See Luminosity

Same-Sex Marriage, Part 7: Does Traditional Marriage Law Discriminate?

Same-Sex Marriage, Part 7: Does Traditional Marriage Law Discriminate?

It is the most common rationale used in the gay marriage debate – that traditional marriage discriminates against homosexual persons. It is a mantra reiterated so often that many people never even ask, “Is it true?”

This series has attempted to address the salient issues at the core of the cultural argument about same-sex marriage, and to provide evidence for why all Americans, not simply heterosexual Americans, should defend marriage as being between one man and one woman. Read the previous parts of the series here:

This article and the next article will explore the fifth reason (as listed in Part 3) promoting the conjugal view of marriage (one that is rooted in nature, rather than choice) is so significant:

5. Sexual complementarity in marriage provides a basis for the institution that distinguishes it from all other kinds of unions as a unique, non-arbitrary relationship. If the state endorses a non-conjugal view of marriage (including same-sex marriage), then it would be implying that the conjugal or traditional view would be making arbitrary distinctions. This would present a tremendous threat to freedom for defenders of traditional marriage, who would be seen as being discriminatory for espousing the view of marriage held throughout history, opening them up to stigmatization and even punishment based on their beliefs.

Specifically, the focus of this article will be answering the question, “Does traditional marriage law discriminate against same-sex couples?”

The Implication of “Discrimination”

It is the most-oft repeated refrain in the same-sex marriage debate: that marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples. Americans, as a people, rightly place a high value on freedom, and loathe evidence of discrimination. Indeed, when the assertion of “discrimination” is made in almost any arena of American culture, further discussion is often silenced. As a result, the claim has been tremendously effective at advancing the cause of same-sex marriage advocates.

Polls of the public on the issue of marriage reflect just how significant a reference to “discrimination” is: the level of public affirmation of same-sex marriage depends largely on whether or not it is understood as an issue of civil rights. When survey questions about marriage are framed in terms of “banning” same-sex marriage, “rights”, or “benefits” for same-sex couples, support for same-sex marriage rises. However, when questions are framed about what marriage is (or should be), public opinion affirms traditional marriage norms, and a significantly larger majority of Americans demonstrate belief in the fact that marriage should be between a man and a woman.[1] What this means is that marriage is a very important issue to Americans, but that Americans also place a high priority on “rights” and “equality”. U.S. citizens do not want to discriminate.

So, does traditional marriage law, in fact, discriminate against same-sex couples? Does it infringe on their rights?

Discrimination and the Law

In spite of the tremendous emotional and political angst dedicated to this claim, the answer is an unequivocal “no”.

Relationships vs. Persons: In the claims of discrimination, same-sex marriage advocates inappropriately confuse distinctions between different types of relationships with discrimination against persons. Discrimination against persons is illegal and violates rights. Discrimination amongst different types of relationships is an essential part of law and reality.

Making Distinctions: Laws, by their very nature, make distinctions. Laws exist to tell someone, under some circumstances, that they must or must not do something. By doing so, they make distinctions about the subjects (and features of those subjects) to whom the law applies. Driver’s licensing laws make distinctions that only persons of a certain age who have demonstrated a certain level of driving proficiency may receive driver’s licenses. This necessarily makes the distinction that 9-year-olds, blind persons, and those who cannot pass a driving test are unable to receive licenses. Yet there is nothing discriminatory about the distinctions that 9-year-olds and blind persons are not allowed to receive licenses. Why not?

Because the features which are central to the law’s purpose of the persons being denied licenses are inherently different from the features of those who are able to receive licenses. 9-year-olds and blind persons are fundamentally different from persons who qualify to receive driver’s licenses in an essential way – the ability to safely and appropriately manage a vehicle.

The Same or Different? In order to determine whether a law’s distinctions are legitimate or discriminatory, it must be clear whether the distinctions between subjects are made legitimately based on features essential to the law between subjects that are fundamentally different, or whether they are made arbitrarily on the basis of some feature that is not essential to the law between subjects that are inherently the same.

The blind person being denied a license is not discriminatory because he differs from the licensed person in the characteristic essential to the law – the ability to be able to operate a vehicle. If, however, Asian people (who were able to meet all of the licensing qualifications) were, as part of the law, denied licenses because of their race, the law would be discriminatory. This is because doing so would be making distinctions based on a feature not essential to the law (race) amongst between persons who were essentially the same with respect to the features that matter to the law (the ability to drive).

If a law makes an arbitrary decision, based on characteristics that are not central to the purpose of the law, even though the subjects are the same in the areas that are pertinent to the law, then that law is discriminatory. If a law makes a legitimate distinction, based on characteristics that centrally pertain to the purpose of the law, with subjects that are inherently different, then that law is not discriminatory.

The question, then, for whether traditional marriage law is discriminatory is this: Does traditional marriage law make legitimate distinctions between relationships that are inherently different, or arbitrary distinctions between relationships that are inherently the same?

Traditional Marriage As a Unique, Non-Arbitrary Union

Marriage between a man and a woman is grounded in nature – in the fact that the mind/body/soul union between complementary genders that occurs within marriage makes it a relationship like none other. Part 3 fleshes out this connection of marriage to nature, and how that inherent tie to procreation distinguishes it from every other relational structure. It is the uniqueness of the marital union, and its ability to create a family, which compels the state to promote and protect it. It is also this uniqueness which makes traditional marriage law sound, non-discriminatory law.

For the state to promote relationships for the public in a fair manner, there must be some non-arbitrary elements of those relationships – in other words, features of the relationship that are unique to only that relationship, which make it worthy of promotion over relationships that do not have those features. Conjugal marriage meets this criterion, because of its potential to create new life.

A Distinct Type of Relationship: The state has, in virtually every society, promoted marriage between a man and a woman because it is a distinct type of community, with distinct norms (such as exclusivity, monogamy and permanence), that has the potential to create and nurture mutual children. Marriage has a unique structure no other relational combination has, which makes it non-arbitrary. It is not a matter of whether or not it is permissible for other relationships to be considered marriages; it is simply not possible for them to be marriages because they do not have the structure and features that marriage has. Regardless of what people want to call them, no other unions are what marriage is. Same-sex persons cannot, no matter what their relationship is called, form a comprehensive union that have the potential to (if all biological systems functioned properly) result in and be fulfilled by mutual offspring. The connection to nature (biology) makes marriage a unique, non-arbitrary union that no other arrangement can mirror.

Other Relationships Not Marriage: People live in any variety of arrangements that are not promoted or protected by the state, yet there is nothing discriminatory involved, because none of these arrangements have the structure and norms of marriages – none of these relationships are fundamentally the same as marriages. Two friends who are not sexually involved with one another can choose to live in the same home for the rest of their lives, but the relationship is, non-discriminatorily, not a marriage, because the relationship does not have the structure or features that marriage has. A daughter may share her life and home with her mother as a caretaker, but the relationship is, non-discriminatorily, not a marriage, because the relationship does not have the structure or features that marriage has. Two persons of the same sex may be romantically and sexually involved and committed to one another, but the relationship is, non-discriminatorily, not a marriage, because the relationship does not have the structure or features that marriage has. As marriage defender Gregory Koukl aptly notes, “If homosexual couples face ‘unequal protection’ in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other.”

Not an Issue of Equality: To be discriminatory, the law would have to make an arbitrary distinction between relationships that are fundamentally the same. And, due to the central feature of gender complementarity, marriage relationships between a man and a woman and romantic relationships between same-sex partners are not the same. If a relationship does not meet the qualifications to be called a marriage, it is not discriminatory to prohibit that relationship from being called a marriage. It is not discriminatory for business partners, or two 10-year-olds, or two women who run a group home together, to be prohibited from calling their relationships a marriage, because their relationships are not the kind of union that marriage is. All non-blood related adults equally have access to qualify for the kind of relationship marriage is. A gay man can marry a lesbian woman. A lesbian woman can marry a heterosexual man. Marriage law is neutral with respect to the sexual orientation of the persons who qualify for a marriage license, as long as they can meet the requirements for the marriage relationship. This relationship, of course, only is a specially classed, unique relationship because of gender complementarity.

The fight for same-sex marriage is really a fight about calling a relationship something that it isn’t. It is about the legitimacy and respect that the label “marriage” would bring to same-sex relationships. Whether or not same-sex relationships are labeled “marriages” does not change the fact that they will, due to biology, never have the structure or features of marriage…a same-sex union cannot ever be a comprehensive union characterized by monogamy, exclusivity and permanence of the type that is capable through sexual intercourse (if all biological systems work appropriately), of producing children.

The argument can be made that same-sex couples’ relationships are like those of married heterosexual couples, in that they live in the same household, share sexual relationships, love each other, are committed to sharing a life together, etc. However, from a legal standpoint (and in the efforts at determining that a law is discriminatory), one must demonstrate that same-sex relationships and marital relationships are, in characteristics and structure, fundamentally the same in essential features. If the relationships are different (and, from the standpoint of having the potential to procreate, it is clear that they are), then there is no discrimination in preventing persons whose relationship is not one of marriage from being called a marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage, Discrimination, and Race

Civil Rights? Same-sex marriage advocates have mistakenly (though successfully for their purposes) equated their inability to marry with the anti-miscegenation laws of the South during the Civil Rights era, which forbade blacks from marrying whites. In their arguments, sexual orientation is an unchangeable, inherited quality like race. Whether or not this argument is reasonable is a separate discussion beyond the scope of this paper. However, the gay community, in its claims of discrimination, makes the assumption that gender and race are equally non-essential to marriage, and to the state’s promotion of it. A major problem with this, as Part 4 explained, is that state interest in policy creation around marriage is directly linked to the fact that marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to create children – and that children become the future of society. In other words, when it comes to marriage, race is certainly irrelevant, but gender is not.

Gay marriage is not an issue of civil rights at all, because marriage makes distinctions between different kinds of relationships, not persons. The laws that banned interracial marriage were a civil rights issue because they denied marriage to persons who were capable of having the kind of relationship that marriage is. African-American marriage relationships and White marriage relationships were fundamentally the same in the features essential to marriage; African-Americans were and are certainly capable of having a comprehensive relationship characterized by monogamy, exclusivity and permanence of the type that has the potential to create mutual children. Because an arbitrary distinction not essential to marriage (the distinction of race) was made by the law, the law was discriminatory. If they had not been denied the right to do so, African-American couples of the 1960s would most certainly have been able to form marriage relationships. Same-sex couples, however, as we have seen, are not able to create a comprehensive relationship characterized by monogamy, exclusivity and permanency of the type that has the potential (if everything functions properly) to create mutual children. Consequently, the law does not discriminate against them.

Anti-miscegenation laws essentially stated, “It is possible for African-Americans to marry, but they may not”, (discrimination against persons) whereas traditional marriage laws state “It is not possible for same-sex persons to marry, because they are unable to form the kind of union that marriage is” (distinction between different types of relationships).

Adding In an Arbitrary Element: The other issue that defines the difference between race and sexual orientation in the matter of marriage is that anti-miscegenation laws sought to add an arbitrary element to the law – the element of race – whereas traditional marriage amendments seek to simply keep the law the same. Laws against interracial marriage agreed upon the definition of marriage; they just said that those of certain races could not participate in it. Gay marriage, on the other hand, would not simply expand the pool of persons eligible to marry; it would completely change the definition of marriage all together (For a more in-depth look at this argument, read Part 1 and Part 4).

With anti-miscegenation laws, blacks were denied the right to participate in a comprehensive relationship characterized by monogamy, exclusivity and permanence of the type able to conceive mutual children. With same-sex marriage, marriage would not longer mean a comprehensive relationship of the type able to conceive mutual children. David Schaengold underscores this point: “…Proponents of same-sex marriage do not propose to extend an existing liberty to a broader class of people, but rather to change the nature of an existing legal institution to which all people, qua people, already have access.”[2]

Same-sex Marriage Discriminatory: Ironically, it is same sex marriage that is discriminatory, by adding in an arbitrary element, much like the anti-miscegenation laws of the South. The old Jim Crow laws added in the arbitrary element of race; same-sex marriage would add in the arbitrary element of personal choice. In other words, instead of marriage being based on gender complementarity (a characteristic equitably endowed by nature), marriage redefinition would make the institution based on a non-essential element – the emotional bonding between chosen partners. While emotional bonding is certainly a component of many marriages, it is not the essential feature that makes the marital relationship unique from all others (certainly many non-marital relationships involve strong emotional bonding). In this way, the interjection of the non-essential, arbitrary characteristic of personal choice puts gay marriage into the very category of discrimination its proponents decry of others.

In spite of ubiquitous discrimination rhetoric, traditional marriage laws do not discriminate against same-sex persons. They do not, because gay marriage is not an issue of who should be able to marry, but about what marriage is. To be discriminatory, it must be clear what the object of the law is, and that the law has been arbitrarily applied in some way. Traditional marriage law does not arbitrarily apply the law to anyone, by denying anyone access to the kind of relationship characterized as the comprehensive union of a male and female, with the norms of exclusivity, monogamy and permanence, of the type which could potentially result in the creation of mutual children. Gay persons are simply incapable, because of biology, to form this kind of a union. They might argue that same-sex unions should be recognized in some way, with some kinds of benefits, as a unique or special type of union, but they may not accurately argue that for their unions to not be recognized as marriages is discriminatory. It is, in fact, same-sex marriage which is discriminatory, by arbitrarily interjecting a non-essential feature into the law – that of personal choice.

The Issue of “Rights”

Hand-in-hand with claims of discrimination is the complaint that same-sex persons are being denied the “right” to love the person they choose. But, like the charge of discrimination, this is simply a red herring.

The Right to Love: There are no civil or criminal penalties in the United States for engaging in a same-sex relationship.[3] In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that a “Homosexual Conduct” law in Texas (which made it a crime for same-sex persons to engage in sex) was unconstitutional, thereby granting homosexual persons the same rights to engage in same-sex sexual activity as heterosexuals.[4] Homosexuals are free to pledge their love to others, make lifelong commitments, live together, engage in sexual behavior, and even adopt children. They may engage in marriage ceremonies, even if the state does not recognize those ceremonies. Denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not prevent them from doing anything, other than call their relationship something it is not. Gays and lesbians have the rights and freedoms to live and love as they choose. They simply are not able to call their relationships marriages because those relationships are not marriages. Business partners, siblings who have set up households together, and polyamorous threesomes also are not permitted to call their relationships marriages, because they are not marriages, and, likewise, none of these persons’ rights are being violated.

The Right to Benefits: Many gay marriage advocates point to the benefits and incentives that heterosexual married couples receive – claiming that their rights in this area are denied as well by not having access to marriage. And while it is true that marriage law denies same-sex couples the benefits of heterosexual marriage, it does the same for all persons whose relationships are not marriages. Gays and lesbians are, in this respect, no different from friends who live together or two women who start a business together, or three “swingers” who live in a polyamorous relationship. All of the relationships are denied marriage benefits, because none of the relationships qualify as marriages. And again, as Part 6 addressed, the state does not incentivize marriage in the first place because it seeks to make life easier for people who love each other. It provides entitlements to married couples because it has a stake in encouraging the stabilizing force of the procreative family – mothers and fathers committing to one another and to any children they produce. None of these relationships (two friends, business partners, three polyamorous individuals, or same-sex couples) can create what the state has a vested interest in – a biologically-linked mother-father-child family.

Secondly, benefits and privileges for particular relationships are completely separate issues from marriage. Legal benefits and entitlements for certain kinds of relationships are regularly codified in law, without any change whatsoever to marriage law.  Caregiver tax deductions, hospital visitation rights, and partnership agreements amongst persons who go into business together are all examples of benefits and privileges secured for non-marital relationships through other avenues of law. Same-sex couples have no more claim to marital benefits than individuals in any other non-marital relationship.  However, the fact that entitlements for same-sex couples can be secured through means other than the redefinition of marriage is exemplified by the fact that a number of states offer domestic partnerships and civil unions, which confer similar (or in many cases the same) rights, benefits and protections as married persons to gays and lesbians. These incentives, like benefits for other non-marital relationships, address particular needs and desires of those specific relationships, without in any way impacting marriage law.

The appeal to “marriage equality”, and the subsequent complaint that traditional marriage law violates the liberty of homosexual persons, effectively serves to deflect and hide the truth of what traditional marriage law does – that it makes a legitimate legal distinction between relationships that are fundamentally different. Same-sex marriage is not an issue of marriage equality, because traditional marriage law treats all persons equally with respect to the opportunity to participate in the kind of relationship that marriage is.

A Debate About Labels

So, if same-sex couples are free to form relationships with whomever and in whatever way they choose, and can secure benefits and privileges they need through means other than marriage law, why do same-sex couples want marriage?

The answer to that question is acceptance.

Engendering Approval: Marriage is the most effective means for ushering in the approval of same-sex relationships and lifestyles – of granting legitimacy to behavior and relationships that have been historically controversial and morally shunned. Marriage would confer cultural respect to relationships in which homosexuals already have the freedom to engage. A Time Magazine article from February, 2000 quotes gay marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan: “Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable.”

Ultimately, the same-sex marriage debate coalesces around the issue of labels, and the power that labels afford in impacting attitudes. Since same-sex relationships cannot be marriages because they are different in form, structure, and features, the argument is essentially about whether same-sex relationships can be labeled marriages, even though they are not marriages. James Skillen, in his public Justice Report, writes, “[Same-sex marriage] is an appeal for judges and lawmakers to ignore those distinctions [about the similarities and differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships] in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them.”[5] Homosexual persons want to label their relationships marriages because they desire the social affirmation, benefits, and cultural legitimacy marital relationships enjoy.

The Nature of Reality: Reality does not change, regardless of what one calls it. Marriage law is based on the reality that men and women’s sexual acts make children. Government simply, for the sake of the well-being of society, recognizes this reality for the societal purpose of encouraging the connection of children to their parents.[6] Traditional marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher elucidates, “Marriage is civilization’s great effort to connect sex, love, money, babies, men and women, mothers and fathers.”[7] Marriage is defined by reality, and marriage law simply reflects policies that support the truth of that reality for the good of society. Same-sex marriage propagates the idea that “reality itself can be re-mastered to accommodate sexual desire.”[8]

The Results: The push for granting same-sex relationships the label “marriage” is about the desire for social acceptance of homosexual relationships. The gay community knows that labels are tremendously powerful for shaping culture, and that obtaining the label “marriage” for same-sex relationships would serve to create a culture of affirmation for homosexual practice. This is, in fact, the end-game for the LGBT movement; a world in which gay relationships are endorsed by society at large as equal to heterosexual relationships, and where sexual orientation is treated as a protected class like race.

The gay community is correct about the power of labels, and evidence from countries that have redefined marriage to include persons of the same sex has shown that doing so has had the effect of dramatically increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships and lifestyles. Unfortunately, what labeling same-sex relationships as “marriage” would do for increasing acceptance of gay lifestyles it would do to drastically decrease the well-being of institution of marriage itself, a fact also indicated by the decline in marital culture in these same countries. The type of marriage culture that is created within society – in other words, what society believes about marriage and how it behaves toward and within marriage – would be severely damaged, as the norms of marriage began to erode (a more thorough explanation of this argument can be read in Part 4 and Part 6). The demise of marriage, as the foundation for family and the nurturing of future adults, would spell disaster for everyone – gay and straight.

In his article, “Cats and Dogs and Marriage Laws”, Professor of Philosophy Stephen Heaney explains, “…Never until the 1990s had anyone questioned what marriage is. Never before had anyone simply redefined the institution to be something else entirely, based on entirely non-essential characteristics. The new marriage regime is not about recognizing marriage; it is about validating people’s love interests. But society and its governing bodies have no more use for or an interest in granting a license for people’s loves and friendships than they have in licensing cat ownership…When we define our terms based on the results we want, rather than on the reality of the thing being defined, all hell breaks loose.”[9]

The Supreme Court Briefs

In Spring 2013, the United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments about two important cases related to same-sex marriage – Hollingsworth v. Perry, and United States v. Windsor. It is a testament to the fact that same-sex marriage is not an issue of discrimination that 58 amicus briefs have been filed with the court in support of California’s Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the federal Defense of Marriage Acts (United States v. Windsor), from a variety of groups with completely different interests and values.[10] An amicus curiae (or friends of the court) brief is a legal document that has not been solicited by the court, provided by someone who is not party to the case but has a particular interest in the issue at hand. As a point of reference, only 26 total amicus briefs were filed in the historic case Roe v. Wade.[11]

These briefs have been filed by scholars and groups from all walks of American life, including political scientists, a former U.S. attorney general, history scholars, law experts such as Helen Alvare (professor of law at George Mason School of Law), international jurists and academics, social science professors, Johns Hopkins Hospital and Medical School chief psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh, Catholic bishops, and attorneys general for 20 states. The group Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays, for example, offers evidence, in their brief, in support of the fact that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic, and therefore should not be protected as a suspect class. African-American groups, and a coalition of African-American and white evangelical leaders submitted briefs, demonstrating that the laws which prevented blacks and whites from marrying are not comparable to or in any way the same as laws which define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Gay and bisexual individuals submitted an amicus curiae arguing that children have the right to their mother and father, and that traditional marriage upholds that right.

These amicus briefs, from groups that are completely different and represent all parts of American society (including the gay community), provide additional testimony to the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is not an issue of discrimination. Traditional marriage is a unique union, and a foundational institution of society, that impacts everyone, black and white, straight and gay.

Conclusion

The state rightly promotes marriage as a unique union, because its connection with nature and procreation makes it a relationship with a structure and features no other human relationship has. It is only a traditional, conjugal view of marriage which provides an objective, non-arbitrary construct for marriage law (that of nature, or the ability of the two partners to procreate), and is worthy of state promotion. Its unique structure and features, grounded in sexual complementarity and supported by the norms of monogamy, exclusivity and permanence, makes it a unique relationship like none other, which is the basis for it being just and non-discriminatory. It is worthy of state promotion based on the fact that it is an objective good that encourages human flourishing as the most basic unit of society, and one which, through the family, has the potential to create and nurture future citizens. Marriage, by virtue of naturally connecting children with their parents, establishes a microcosm of community that undergirds the health and well-being of individuals and of society as a whole.

Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, cannot answer the question why the state should promote it. The state does not have any interest, per se, in promoting personal relationships for their own sake, and same-sex marriage does not solve any societal problems. It does, in fact, create some significant problems, through deliberately depriving a child of one of its parents, confusing (and, ultimately, rendering irrelevant) the already-lagging norms of marriage, and inviting state control over family relationships.

Marriage law does not discriminate because it makes legitimate distinctions between different types of relationships based on features essential to the marital relationship (gender complementarity, monogamy, permanence, exclusivity); it does not discriminate against persons based on arbitrary features that are not essential to the relationship (race, emotional connection, personal choice). Marriage law also does not deprive same-sex persons of any rights – homosexuals are free to live and love as they desire. Marriage law simply acknowledges the reality that same-sex relationships, like all non-marital relationships, are inherently different from heterosexual marriages, therefore they cannot be called marriages. The irony of this debate is that it is laws establishing same-sex marriage that are discriminatory, by unfairly interjecting an arbitrary element – personal choice – over a connection equitably established by nature.

Gay marriage advocates can make the argument that same-sex relationships deserve acceptance and benefits as unique or special relationships. However, they cannot make the honest argument that traditional marriage laws discriminate against them. Marriage is a distinct, unique class of relationship unlike any other, and all persons who are able to participate in the type of relationship it is – a comprehensive union between persons of complementary genders, with specific norms, and of the type that is able to create new life – have equal access to it. Traditional marriage should be protected as the most foundational good of society – a good necessary for the nurturing of all persons, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Gay persons have the right, as Americans, to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage – an institution foundational for the well-being of individuals and for society as a whole – for everyone else.

 

Sources:

American Bar Association (2013, March 26). “Dennis Hollingsworth, et. al., Petitioners vs. Kristin M. Perry, et. al.” Preview of the United States Supreme Court Cases. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/12-144.html

American Bar Association (2013, March 27). “United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et. al.” Preview of the United States Supreme Court Cases. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/12-307.html

Anderson, R. (2013, March 10). “Broad, Diverse Defense of Marriage at Supreme Court”. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/10/broad-diverse-defense-of-marriage-at-supreme-court/

Anderson, R. (2013, March 11). “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It”. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn19

Anderson, R. (2012, November 1). “Big Government Should Not Redefine Marriage”. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/11/big-government-should-not-redefine-marriage

Cothran, M. (2012, May 12). “A Lesson in Sophistry: Why Laws Against Same-Sex Marriages Are Not Like Laws Against Interracial Marriage”. Vital Remnants. Retrieved from http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2012/05/lesson-in-sophistry-why-laws-against.html

Crandall, J. G. (2013, April 25). “Proposition 8 and Discrimination: Marriage on Trial at the Supreme Court”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9956/

Duke Law. “Lawrence v. Texas”. At Supreme Court Online. Retrieved from http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex

Farrow, D. (2012, Jan/Feb). “Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?”. Touchstone. Retrieved from http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f

Franck, M. (2013, January 4). “Same-Sex Marriage and Social Change: Exceeding the Speed of Thought”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/01/7495/

Franck, M. (2012, July 30). “Truth and Lies, Nature and Convention: The Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage.” Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5905/

Franck, M. (2011, December 15). “Advocating Same-Sex Marriage: Consistency Is Another Victim”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4451/

Gallagher, M. (2011, August 23). “Defend Marriage: Moms and Dads Matter”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/08/3761/

Gallagher, M. (2008, October 31). “Marriage Matters: For Kids, for Parents, and for Religious Liberty.” Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/122/

Grant, T. (2011, June 22). “Same-Sex Marriage Polls: It’s All In How You Ask”. Christianity Today Politics Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/06/public_opinion.html

Heaney, S. J. (2013, April 3). “Cats and Dogs and Marriage Laws”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9716/

Holloway, C. (2013, March 18). “Same-Sex Marriage and the Abyss of Nihilism”. Public Discourse Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/8044/

Koukl, G. “Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses”. In Solid Ground. At Stand to Reason. Retrieved from http://www.str.org/publications/same-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses#.UY1EWYIi3qQ

Lee, P. (2012, January 30). “The Same-Sex Marriage Proposal is Unjust Discrimination”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/01/4597/

Lee, P., George, R. & Bradley, G. (2011, March 28). “Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Connection”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638/

MacLeod, A. J. (2013, April 2). Marriage, Religious Liberty, and the Ban Myth. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9708/?utm_source=RTA+MacLeod+Ban+Myth&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email

Schaengold, D. (2010, June 25). “Same-Sex Marriage and Formal Discrimination”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/06/1396/

Skillen, J. (2004, Second Quarter). “Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is Not a Civil Right”. The Center for Public Justice. Retrieved from http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178

Smith, S. (2013, March 27). “The Red Herring of ‘Marriage Equality’”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/7912/

Sprigg, P. (2013, March 22). “Defining Marriage: What Polls Say”. Family Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.frcblog.com/2013/03/defining-marriage-what-polls-say/

Tellez, L. (2012, November 26). “The Future of Marriage: Why The Inevitable Is Not Inevitable”. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/7192/



[1] Grant, T. (2011, June 22). “Same-Sex Marriage Polls: It’s All In How You Ask”. Christianity Today Politics Blog; Sprigg, P. (2013, March 22). “Defining Marriage: What Polls Say”. Family Research Council; Gallagher, M. (2011, August 23). “Defend Marriage: Moms and Dads Matter”. Public Discourse; Tellez, L. (2012, November 26). “The Future of Marriage: Why The Inevitable Is Not Inevitable”.

[2] Schaengold, D. (2010, June 25). “Same-Sex Marriage and Formal Discrimination”. Public Discourse.

[3] Koukl, G. “Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses”. In Publication File “Solid Ground”. At Stand to Reason. MacLeod, A. J. (2013, April 2). Marriage, Religious Liberty, and the Ban Myth. Public Discourse.

Holloway, C. (2013, April 4). “Justice Sotomayor and the Path to Polygamy”. Public Discourse.

[4] Duke Law. “Lawrence v. Texas”. At Supreme Court Online.

[5] Skillen, J. (2004, Second Quarter). “Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is Not a Civil Right”. The Center for Public Justice.

[6] Heaney, S. J. (2013, April 3). “Cats and Dogs and Marriage Laws”. Public Discourse.

[7] Gallagher, M. (2008, October 31). “Marriage Matters: For Kids, for Parents, and for Religious Liberty.”

[8] Gallagher, M. (2011, August 23). “Defend Marriage: Moms and Dads Matter”.

[9] Heaney, S. J. (2013, April 3). “Cats and Dogs and Marriage Laws”. Public Discourse.

[10] Anderson, R. (2013, March 10). “Broad, Diverse Defense of Marriage at Supreme Court”. The Heritage Foundation; American Bar Association (2013, March 27). “United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et. al.” Preview of the United States Supreme Court Cases; American Bar Association (2013, March 26). “Dennis Hollingsworth, et. al., Petitioners vs. Kristin M. Perry, et. al.” Preview of the United States Supreme Court Cases.

[11] Anderson, R. (2013, March 10). “Broad, Diverse Defense of Marriage at Supreme Court”. The Heritage Foundation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *