English 321-VL3 Adv.

Comp Draft 2

Dr. Sharon Robideaux

Eric McLean 06/21/2011

In Defense of Marriage Sullivan vs. Bennett: A Critique Whether or not states should grant the right for gay and lesbian partners to enter the bonds of holy matrimony in this country is a hot-button issue which tends to polarize even those not running for political office every couple of years. It bears noting that, in a predominately dual-philosophy political climate such as ours, opinions on the subject tend to be heavily influenced by their respective ideology, in terms of liberal versus conservative viewpoints. Andrew Sullivan, former editor of New Republic magazine, makes clear his liberal views in support of gay marriage in a passage from his book, Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality (1995). In it, he argues that extending the right for homosexual couples to marry is beyond overdue and should be extended to all citizens, regardless of sexual preference. On the other side of the isle, William Bennett maintains a very conservative stance. A former editor of the National Review and co-director of the conservative organization Empower America, he writes about various topics concerning the defense of conservative values in America. In a piece published in the Washington Post (21 May 1996), he maintains that allowing same-sex couples to marry would have a harmful and lasting effect on our society s intrinsic values. Both arguments provide insight into each other s opposing viewpoints, (and Bennett goes so far as to cite Andrew Sullivan as a reference for his own position), but both are fallible in their own way and not without flaw. I m going to take a look at both sides of the equation in this essay, and provide some critical analysis for both passages and the points each writer has tried to convey. Sullivan s article serves as a testimony to every American s right to be treated equally under the law, beseeching the reader to stand in solidarity with the gay and lesbian community in its fight for marriage rights. He makes the point that the classic definition of marriage, (being between a man and a woman), is a religious admonition and should not be confused with the laws of each state. He further

English 321-VL3 Adv. Comp Draft 2

Dr. Sharon Robideaux

Eric McLean 06/21/2011

goes on to make the distinction that [t]he heterosexuality of marriage is intrinsic only if it is understood to be intrinsically procreative (404), adding that there exists no law which maintains two people who are married must have children. This brings up the next point in the article, in which Sullivan challenges the efficacy of states and cities to define what constitutes a domestic partnership. He uses heterosexual live-togethers , an elderly woman and her live-in nurse , and a pair of frat buddies (405) as examples of those who would qualify, adding [y]ou either are or you re not married; it s not a complex question. (405) But the main point that s prevalent in the article is his insistence that the belief held by conservatives of an erosion of all things American would be somehow predicated upon by allowing homosexuals to join the ranks of the betrothed. The argument here is that allowing for these couples to finally be legally recognized in matrimony would actually promote more of a healthy and open environment, not only for gay couples themselves but for adolescents and young adults who may be struggling with their own homosexuality. Sullivan s ultimate stance is in the right for all people to enjoy the benefits a legally-binding marriage contract; and, that states should discriminate based on sexual preference is clearly unconstitutional. Sullivan s article is a hegemonic call-to-arms on the basic rights that homosexuals deserve to be afforded, as equals in the eyes of our Constitution. For the most part, he presents a clear and logical argument in why states rights concerning marriage should be extended to the gay community at large, and held to the same legal standards as heterosexual couples applying for a marriage certificate. Where he gets into trouble throughout the article is in his admonition that being a liberally-minded constituent of any state in the union automatically makes one a supporter of gay marriage. This seems to me to be a hasty generalization of the mindset of an entire population of Americans who would consider themselves liberal-minded. It is also important to note that Sullivan makes no distinction between the different types of liberalism that exist at times, each as a completely independent ethos. For example, the sheriff of a rural county in East Texas, whose salary is paid exclusively by tax dollars and the voters 2

English 321-VL3 Adv. Comp Draft 2

Dr. Sharon Robideaux

Eric McLean 06/21/2011

who elected him (or her) into office, might be of a fiscally liberal mindset and yet consider him/herself a social conservative . By definition, someone who is socially conservative has so-called traditional views about our country s value system, and may not support gay marriage at all. This is one fallacious ideal to Sullivan s otherwise solid argument, and takes little away from his main point. Overall, this article is a strong indictment of a state s failure to provide equal protection under law. For William Bennett, there exists no room for compromise on the matter. The views expressed in his editorial piece are clear-cut, simple, and largely dismissive in their tone. From the onset, Bennett admits that even entertaining such a debate would be considered pointless, were it not for the confused time in which we find ourselves (409). He does concede, however, that an argument such as one made by Andrew Sullivan is an intelligent one, and even conservative , if politically shrewd (409), when touching on the idea that allowing gay marriage would actually promote healthy, long-term relationships. He counters this notion, however, by claiming that such a change would be the most radical step ever taken in the deconstruction of society s most important institution. (409) He adds that the realization of allowing same sex couples to marry would further lead to a break-down in the laws governing familial misconduct, such as incest or polygamy. Bennett then quotes Sullivan directly, citing examples of his previous commentary concerning the notion that implementing same-sex marriage would first constitute learning more about the desire to seek extramarital relationships amongst homosexual men, who could benefit from the openness of the contract (410). He goes on to make

the case that allowing such a law to pass would place the school-age in a vulnerable and confused position, having to choose whether or not to be gay even if they are not sure themselves. Parents, teachers, and counselors would suddenly have to follow a completely new set of standards promoting the hierarchical equality of same sex and heterosexual marriages, Bennett advises, or run the risk of be[ing] portrayed as intolerant bigots (411). Indeed, Bennett s main, underlying clause throughout

English 321-VL3 Adv. Comp Draft 2

Dr. Sharon Robideaux

Eric McLean 06/21/2011

the document is that to promote equality between married homosexual couples and married heterosexual couples is to permanently dismantle an already fractured institution. Bennett s editorial attempts to persuade the reader to categorically deny even the necessity for an argument in favor of gay marriage, yet he argues anyway. Right out of the gate, the assumption is made that America has become such a morally confusing place, that a debate such as this is ridiculous to even consider. He considers on, begging the question: Has America indeed become so lost in the confusion of a post-9/11, techno-centric, sexually ambiguous hellscape that its moral compass has been irrevocably lost to the Bermuda Triangle of liberal debauchery? And as compared to what, the rosecolored glasses of nostalgic hindsight? The very first sentence of this editorial is so telling, that one need look no further for Bennett s thesis. There happens to be a case for the protections of the classic definition of marriage in modern American debate, but Bennett doesn t make it. Instead, he has chosen to reveal himself as, in his own words, a bigot. From the very first contemptible pile of ignorance to the last, vile mound of feigned righteous indignance, the non sequiturs never cease to amaze and impress in their creativity. That the textbook surmises the student will naturally concede being given two equally well-constructed arguments on which to build a fair critique after having seen same-sex marriage be described as oxymoronic (409), entitles one to believe that the writers of this textbook had other things in mind when attempting to compile material for an unbiased look at effective methods of literary criticism. In his next up at bat, Bennett qualifies the point he is trying to make, by offering a morsel of (self?) empathy for those who [have] struggled with [their] homosexuality [and] can appreciate the poignancy, human pain and sense of exclusion that are often involved (409), while in the very next paragraph citing the need to halt

their very basic right not to be treated as second class citizens. It would be the most radical step ever taken, he gasps, in the deconstruction of society s most important institution (409). This is, of

English 321-VL3 Adv. Comp Draft 2

Dr. Sharon Robideaux

Eric McLean 06/21/2011

course, assuming that the institution of marriage is the high water mark for all of America s beloved institutions: the NAACP, Greenpeace, The Red Cross, the ACLU, The New Deal, Social Security, NASA, etc. The question of Marriage being the most important institution is sitting there, begging to be explained to the reader. In short, the fact that I am diametrically opposed to any freedoms being withheld from any of our citizens makes the point moot. As a natural way of looking at things, one has to assume Mr. Bennett is not.

References:
Sullivan, Andrew. For Gay Marriage. Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 11th ed. Eds. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. Boston: Pearson/Longman, 2011. 404-407. Bennett, William J. Against Gay Marriage. Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 11th ed. Eds. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. Boston: Pearson/Longman, 2011. 409-411.