Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?

Anton N. Marco

Copyright © 1996-2007, Christian Leadership Ministries
Revised, 1999.

This paper is a major revision of the previous public policy analysis of the issue of gay "marriage." Because of the large size of the paper, it is divided into sub-sections. You can use the following Table of Contents to jump directly to a section that interests you, or you can go to the first section below (Part I) and then use the navigation links at the end of each section to go to.  Also see Edward King's AIDS Page

PART I: The Issue Joined

• The "Godfather" of Gay Marriage
• Hay's Widening Impact
• The Socio/Political Power of "Minority" Status � and Why Gay Activists Seek It
• Gay Activists Strike Back
• The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
  • Federal Demands
  • State Demands
• "Gay Rights" Marches On
• "Minority" Status the Key to Whole "Gay Rights" Agenda -- Including Same-Sex "Marriage"
• Two Other Presuppositions Key To Gay "Marriage" Recognition
• Gay Activists Perceive Numerous Advantages To Securing Same-Sex "Marriage" Recognition
• Gay Activists' Main Arguments In Favor of Same-Sex Marriage
  • Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are being "discriminated against" when their unions are denied marriage recognition.
  • Marriage is a "basic human right" and choice of marriage partners should in no way be regulated by government; therefore same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry.
  • Civil and religious marriage will remain separate institutions if same-sex marriages are legalized.
  • Same-gender couples cannot legally marry in any state, no matter how much they feel a "need" to, or how much their families need civil marriage's protections, benefits and responsibilities.
• Same-Sex "Marriage": The Outworking Of a Long-Term Legitimization Strategy
• Gay Activists Try to Capitalize on the "Homosexualization of America"

PART II: Transition: Gay Activists' Diverse "Families We Choose"

PART III: Presupposition 1

• Same-Sex "Marriage" Under the Microscope: Presupposition One
• Hawaii Supreme Court Would Rend the Very Fabric of Suspect Class Protections
• Gay Activists Strike Out Vs. All Three Established Criteria
  • Criterion 1: Disadvantagement
  • Criterion 2: Political Powerlessness
  • Criterion 3: Innate or Immutable Characteristics
• As Gay Activists Define Homosexual "Orientation," Establishing Firm Identity is Impossible
• Why Gay Activists Have Made "Sexual Orientation" Unidentifiable

Part IV: Presupposition 2

• Promiscuity, Relational Instability Dominant Features of Gay, Lesbian Lifestyles
• Gay and Lesbian Self-Admissions Confirm Science's Findings
• Lesbian Lifestyle Anomolies
• Gay Activists Try to Make Their Relational Instability "Work for Them"
• How Well Has the "Homosexualization of America" Succeeded?
• Kinsey-"Derived" "10%" Figure for Gays Dubious
• Gay-Expressed "Partnering" Wishes Starkly Contrast Those of Single "Straights"
• Conclusion: Gays Are Not "Just Like Everyone Else" in Relational Stability, Desire for Same

Part V: Presupposition 3

• "Virtual Normality" and Same-Sex "Marriage"
• Sullivan's Point 1: Same-sex "marriage" would be no "leap in the dark" for society.
• Sullivan's Point 2: Same-sex "marriage" would not radically alter the nature of marriage as society has known it; rather, marriage would bring "stability" to gays, "domesticate them" and bring them closer to society's mainstream.
  • Possible Effects of Same-Sex "Marriage" on Children
  • Cherie's story
• Sullivan's Point 3: Churches, synagogues and other religious organizations would not be forced to recognize same-sex civil "marriages."
  • Dangers of So-Called "Religious Exceptions" in "Gay Rights" Laws
• Sullivan's Point 4: Granting same-sex "marriage" recognition would not exacerbate the tumultuous struggle over "gay rights"; it would actually DEFUSE the conflict.
• Neither Sullivan's Four Points Nor Gay Activists' Three Presuppositions Withstand Scrutiny

Part VI: Reviewing Four Gay Activist Arguments Favoring Same-Sex "Marriage"

• Argument 1: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are being "discriminated against" in being denied the ability to legally marry; this "discrimination" should be remedied by immediate same-sex "marriage" recognition.
• Are Gays Being Unjustly Denied Benefits Available to the "Heterosexually Married"?
• Argument 2: Marriage is a 'basic human right,' and choice of marriage partners should in no way be regulated by government.
• Argument 3: Civil and religious marriage will remain separate institutions if same-sex "marriages" are legally recognized.
• Argument 4: Preventing same-sex 'marriages' denies gay 'families' the benefits, protections and responsibilities of civil marriage.
• Gay Activists' Unspoken "Fifth Argument"
• Gay Activist Media Strategies Will Be Based Primarily On "Argument #5"
• Gay Activists Expect -- And Are Battling -- Opposition
• Can America Stop Same-Sex "Marriage" Recognition?

Appendix A: A brief commentary on John Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, (New York: Villard Books, 1994)

Appendix B: "Gay Rights" and Multinational Business: A New "Marriage of Convenience"?

Partial Listing of Books Cited