Exploring the Assumptions of Same-Sex Marriage Advocates and Opponents

The media coverage of the fight for gay rights on a national and state level has ebbed and flowed ever since Congress passed the Defense of Marriage act, which defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Two fundamental concepts underlie this issue and, I believe, are the root causes of the disagreement between anti- and pro- gay marriage groups. Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett’s arguments relative to gay marriage encapsulate these fundamental issues. While I believe that both perspectives carry significant merit, after considering both sides of the issue, I contest that denying homosexuals the right to marry ultimately violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. 

Although both Sullivan and Bennett put forward valid points, it is important to highlight the fallacies and inconsistencies built into both arguments. In Bennett’s argument, he focuses on the immutable definition of gay marriage. Bennett claims, “Broadening [the definition of marriage] to include same-sex marriage would stretch it beyond recognition” (Against Gay Marriage 272). He further suggests that if the definition were expanded to include homosexual couples, then there would be no way to exclude consenting brothers from marrying. These comments are flooded with formal, logical fallacies. First, Bennett makes an appeal to popularity to support his claim that marriage’s traditional definition. He cites the long-standing traditional perspective of marriage, which seems arbitrary and whimsical. At one point in history, denying black people fundamental rights was popular as well - as seen in the landmark Loving vs. Virginia case. Secondly, Bennett’s comment concerning consenting brothers is a classic example of a slippery slope. However, although this point is compelling, there currently are no existing groups of homosexual brothers demanding the right to marry, so the point seems moot.

The greatest fundamental flaw with Bennett’s comments is his appeal to a morality, Christian morality. This morality is personified by the ELCA. Consequently, arguing that the electorate should accept a position that can only be supported by Christian morality, or perhaps a natural law ethicist, seems to be an imposition that treads on an individual’s right to think and believe according to their dictates of their own conscience. Past these appeals, Bennett’s argument turns into pseudo-fear mongering by attempting to suggest what could happen if gays were granted the right to marry. This, I feel, undermines his own position. Bennett suggests that traditional marriage is morally right in of itself, not because of its consequences. Conversely, Bennett doesn’t contend that same-sex marriage is self-evidently immoral, but he emphasizes its potentially negative consequences. If Bennett were to analyze these two definitions congruently, then he would certainly have to conclude that traditional marriage is immoral because of its many well-established negative consequences stemming from abuse, neglect, and divorce. 

Much like Bennett’s argument, Sullivan’s argument also lends itself to a litany of inconsistencies and fallacies. Sullivan sways his audience with lofty language that attempts to exhibit the potential positive consequences of same-sex marriage. Sullivan initially approaches the issue from the inability of conservatives to establish a compelling state interest in denying gays the right to marry. Sullivan posits that conservatives cannot claim that gay marriage will precipitate the collapse of stable family life because “no evidence that shoes any deleterious impact on children brought up by two homosexual parents” (For Gay Marriage 268). He also claims that evidence exists that reflects the opposite. However, Sullivan fails to cite any studies, which damages his credibility. This former statement by Sullivan constitutes a classic example of an argument from ignorance. Just because no studies exist that refute Sullivan’s claim doesn’t ensure that his claim is empirically true, especially given the lack of studies relative to the issue when Sullivan wrote his article. 

Another glaring hole in Sullivan’s argument is the myriad of assumptions he makes. Foremost, Sullivan proposes that a positive outcome of legalizing same-sex marriage would include gay children, “At last there would be some kind of future; some older faces to apply to their unfolding lives, some language in which their identity could be properly discussed…” (For Gay Marriage 268). Sullivan takes a giant leap by assuming children are born gay. In 2013, the jury is still out on this issue, and, when Sullivan wrote his book in 1995, the jury had not even began deliberating. Consequently, a fundamental premise of his argument is undermined. 

As I consider the validity of these two arguments, I tend to side with Sullivan. However, both arguments offer a consequentialist perspective to support their arguments, which does not establish traditional marriage or same-sex marriage as intrinsically moral or immoral. It seems that societies movement toward moral relativism will make proving that either of these traditions are correct per se impossible. Moreover, I feel that the greatest argument against gay marriage stems from the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The 10th Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (10th Amendment). One of these powers not enumerated to the federal government includes the ability to decide marriage policy, so this decision is left to the individual states. Many states, most recently California, have decided that their definition of marriage only includes one man and one woman. Justice Anthony Kennedy alluded to this concept while hearing oral arguments, suggesting that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act might impose of this reserved, state power (Bravin). Even if this notion proves correct, it seems apparent that that any ban on same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution. 

The Equal Protection Clause reads as follows, “[no] state [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”(14th Amendment). Going back to the principle of providing a compelling state interest to deny individuals a particular right, it seems that conservative arguments lack the evidence to establish that gay marriage would definitely harm society. In fact, 

Research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system (Pappas).

Based on these studies, the notion that children are somehow worse off being raised by homosexual parents is unfounded and only supported by Christian morality, which is unfair to impose onto an entire segment of society. 

The United States is no longer a homogenous group of Caucasian Christians. Consequently, the foundational argument against the morality of same-sex marriage has been compromised. Moreover, there does not seem to be a convincing argument to support the idea that banning gay marriage does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. While I respect the 10th Amendment and the right of each State to choose its own public policy, I am convinced that banning homosexuals from marrying does not constitute equal protection. 

Works Cited

"14th Amendment." Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. 4 Apr. 2013. <www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxivhttp://>.

Bravin, Jess. "Court Embarks on Second Day of Gay-Marriage Debate - WSJ.com." The Wall Street Journal - Breaking News, Business, Financial and Economic News, World News & Video - Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com. N.p., n.d. 4 Apr. 2013. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324105204578385381845234780.html>.

Behrens, Laurence, and Leonard J. Rosen. "For Gay Marriage." Writing and reading across the curriculum. 4th ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1985. 266-269. 

Behrens, Laurence, and Leonard J. Rosen. "Against Gay Marriage ." Writing and reading across the curriculum. 4 ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1985. 271-273. 

Pappas, Stephanie. "Gay Parents Better Than Straight Parents? What Research Says." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. N.p., n.d. 4 Apr. 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html.

"Tenth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute."  Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. 4 Apr. 2013. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment.