The Ti That Divi: A Conversatn on Gay Marriage wh Andrew Sullivan and Gerard Bradley | Pew Rearch Center

Contents:

• ANDREW SULLIVAN'S 1989 "SE FOR GAY MARRIAGE" IS STILL THE BT I'VE EVER READ
• THE TI THAT DIVI: A CONVERSATN ON GAY MARRIAGE WH ANDREW SULLIVAN AND GERARD BRADLEY
• GAY MARRIAGE
• HOW GAY MARRIAGE BEME A CONSTUTNAL RIGHT
• SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
• PRO & CON QUOT: SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
• WHY GAY MARRIAG SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED? REARCH PAPER
• LEGIMACY OF ‘CTOMER’ SUPREME COURT GAY RIGHTS SE RAIS ETHIL AND LEGAL FLAGS

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

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.

” Punctuated by the Rpectable Right Wg’s sistence on personal rponsibily and social hn (read: law and orr), Sullivan’s say allowed center-left members of the Gay Rights movement to fd a wrer g nservative language to make an argument they stggled to.

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

Gay liberalism began s slow climb to the ascenncy of Constutnal rights and regnn, fdg partners rporatns and el who smelled an say way to add rabow to their ranks whout sacrificg their hold on om Call Me By Your NameAt the re of Sullivan’s argument is that marriage should be a goal to fix the crisis of HIV/AIDs and the social solatn left. The only e of “Gay Lonels” or the lack of “social hn” queer life is road to legal same-sex marriage the US was hard fought and won by activists om a variety of backgrounds, but this reform was sentially trickle-down liberatn wh the false notn that homophobia and heterosexism would disappear wh equal marriage laws.

For all of this emotn though, El and Oliver never have to ll to acunt for their behavr by a reactnary society or prott of the Gay Liberatn Front New York CyThis is important for the journeys of the characters bee El is growg up and I would argue Oliver is leechg off that nocence.

Andrew Sullivan, senr edor and former edor at The New Republic; lumnist for Time; Washgton rrponnt for the Sunday Tim of London; thor of Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexualy; edor of Same-Sex Marriage, Pro and Con; and blogger at. I e at this om a variety of viewpots, but one of the viewpots I do e om is fely a nservative one, and I believe that the abily to tegrate homosexual cizens and fay members to their own society and to their own fai is an absolutely cril moral challenge for this generatn and for future on.

GAY MARRIAGE

I’m one of those people who don’t believe that human begs should be rdoned off to certa tegori by their inty, whether be black or female or Lato or Jewish or gay or any of the other appellatns that we have managed to brg to this plited bate about inty. I thk, general, that so far as we possibly n, we should treat people as dividuals, regardls of their attribut, regardls of their inti, and that our entire polil system tradnally has sisted upon treatg people as dividuals before we treat them as gay people. ” The people are people who start every sentence wh the word “As-a, ” as “As a gay person I’d like to say, ” “As a black lbian disabled person, I’d like to say, ” “As a whe male I’d like” – Well, as a human beg, I believe that all human begs are ma the image of God, and, as cizens, serve simply the same treatment om their own ernment that every other cizen mands and assum.

There are some who argue that marriage alone is the exceptn to all the general prcipl bee marriage is about procreatn, and, by fn, homosexuals, or two homosexuals, whether they be two women or two men, nnot procreate and therefore are barred om marriage.

HOW GAY MARRIAGE BEME A CONSTUTNAL RIGHT

So the answer is simply we mand bee is ours, jt as Ain-Amerins mand equal cizenship bee was their untry, too, jt as those gay people who are out there on the ont l the ary servg their untry serve to be ngratulated and honored, not discharged and smeared and attacked when they e home, for dog somethg that we should all be very proud of. I n’t say anythg about the ternal bat wh the gay muny about what the objective of the movement ought to be, but do seem to me that even if there’s jt one person – uld be Andrew Sullivan – who wish to marry and would or has chosen someone of the same sex to be spoe, well, then the law ought to regnize that if, fact or tth, is possible, if that is a marriage. Now, at some pot our culture, most people, given the fact that more and more people know gay people and more and more people know exactly who we are, that discrepancy of stat between the extraordarily loose standards required for civil marriage, on one hand, and the absolute bar for another be such a huge gulf our culture that ’s obvly eply unfair.

BRADLEY: It’s a plsible qutn for some people some fora, but I don’t thk ’s fair to say that – and ’s fallac to thk that somehow your argument is advanced if I don’t give somehow a satisfyg acunt of what a gay life would be or uld be apart om marriage. SULLIVAN: It’s not a distractn the sense that you’re proposg an amendment the very Constutn of the Uned Stat, have helped wre such an amendment, that would bar gay people, not only om marriage but om civil unns and domtic partnerships, om any state-regnized form of protectn for their love and iendship.

Some of those hoeholds are populated by homosexuals and lbians, but probably most are not, and you ci that no longer will be an cint of marriage to sign a lease together or to execute power of attorney, or to be listed as a beneficiary on an surance policy, or anythg else.

SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?

And I have yet to hear an argument agast gay marriage that is not based eher on relig beliefs or some visceral reactn to the ia of gay sex, though as one of our legislator’s said, “If you don’t like gay sex, you should really be favor of gay marriage, bee everybody knows there’s no sex after marriage.

PRO & CON QUOT: SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?

Am I rrect that the same logic you apply to gay marriage would fact lead to the aboln of or a very substantial tighteng of laws on divorc, bee both attus are rooted the same theory of what marriage is and what is there to be protected? And I thk that the abily of two gay people, pecially people who have been so historilly margalized and beaten down and trashed and subjected to enormo amounts of pa – And distrs me that the Catholic theologians never even nod to that experience, never even give a mentn to the pa that the human begs have gone through for so many centuri.

Even those who argue n be cured – and I’ve studied them, the most extreme versns of those who thk n be cured – neverthels n see that ’s extremely hard, the amount of ndng would take to try and get a gay person to live a superficially heterosexual existence. In fact, the rather Juil reason that Profsor Bradley jt ed about legal cints, which is at least novel, I hadn’t heard that argument before, strik me as an example of that, that we will rethk how we scribe marriage whatever way we need to orr to block gays om enterg to . It is pletely fair to say, Do you also take that argument, which is the cril argument agast gay marriage, serly other areas, namely ntraceptn, no-flt divorce, et cetera, et cetera, the marriage of the fertile, to tt whether this is a prciple or whether you’re makg an exceptn for homosexualy, which rais the qutn of whether there is anim rather than prciple.

“Psychologil rearch has shown that the reasons Obama ced as havg changed his md— particular, nversatns wh his wife and dghters about their gay iends—is precisely what has persuad a bare majory of Amerins to embrace gay marriage recent years.

WHY GAY MARRIAG SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED? REARCH PAPER

Early Years: Same-Sex Marriage Bans In 1970, jt one year after the historic Stonewall Rts that galvanized the gay rights movement, law stunt Richard Baker and librarian Jam McConnell applied for a marriage license Gerald Nelson rejected their applitn bee they were a same-sex uple, and a trial urt upheld his cisn. ” This lg effectively blocked feral urts om lg on same-sex marriage for s, leavg the cisn solely the hands of stat, which alt blow after blow to those hopg to see gay marriage beg 1973, for stance, Maryland beme the first state to create a law that explicly f marriage as a unn between a man and woman, a belief held by many nservative relig groups. In 1989, the San Francis Board of Supervisors passed an ordance that allowed homosexual upl and unmarried heterosexual upl to register for domtic partnerships, which granted hospal visatn rights and other years later, the District of Columbia siarly passed a new law that allowed same-sex upl to register as domtic partners.

LEGIMACY OF ‘CTOMER’ SUPREME COURT GAY RIGHTS SE RAIS ETHIL AND LEGAL FLAGS

C., 1993, the hight urt Hawaii led that a ban on same-sex marriage may vlate that state nstutn’s Equal Protectn Clse—the first time a state urt has ever ched toward makg gay marriage Hawaii Supreme Court sent the se—brought by a gay male uple and two lbian upl who were nied marriage licens 1990—back for further review to the lower First Circu Court, which 1991 origally dismissed the the state tried to prove that there was “pellg state tert” jtifyg the ban, the se would be tied up ligatn for the next three Defense of Marriage Act Opponents of gay marriage, however, did not s on their hnch. That is, even if a state ma gay marriage legal, same-sex upl still wouldn’t be able to file e tax jotly, sponsor spo for immigratn benefs or receive spoal Social Secury payments, among many other act was a huge setback for the marriage equaly movement, but transient good news arose three months later: Hawaii Judge Kev S. Phg for Change: Civil Unns The next saw a whirlwd of activy on the gay marriage ont, begng wh the year 2000 when Vermont beme the first state to legalize civil unns, a legal stat that provis most of the state-level benefs of years later, Massachetts beme the first state to legalize gay marriage when the Massachetts Supreme Court led that same-sex upl had the right to marry Goodridge v.

Kansas and Texas were next 2005, and 2006 saw seven more stat passg Constutnal amendments agast gay towards the end of the , gay marriage beme legal var stat, cludg Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont (the first state to approve by legislative means) and New Hampshire. Domtic Partnerships Throughout the and the begng of the next, California equently ma headl for seawg on the gay marriage state was the first to pass a domtic partnership statute 1999, and legislators tried to pass a same-sex marriage bill 2005 and 2007. For the first time the untry’s history, voters (rather than judg or legislators) Mae, Maryland, and Washgton approved Constutnal amendments permtg same-sex marriage marriage also beme a feral issue 2010, Massachetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, found Sectn 3 of DOMA—the part of the 1996 law that fed marriage as a unn between one man and one woman—to be unnstutnal.

Wdsor, nservative Jtice Anthony Kennedy sid wh Jtic Ruth Bar Gsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan favor of same-sex marriage rights, ultimately makg gay marriage legal across the natn June this time, was still outlawed only 13 stat, and more than 20 other untri had already legalized gay marriage, startg wh the Netherlands December 2000. 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.