Sullivan 1

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Table of Contents: Further Readings From Andrew Sullivan, testimony at the Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., on H.R. 3396, Defense of Marriage Act, May 15, 1996. Andrew Sullivan, the former editor of the weekly magazine New Republic, is the author of Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality. Gays and lesbians want to marry for the same reason as heterosexual couples—to demonstrate their love and commitment. The definition of marriage has changed over the centuries to recognize the human dignity of women and minorities; it should be changed again to recognize the dignity of gays and lesbians. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry would not lead to polygamy or bestiality, but would instead promote stability, responsibility, and family values. Note: Editor's note: Andrew Sullivan testified against the Defense of Marriage Act before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution on May 15, 1996. The act, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton in September 1996, defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," and gives states the option of not recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Let me say first of all how honored I am to be here today. I immigrated to this country as a student twelve years ago and never dreamt I could be a part of this historic discussion. It says something particularly to me about this country's extraordinary capacity for inclusion and for freedom of speech that I can be here. I have come to love my adopted country and to believe in its promise—in its being a beacon to the world of the virtues of inclusion and equality, which are what, I believe, in part, we are discussing today. You will hear this afternoon and in the coming days, many things about gay men and lesbians both in this country and around the world: that we are opposed to the traditional family, that we want to subvert America, that we are a powerful lobby that aims to destroy the sacred institution of marriage. But that is not the truth of who we are. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters, your aunts and uncles, in some cases even, your mothers and fathers. We are your co-workers and fellow members of Congress; your teachers and factory workers; your soldiers and nurses and priests. We are in every town and city in America; in every church and synagogue and mosque. We are in every American family—somewhere. And like anybody else, we do not seek to destroy marriage; we seek to strengthen it. We do not seek equality in marriage because we despise the institution of marriage—but because we believe in it and cherish it and want to support it. People ask us why we want marriage, but the answer is obvious. It is the same reason that anyone would want marriage. After the crushes and passions of adolescence, some of us are lucky enough to meet the person we truly love. And we want to commit to that person in front of our family and country for the rest of our lives. It's the most natural, the most simple, the most human instinct in the world. The real question, then, is surely not: why would gay men and lesbians want the right to marry? It is: why on earth would anyone want to exclude us from it?

You will be told that, since the Torah, marriage has been between a man and a woman and that Western society has been built upon that institution. But we do not dispute that. Like you, we celebrate it. We were all born into the heart of the heterosexual family and we love our mothers and fathers. We seek to take away no one's right to marry; we only ask that those of us who are gay, through no choice of our own, be allowed the same opportunity. You will be told that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman and that that is the end of the argument. But that cannot be the end of the argument. For centuries, marriage was by definition a contract where the wife was the legal property of her husband. And we changed that. For centuries, marriage was by definition between two people of the same race. And we changed that. We changed these things because we recognized that the human dignity of a person is the same whether that person is a man or a woman, black or white. We are arguing now that the human dignity of gay people is as profound as anyone else's and that marriage should begin at last to recognize that fact. You will be told that marriage is only about the rearing of children. But we know that isn't true. We know that our society grants marriage licences to people who choose not to have children, or who, for some reason, are unable to have children. And that is as it should be. So the question is: why should two gay people who cannot have children be treated any differently? You will be told that this is a slippery slope toward polygamy and other things—pedophilia or bestiality. But of course, same-sex marriage is the opposite of those things. The freedom to marry would mark the end of the slippery slope for gay men and lesbians, who right now have no institutions to guide our lives and loves, no social support for our relationships, no institution that can act as a harbor in the emotional storms of our lives. As many conservative thinkers have noted, and I have argued in many places, this is an essentially conservative measure. It seeks to promote stability, responsibility, and the disciplines of family life among people who have been historically cast aside to the margins of our society. What could be a more conservative project than that? Why indeed would any conservative seek to oppose those very family values for gay people that he or she supports for everybody else? These, of course, are arguments that we as a society have only begun to grapple with. They are matters of great importance that we need to debate carefully and seriously—around the kitchen table, in our homes and in the states where marriage has always been decided. Which is why this bill is such a radical and unconservative measure. Even if you disagree with me about the value of same-sex marriage, you should still oppose this bill. It is designed to shut down our public debate before it has even begun; it is intended to raise the issue in an election period where it is most difficult to treat these issues with the calm and depth they deserve; it is intended to divide Americans on an issue where we haven't even had a chance to have a full and measured discussion.

No rush There is, after all, no rush. There are no same-sex marriages anywhere right now in the United States. The earliest any change could happen is toward the end of 1998, when the final appeal to the supreme court of the state of Hawaii is likely to be decided. Why do we have to force a decision now? Let us take the next two years to let the people and the states decide for themselves. If there is a question about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, let the Supreme Court decide, as it alone can, the constitutionality of the matter. Let us not use this issue as a political football to score cheap points off people's lives and dignity. Let us instead treat each other with the respect we deserve, and debate this issue in calm and due time. I urge you to vote against this bill.