As a child, when I thought of the future, all I could see was black. I was a cheerful boy, as happy playing with my posse of male friends in elementary school as I was when I would occasionally take a day by myself in the woodlands that surrounded the small town I grew up in. But when I thought of the distant future, of what I would do and be as a grown-up, there was a blank. I knew one thing only:
As Gandhi never quite said, First they ignore you.
Andrew Sullivan, an editor of the New Republic, and William Bennett, editor of The Book of Virtues, have widely contrasting viewpoints about same-sex marriages in their . Here's the lead of Andrew Sullivan's article making the case for same-sex marriage for the first time in a prominent American journal. It argued for a . Critique Of Andrew Sullivans For Gay Marriage. A Critique of “For Gay Marriage” By Andrew Sullivan Marriage between two people is a commitment, to take care of each other no matter what happens, to be there for each other, to love one another for who they are. Homosexuals have been denied this right simply because they have a different sexuality than most people.
Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. I remember one of the first TV debates I had on the then-strange question of civil marriage for gay couples. A young fellow named Evan Wolfson who had written a dissertation on the subject in got in touch, and the world immediately felt less lonely.
Then a breakthrough in Hawaii, where the state supreme court ruled for marriage equality on gender equality grounds. No gay group had agreed to support the case, which was regarded at best as hopeless and at worst, a recipe for a massive backlash. A local straight attorney from the ACLU, Dan Foley, took it up instead, one of many straight men and women who helped make this happen.
And when we won, and got our first fact on the ground, we indeed faced exactly that backlash and all the major gay rights groups refused to spend a dime on protecting the breakthrough … and we lost.
In fact, we lost and lost and lost again. Much of the gay left was deeply suspicious of this conservative-sounding reform; two thirds of the country were opposed; the religious right saw in the issue a unique opportunity for political leverage — and over time, they put state constitutional amendments against marriage equality on the ballot in countless states, and won every time.
Our allies deserted us. For his part, president George W. Bush subsequently went even further and embraced the Federal Marriage Amendment to permanently ensure second-class citizenship for gay people in America.
Those were dark, dark days. Movements do not move relentlessly forward; progress comes and, just as swiftly, goes.
For many years, it felt like one step forward, two steps back. History is a miasma of contingency, and courage, and conviction, and chance. But some things you know deep in your heart: In the words of Hannah Arendt: I wrote the following in Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings.
And what public institution is more central—more definitive—of that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue.
It is the entire issue. It is the most profound statement our society can make that homosexual love is simply not as good as heterosexual love; that gay lives and commitments and hopes are simply worth less.
It cuts gay people off not merely from civic respect, but from the rituals and history of their own families and friends. It erases them not merely as citizens, but as human beings. We are not disordered or sick or defective or evil — at least no more than our fellow humans in this vale of tears.
We are born into family; we love; we marry; we take care of our children; we die. No civil institution is related to these deep human experiences more than civil marriage and the exclusion of gay people from this institution was a statement of our core inferiority not just as citizens but as human beings.
It took courage to embrace this fact the way the Supreme Court did today. In that essay, I analogized to the slow end to the state bans on inter-racial marriage: Slowly, white people came to look at interracial couples and see love rather than sex, stability rather than breakdown.
And black people came to see interracial couples not as a threat to their identity, but as a symbol of their humanity behind the falsifying carapace of race.Here's the lead of Andrew Sullivan's article making the case for same-sex marriage for the first time in a prominent American journal.
It argued for a . In Andrew Sullivan's article, "For Gay Marriage", he is a man on a mission. He appears to be so fully committed to democratic values that he seeks to extend equal rights in marriage to homosexuals.3/5(1).
I will summarize some of the key points from the essay, Let Gays Marry, by Andrew Sullivan, and the essay, Leave Marriage Alone, by William Bennett. Some of these main points are taken from mutual beliefs of both authors and others are derived from the opposing opinions of the two.
-Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal.
Even if you don't agree with another word in the book, I think we have to grant the validity of this premise: homosexuality exists and we, all of us, need to reckon with it.
Case For Gay Marriage (Andrew Sullivan, New Republic, August 28, ) -Controversy: Marriage and the Gay Agenda (Andrew Sullivan Author: Andrew Sullivan. Jun 08, · Andrew Sullivan argues that gay marriage should be a human right.
Sullivan here takes a sober look at the public debate over homosexuality and offers a moving, often lyrical, plea for the legalization of same-sex marriage. James Miller Professor ENG February 29th, A Critique of “For Gay Marriage” By Andrew Sullivan Marriage between two people is a commitment, to take care of each other no matter what happens, to be there for each .