SULLIVAN ON GAY CULTURE
• ANDREW SULLIVAN ON BARACK OBAMA'S GAY MARRIAGE EVOLUTN
• THE TI THAT DIVI: A CONVERSATN ON GAY MARRIAGE WH ANDREW SULLIVAN AND GERARD BRADLEY
• ANDREW SULLIVAN: BEG GAY AND CATHOLIC
• ANDREW SULLIVAN: IF CATHOLICS CAN ACCEPT DIVORCE, THEY SHOULD ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE
• THE CASE FOR THE BAKER THE GAY-WEDDG CULTURE WAR

ANDREW SULLIVAN: WHY GAY MARRIAGE IS GOOD FOR AMERI

Last month New York, a urt led that a gay lover had the right to stay his ceased partner’s rent-ntrol apartment bee the lover qualified as a member of the ceased’s fay.

Chastened liberals (such as the New York Tim edorial page), while endorsg the regnn of gay relatnships, also worried about the abe of already stretched entlements that the lg threatened. The judge led that to all tents and purpos a gay lover is part of his lover’s fay, asmuch as a “fay” merely means an terwoven social life, emotnal mment, and some level of fancial terpennce.

Gays are not the only beneficiari; heterosexual “live-togethers” also ’s an argument, of urse, that the current legal advantag extend to married people unfairly discrimate agast people who’ve shaped their liv ls nventnal arrangements. One of the worst products of the New Right’s “fay valu” mpaign is that s extremism and hatred of diversy has disguised this more measured and more nvcg se for the importance of the maral ncept of domtic partnership ignor the ncerns, ed directly attacks them, this is a py, sce one of s most important objectiv—providg some civil regnn for gay relatnships—is a noble e and one pletely patible wh the fense of the fay. But for many other gays—my gus, a majory—while they don’t ny the importance of rebelln 20 years ago and are grateful for what was done, there’s now the sense of a new opportuny.

ANDREW SULLIVAN'S 1989 "SE FOR GAY MARRIAGE" IS STILL THE BT I'VE EVER READ

And unlike domtic partnership, harns to an already tablished social nventn the yearngs for stabily and acceptance among a fast-maturg gay marriage also plac more rponsibili upon gays: It says for the first time that gay relatnships are not better or worse than straight relatnships, and that the same is expected of them.

Legalizg gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same al society now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal advantag exchange for a eper and harr-to-extract-yourself om mment to another human beg. As has bee more acceptable for gay people to acknowledge their lov publicly, more and more have mted themselv to one another for life full view of their fai and their iends, A law stutnalizg gay marriage would merely rerce a healthy social trend.

The only possible effect of this sort would be to persua gay men and women who force themselv to heterosexual marriage (often at appallg st to themselv and their fai) to fd a foc for their fay stcts a more personally posive environment. It uld brg the sence of gay life—a gay uple—to the heart of the tradnal straight fay a way the fay n most unrstand and the gay offsprg n most easily acknowledge.

FROM THE STACKS: ANDREW SULLIVAN ON GAY CULTURE

Given the fact that we already allow legal gay relatnships, what possible social goal is advanced by amg the law to enurage the relatnships to be unfahful, unveloped, and secure?

ANDREW SULLIVAN ON BARACK OBAMA'S GAY MARRIAGE EVOLUTN

And as I experienced timacy and love for the first time as an adult, all that brtlens of the gay adolcent, all that whe-knuckled embarrassment, all those s and exc and dark, ep prsns lifted. And nservativ were termed to keep them isolatn, stigmatized and kept on an embarrassg, unmentnable marg, where gays uld be ed to buttrs the primacy of heterosexualy. But we were not talkg of relig marriage and were more than eager to sist, as New York state, on the vlable relig eedom of church, mosqu, and synagogu to reta their bans on gay marriage.

THE TI THAT DIVI: A CONVERSATN ON GAY MARRIAGE WH ANDREW SULLIVAN AND GERARD BRADLEY

And when the data showed that the era of gay marriage, straight marriage had actually strengthened somewhat, divorce rat had cled, and marriag lasted longer, even those who worried about untend nsequenc nced that the argument was sentially over. Bh's solicor general, Ted Olson, would lead the legal fight agast Proposn 8 California; that a Reagan-appoted judge, Anthony Kennedy, would be the foremost Supreme Court jtice affirmg gay and lbian equaly; and that Albany, the end, the wng vot me om Republins who voted their urse this is new and not so new.

And when we won, and got our first fact on the ground, we ed faced exactly that backlash and all the major gay rights groups refed to spend a dime on protectg the breakthrough … and we fact, we lost and lost and lost aga. Much of the gay left was eply spic of this nservative-soundg reform, two thirds of the untry were opposed; the relig right saw the issue a unique opportuny for polil leverage—and over time, they put state nstutnal amendments agast marriage equaly on the ballot untls stat, and won every time. Even polil rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated the Constutn, are sendary to the alienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursu of happs’ proclaimed the Declaratn of Inpennce; and to this tegory the right to home and marriage unqutnably re tth is what Jtice Kennedy affirmed today, for the majory: that gay people are human.

It is the most profound statement our society n make that homosexual love is simply not as good as heterosexual love; that gay liv and mments and hop are simply worth ls. No civil stutn is related to the ep human experienc more than civil marriage and the excln of gay people om this stutn was a statement of our re ferry not jt as cizens but as human begs.

ANDREW SULLIVAN: BEG GAY AND CATHOLIC

And, maybe sooner rather than later, the people who sist upon the centraly of gay marriage to every Amerin’s equaly will e to seem ls margal, or troublemakg, or ‘cultural, ’ or bent on ghettoizg themselv. I thk of the gay kids the future who, when they figure out they are different, will never know the ep psychic wound my generatn—and every one before me—lived through: the pa of knowg they uld never be fully part of their own fay, never be fully a cizen of their own untry. He seems pecially ground here Provcetown, where he first spent a summer 1989, the same year he published the ver story makg “The Case for Gay Marriage” The New Republic.

“He’s the first top-down gay figurehead who was selected by rporate media, ” said the wrer and activist Sarah Sullivan, of urse, never pretend to be a grass-roots activist. He’s a proud member of the ele, and his se for marriage was partly nservative — that would be, as he told me, a “civilizg” fluence on gay men who he believed had been emotnally damaged by discrimatn.

It’s hard to overstate his importance layg the tellectual and philosophil foundatn for the polil, philosophil and legal mpaign that culmated not jt the Supreme Court’s Obergefell cisn, but also the cultural acceptance of gay marriage that reigns ’s Sullivan’s journey and out of the Amerin right, where he went om one of the Iraq war’s most eloquent champns to one of s most feroc crics. Much of the gay left was eply spic of this nservative-soundg reform; two thirds of the untry were opposed; the relig right saw the issue a unique opportuny for polil leverage – and over time, they put state nstutnal amendments agast marriage equaly on the ballot untls stat, and won every time. I thk of the gay kids the future who, when they figure out they are different, will never know the ep psychic wound my generatn – and every one before me – lived through: the pa of knowg they uld never be fully part of their own fay, never befully a cizen of their own untry.

ANDREW SULLIVAN: IF CATHOLICS CAN ACCEPT DIVORCE, THEY SHOULD ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE

The New Republic, led by the eloquently pugnac Andrew Sullivan, first put the se for gay marriage on s ver 1989, and the magaze has been acceleratg the bate ever sce. Back 1989, Andrew Sullivan looked at an issue not unlike the on cid upon by the Supreme Court today: the right of a gay man to rema his ceased partner’s apartment. ” The argument for gay marriage, Sullivan wrote, was a “socially nservative one”: Gay marriage “avoids the ms of domtic partnership; is humane; is nservative the bt sense of the word.

THE CASE FOR THE BAKER THE GAY-WEDDG CULTURE WAR

Marriage equaly and the loss of his iends were several topics Sullivan discsed durg a vis to Cal State Northridge’s USU Grand Salon on Thursday, as he shared wh guts how he beme a lbian, gay, bisexual, transgenr, and queer (LGBTQ) activist. Even this was lculated: to have this moment occur between two Ain-Amerins would help Obama lm opposn wh parts of the black terview, by cince, me the day after North Carola voted emphatilly to ban all rights for gay upl the state nstutn.