Should Gays Marry?

Gays Marry?

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 articles Let Gays Marry and Leave Marriage Alone. Sullivan believes in “no special rights, but simple equality” (pg. 25) for the gay community. Bennett, on the other hand, believes that same-sex marriages “would shatter the conventional definition of marriage” (pg. 29). They do, however, share some common writing styles in these two contrasting articles. These two articles were posted in Newsweek on the same issue, and on contrasting pages.

In Sullivan’s article, Let Gays Marry, Sullivan tells of how the Supreme Court ruled about how gay and lesbians are no longer strangers in America. When asked the question why he wants the right to marry he answers that they want to marry for the same reason straight people do. He then begins to discus the definition of marriage, and how it has changed throughout time, as well as some other people’s definitions, and how they are flawed. He is not trying to change any religious doctrine; he just asks that the government give out civil marriage licenses to gays. After all, “there is a separation between church and state in this country” (pg. 26).

In William Bennett’s rebuttal, Leave Marriage Alone, he makes countering points to Sullivan’s main points. He asks if allowing same-sex marriages would strengthen or weaken the institution. He says that gay’s intentions to strengthen it will not be reality. Broadening the definition of marriage any farther would make it so that there is no end. What is to stop bisexuals to marry, or a father and a daughter, etc.? He goes into how “forsaking ...

... middle of paper ...

...legal right? He also uses Bob and Elizabeth Dole, and Pat and Shelly Buchanan as examples of heterosexual couples that are married, yet have no children. Bennett uses God for the basis of marriage. Religions started the marriage concept based on how God made us, so why should the definition of marriage hold something that was never meant to be?

So these two authors have different views on how same-sex relationships would affect society. They write in slightly different styles, and appeal to different sources. They use the same concepts, such as the meaning, and definition of what marriage is, was, and could be. They are different people, and each entitled to their own opinion, they are citizens, and entitles to simple equality. Is there a right, and wrong perspective on these two articles? Are the articles going to affect anything, or have they already?