Law 1

WHATISMARRIAGE?
SHERIFGIRGIS,*ROBERTP.GEORGE,**&RYANT.ANDERSON***
I. ................................................................................248
A. Equality,Justice,andtheHeart
oftheDebate ..................................................248
B. RealMarriageIsAndIsOnlyThe
UnionofHusbandandWife.......................252
1. ComprehensiveUnion ...........................253
2. SpecialLinktoChildren ........................255
3. MaritalNorms .........................................259
C. HowWouldGayCivilMarriage
AffectYouorYourMarriage? ....................260
1. WeakeningMarriage ..............................260
2. ObscuringtheValueofOppositeSex
ParentingAsanIdeal .............................262
3. ThreateningMoralandReligious
Freedom ...................................................263
D. IfNotSameSexCouples,
WhyInfertileOnes? ......................................265
1. StillRealMarriages.................................266
2. StillinthePublicInterest.......................268
E. ChallengesforRevisionists ..........................269
1. TheStateHasanInterestin
RegulatingSomeRelationships? ..........269
2. OnlyifTheyAreRomantic?..................271
3. OnlyifTheyAreMonogamous? ..........272
F. IsntMarriageJustWhatever
WeSayItIs? ...................................................274
II . ...............................................................................275
*Ph.D.CandidateinPhilosophy,PrincetonUniversity.
**McCormickProfessorofJurisprudence,PrincetonUniversity.
***Ph.D.CandidateinPoliticalScience,UniversityofNotreDame.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155
246
HarvardJournalofLaw&PublicPolicy
[Vol.34
A. WhyNotSpreadTraditionalNorms
totheGayCommunity? ...............................275
B. WhatAboutPartners
ConcreteNeeds? ............................................280
C. DoesnttheConjugalConception
ofMarriageSacrificeSome
PeoplesFulfillmentforOthers? ................281
D. IsntItOnlyNatural? ....................................284
E. DoesntTraditionalMarriage
LawImposeControversial
MoralandReligiousViews
onEveryone?..................................................285
CONCLUSION ................................................................286
Whatismarriage?
Considertwocompetingviews:
Conjugal View: Marriageistheunionofamanandawoman
whomakeapermanentandexclusivecommitmenttoeachother
ofthetypethatisnaturally(inherently)fulfilledbybearingand
rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and
renewtheirunionbyconjugalactsactsthatconstitutethebe
havioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them
as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its in
herent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children con
tributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of
monogamyandfidelity.Thislinktothewelfareofchildrenalso
helps explain why marriage is important to the common good
andwhythestateshouldrecognizeandregulateit.1
Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people
(whetherofthesamesexorofoppositesexes)whocommitto
romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing
theburdensandbenefitsofdomesticlife.Itisessentiallyaun
ionofheartsandminds,enhancedbywhateverformsofsexual
intimacybothpartnersfindagreeable.Thestateshouldrecog
nize and regulate marriage because it hasan interest in stable
1.SeeJohnM.Finnis,Law,Morality,andSexualOrientation,69NOTREDAMEL.
REV. 1049, 1066 (1994); John Finnis, Marriage: A Basic and Exigent Good, THE
MONIST,JulyOct.2008,388406.SeealsoPATRICKLEE&ROBERTP.GEORGE,BODY
SELFDUALISMINCONTEMPORARYETHICSANDPOLITICS17697(2008).
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
247
romanticpartnershipsandintheconcreteneedsofspousesand
anychildrentheymaychoosetorear.2
It has sometimes been suggested that the conjugal under
standingofmarriageisbasedonlyonreligiousbeliefs.Thisis
false.Althoughtheworldsmajorreligioustraditionshavehis
torically understood marriage as a union of man and woman
thatisbynatureaptforprocreationandchildrearing,3thissug
gestsmerelythatnoonereligioninventedmarriage.Instead,the
demandsofourcommonhumannaturehaveshaped(however
imperfectly)allofourreligioustraditionstorecognizethisnatu
ral institution. As such, marriage is the type of social practice
whosebasiccontourscanbediscernedbyourcommonhuman
reason, whatever our religious background. We argue in this
Articleforlegallyenshriningtheconjugalviewofmarriage,us
ingargumentsthatrequirenoappealtoreligiousauthority.4
Part I begins by defending the ideawhich many revision
istsimplicitlysharebutmostshrinkfromconfrontingthatthe
nature of marriage (that is, its essential features, what it fun
damentallyis)shouldsettlethisdebate.Ifacentralclaimmade
byrevisionistsagainsttheconjugalview,thatequalityrequires
recognizing loving consensual relationships,5 were true, it
wouldalsorefutetherevisionistview;beingfalse,itinfactre
futesneitherview.
Revisionists, moreover, have said what they think marriage
is not (for example, inherently oppositesex), but have only
rarely (and vaguely) explained what they think marriage is.
Consequently, because it is easier to criticize a received view
thantoconstructacompletealternative,revisionistarguments
havehadanappealingsimplicity.Buttheseargumentsarealso
vulnerabletopowerfulcriticismsthatrevisionistsdonothave
theresourcestoanswer.ThisArticle,bycontrast,makesaposi
tive case, based on three widely held principles, for what
makesamarriage.
2.SeeStephenMacedo,HomosexualityandtheConservativeMind,84GEO.L.J.261,
279(1995).
3.Evenintraditionsthatpermitorhavepermittedpolygamy,eachmarriageis
betweenamanandawoman.
4.SeeinfraPartII.E.
5.See William N. Eskridge, Jr., A History of SameSex Marriage, 79 VA. L. REV.
1419,1424(1993).
248
[Vol.34
PartIalsoshowshowthecommongoodofoursocietycru
ciallydependsonlegallyenshriningtheconjugalviewofmar
riage and would be damaged by enshrining the revisionist
viewthusansweringthecommonquestion,Howwouldgay
civilmarriageaffectyouoryourmarriage?PartIalsoshows
that what revisionists often consider a tension in our view
that marriage is possible between an infertile man and
womanis easily resolved. Indeed, it is revisionists who can
not explain (against a certain libertarianism) why the state
shouldcareenoughaboutsomerelationshipstoenactanymar
riagepolicyatall,orwhy,ifenacted,itshouldhavecertainfea
tures which even they do not dispute. Only the conjugal view
accounts for both facts. For all these reasons, even those who
consider marriage to be merely a socially useful fiction have
strong pragmatic reasons for supporting traditional marriage
laws.Inshort,PartIarguesthatlegallyenshriningtheconjugal
viewofmarriageisbothphilosophicallydefensibleandgoodfor
society, and that enshrining the revisionist view is neither. So
PartIprovidesthecoreoressenceofourargument,whatcould
reasonablybetakenasastandalonedefenseofourposition.
Butmanywhoaccept(oratleastgrant)ourcoreargumentmay
havelingeringquestionsaboutthejusticeorconsequencesofim
plementingit.PartIIconsidersalloftheseriousconcernsthatare
not treated earlier: the objections from conservatism (Why not
spreadtraditionalnormstothegaycommunity?),frompractical
ity(Whataboutpartnersconcreteneeds?),fromfairness(Doesnt
the conjugal conception of marriage sacrifice some peoples ful
fillmentforothers?),fromnaturalness(Isntitonlynatural?),and
fromneutrality(Doesnttraditionalmarriagelawimposecontro
versialmoralandreligiousviewsoneveryone?).
As this Article makes clear, the result of this debate mat
ters profoundly for the common good. And it all hinges on
onequestion:Whatismarriage?
I
A.
Equality,Justice,andtheHeartoftheDebate
Revisionists today miss this central questionwhat is mar

riage?mostobviouslywhentheyequatetraditionalmarriage
laws with laws banning interracial marriage. They argue that
people cannot control their sexual orientation any more than
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
249
theycancontrolthecoloroftheirskin.6Inbothcases,theyar
gue, there is no rational basis for treating relationships differ
ently, because the freedom to marry the person one loves is a
fundamentalright.7Thestatediscriminatesagainsthomosexu
als by interfering with this basic right, thus denying them the
equalprotectionofthelaws.8
But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom
to allow to marry, not what marriage was essentially about;
andsex,unlikerace,isrationallyrelevanttothelatterques
tion. Because every law makes distinctions, there is nothing
unjustly discriminatory in marriage laws reliance on genu
inelyrelevantdistinctions.
Opponents of interracial marriage typically did not deny that
marriage(understoodasaunionconsummatedbyconjugalacts)
betweenablackandawhitewaspossibleanymorethanpropo
nents of segregated public facilities argued that some feature of
thewhitesonlywaterfountainsmadeitimpossibleforblacksto
drink from them. The whole point of antimiscegenation laws in
theUnitedStateswastopreventthegenuinepossibilityofinter
racial marriage from being realized or recognized, in order to
maintainthegravelyunjustsystemofwhitesupremacy.9
Bycontrast,thecurrentdebateispreciselyoverwhetheritis
possibleforthekindofunionthathasmarriagesessentialfea
turestoexistbetweentwopeopleofthesamesex.Revisionists
donotproposeleavingintactthehistoricdefinitionofmarriage
and simply expanding the pool of people eligible to marry.
Theirgoalistoabolishtheconjugalconceptionofmarriagein
ourlaw10andreplaceitwiththerevisionistconception.
6.See,e.g.,id.
7.See,e.g.,id.
8.Id.
9.SeeLovingv.Virginia,388U.S.1,11(1967).
10.Throughout history, no societys laws have explicitly forbidden gay mar
riage.Theyhavenotexplicitlyforbiddenitbecause,untilrecently,ithasnotbeen
thought possible. What is more, antimiscegenation laws, at least in the United
States,weremeanttokeepblacksseparatefromwhites,andthusinapositionof
social, economic, and political inferiority to them. But traditional marriage laws
were not devised to oppress those with samesex attractions. The comparison is
offensive,andpuzzlingtomanynotleasttothenearlytwothirdsofblackvot
ers who voted to uphold conjugal marriage under California Proposition Eight.
SeeCaraMiaDiMassa&JessicaGarrison,WhyGays,BlacksareDividedonProp.8,
L.A.TIMES,Nov.8,2008,atA1.
250
[Vol.34
More decisively, though, the analogy to antimiscegenation

failsbecauseitreliesonthefalseassumptionthatanydistinc
tion is unjust discrimination. But suppose that the legal inci
dents of marriage were made available to samesex as well as
oppositesexcouples.Wewouldstill,bytherevisionistslogic,
bediscriminatingagainstthoseseekingopen,temporary,poly
gynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial un
ions.Afterall,peoplecanfindthemselvesexperiencingsexual
andromanticdesireformultiplepartners(concurrentorserial),
orcloselybloodrelatedpartners,ornonhumanpartners.They
are(presumably)freenottoactonthesesexualdesires,butthis
istruealsoofpeopleattractedtopersonsofthesamesex.
Many revisionists point out that there are important differ
encesbetweenthesecasesandsamesexunions.Incest,forex
ample, can produce children with health problems and may
involve child abuse. But then, assuming for the moment that
thestatesinterestinavoidingsuchbadoutcomestrumpswhat
revisionists tend to describe as a fundamental right, why not
allowincestuousmarriagesbetweenadultinfertileorsamesex
couples?Revisionistsmightanswerthatpeopleshouldbefree
toentersuchrelationships,andallorsomeoftheotherslisted,
but that these do not merit legal recognition. Why? Because,
the revisionist will be forced to admit, marriage as such just
cannot take these forms, or can do so only immorally. Recog
nizingthemwouldbe,variously,confusedorimmoral.
Revisionists who arrive at this conclusion must accept at
leastthreeprinciples.
First, marriage is not a legal construct with totally malleable
contoursnot just a contract. Otherwise, how could the law
get marriage wrong? Rather, some sexual relationships are in
stances of a distinctive kind of relationshipcall it real mar
riagethat has its own value and structure, whether the state
recognizesitornot,andisnotchangedbylawsbasedonafalse
conceptionofit.Liketherelationshipbetweenparentsandtheir
children, or between the parties to an ordinary promise, real
marriagesaremoralrealitiesthatcreatemoralprivilegesandob
ligationsbetweenpeople,independentlyoflegalenforcement.11
11.Forabriefdefenseofthisidea,andtheimplicationsforourargumentofde
nyingit,seeinfraPartI.F.
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
251
Thus,whensomestatesforbadeinterracialmarriage,theyei
therattemptedtokeeppeoplefromformingrealmarriages,or
denied legal status to those truly marital relationships. Con
versely,ifthestateconferredthesamestatusonamanandhis
two best friends or on a woman and an inanimate object, it
wouldnottherebymakethemreallymarried.Itwouldmerely
give the title and (where possible) the benefits of legal mar
riagestowhatarenotactuallymarriagesatall.
Second,thestateisjustifiedinrecognizingonlyrealmarriages
asmarriages.Peoplewhocannotentermarriagessounderstood
for, say, psychological reasons are not wronged by the state,
even when they did not choose and cannot control the factors
that keep them singlewhich is true, after all, of many people
whoremainsingledespitetheirbesteffortstofindamate.
Anylegalsystemthatdistinguishesmarriagefromother,non
marital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude
somekindsofunionfromrecognition.Sobeforewecanconclude
thatsomemarriagepolicyviolatestheEqualProtectionClause,12
oranyothermoralorconstitutionalprinciple,wehavetodeter
minewhatmarriageactuallyisandwhyitshouldberecognized
legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like
kinshipstatus)arerelevant,andwhich(likerace)areirrelevantto
apolicythataimstorecognizerealmarriages.Soitwillestablish
when,ifever,itisamarriagethatisbeingdeniedlegalrecogni
tion,andwhenitissomethingelsethatisbeingexcluded.
Asaresult,indecidingwhethertorecognize,say,polyamor
ous unions, revisionists would not have to figure out first
whetherthedesireforsuchrelationshipsisnaturalorunchang
ing; what the economic effects of not recognizing polyamory
would be; whether nonrecognition stigmatizes polyamorous
partnersandtheirchildren;orwhethernonrecognitionviolates
their right to the equal protection of the law. With respect to
the last question, it is exactly the other way around: Figuring
out what marriage is would tell us whether equality requires
generally treating polyamorous relationships just as we do
monogamousonesthatis,asmarriages.
Third,thereisnogeneralrighttomarrythepersonyoulove,
if this means a right to have any type of relationship that you
desirerecognizedasmarriage.Thereisonlyapresumptiveright
12.SeePerryv.Schwarzenegger,704F.Supp.2d921(N.D.Cal.2010).
252
[Vol.34
nottobepreventedfromformingarealmarriagewhereverone
is possible. And, again, the state cannot choose or change the
essenceofrealmarriage;soinradicallyreinventinglegalmar
riage,thestatewouldobscureamoralreality.
Thereisatensionhere.Somerevisionistssaythatmarriageis
merelyasocialandlegalconstruct,buttheirappealstoequal
ity undermine this claim. The principle of equality requires
treating like cases alike. So the judgment that samesex and
oppositesex unions are alike with respect to marriage, and
shouldthereforebetreatedalikebymarriagelaw,presupposes
oneoftwothings:Eitherneitherrelationshipisarealmarriage
in the above sense, perhaps because there is no such thing,
marriagebeingjustalegalfiction(inwhichcase,whynotjus
tify apparent inequities by socialutility considerations?13), or
both relationships are real marriages, whatever the law says
aboutthem.Thelatterpresuppositionentailsthebelief,which
mostrevisionistsseemtosharewithadvocatesoftheconjugal
view,thatmarriagehasanatureindependentoflegalconven
tions. In this way, the crucial questionthe only one that can
settlethisdebateremainsforbothsides:Whatismarriage?
B.
RealMarriageIsAndIsOnlyTheUnion
ofHusbandandWife
As many people acknowledge, marriage involves: first, a

comprehensive union of spouses; second, a special link to
children; and third, norms of permanence, monogamy, and
exclusivity.14 All three elements point to the conjugal under
standingofmarriage.
13.Thispointrequireselaboration:Somerevisionistsmightdenythatthereisa
realmarriagefromwhichanyrelationshipmightdeviate,andinsteadmaintain
that marriage is purely conventional. Those who think marriage is a useless or
unjustifiablefictionhavenoreasontosupportanymarriagelawatall,whilethose
whothinkitisausefulandlegitimatefictionmustexplainwhythestateshould
keepeventherestrictionsonmarriagethattheysupport.Onthislatterpoint,see
infraPartII.B.Ontheimplicationsofregardingmarriageaspureconstruction,see
infraPartI.F.
14.Among revisionists, see, for example, Jonathan Rauch, For Better or Worse?
ThecaseforGay(andStraight)Marriage,THE NEWREPUBLIC,May6,1996,at18,avail
able at http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/gay_marriage_1_the_case_for_
marriage;RalphWedgwood,TheFundamentalArgumentforSameSexMarriage,7
J. POL. PHIL. 225, 229 (1999); Jonathan Rauch, Not So Fast, Mr. George, INDEP.
GAY F. (Aug. 2, 2006), http://igfculturewatch.com/2006/08/02/notsofastmr
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
1.
253
ComprehensiveUnion
Marriage is distinguished from every other form of friend

ship inasmuch as it is comprehensive. It involves a sharing of
lives and resources, and a union of minds and willshence,
among other things, the requirement of consent for forming a
marriage. But on the conjugal view, it also includes organic
bodilyunion.Thisisbecausethebodyisarealpartoftheper
son, not just his costume, vehicle, or property. Human beings
are not properly understood as nonbodily personsminds,
ghosts, consciousnessesthat inhabit and use nonpersonal
bodies.Afterall,ifsomeoneruinsyourcar,hevandalizesyour
property,butifheamputatesyourleg,heinjuresyou.Because
thebodyisaninherentpartofthehumanperson,thereisadif
ferenceinkindbetweenvandalismandviolation;betweende
structionofpropertyandmutilationofbodies.
Likewise, because our bodies are truly aspects of us as per
sons, any union of two people that did not involve organic
bodilyunionwouldnotbecomprehensiveitwouldleaveout
animportantpartofeachpersonsbeing.Becausepersonsare
bodymindcomposites,abodilyunionextendstherelationship
oftwofriendsalong anentirelynewdimensionoftheirbeing
as persons. If two people want to unite in the comprehensive
waypropertomarriage,theymust(amongotherthings)unite
organicallythatis,inthebodilydimensionoftheirbeing.
This necessity of bodily union can be seen most clearly by
imaginingthealternatives.SupposethatMichaelandMichelle
buildtheirrelationshipnotonsexualexclusivity,butontennis
exclusivity. They pledge to play tennis with each other, and
only with each other, until death do them part. Are they
therebymarried?No.Substitutefortennisanynonsexualactiv
ity at all, and they still arent married: Sexual exclusivity
exclusivity with respect to a specific kind of bodily unionis
required.Butwhatisitaboutsexualintercoursethatmakesit
uniquelycapableofcreatingbodilyunion?Peoplesbodiescan
touchandinteractinallsortsofways,sowhydoesonlysexual
unionmakebodiesinanysignificantsenseoneflesh?
Ourorgansourheartandstomach,forexampleareparts
of one body because they are coordinated, along with other
george. Among supporters of the conjugal view, see, for example, ST. THOMAS
AQUINAS,SUMMATHEOLOGICASupp.,Q.44,Art.1.
254
[Vol.34
parts, for acommon biological purpose of thewhole: our bio

logical life. It follows that for two individuals to unite organi
cally, and thus bodily, their bodies must be coordinated for
somebiologicalpurposeofthewhole.
Thatsortofunionisimpossibleinrelationtofunctionssuchas
digestion and circulation, for which the human individual is by
nature sufficient. But individual adults are naturally incomplete
withrespecttoonebiologicalfunction:sexualreproduction.Incoi
tus,butnotinotherformsofsexualcontact,amanandawomans
bodiescoordinatebywayoftheirsexualorgansforthecommon
biologicalpurposeofreproduction.Theyperformthefirststepof
thecomplexreproductiveprocess.Thus,theirbodiesbecome,ina
strongsense,onetheyarebiologicallyunited,anddonotmerely
rubtogetherincoitus(andonlyincoitus),similarlytotheway
inwhichonesheart,lungs,andotherorgansformaunity:byco
ordinating for the biological good of the whole. In this case, the
whole is made up of the man and woman as a couple, and the
biologicalgoodofthatwholeistheirreproduction.
Here is another way of looking at it. Union on any plane
bodily,mental,orwhateverinvolvesmutualcoordinationon
that plane, toward a good on that plane. When Einstein and
Bohrdiscussedaphysicsproblem,theycoordinatedintellectu
ally for an intellectual good, truth. And the intellectual union
theyenjoyedwasreal,whetherornotitsultimatetarget(inthis
case, a theoretical solution) was reachedassuming, as we
safely can, that both Einstein and Bohr were honestly seeking
truth and not merely pretending while engaging in deception
orotheractswhichwouldmaketheirapparentintellectualun
iononlyanillusion.
Byextension,bodilyunioninvolvesmutualcoordinationto
ward a bodily goodwhich is realized only through coitus.
Andthisunionoccursevenwhenconception,thebodilygood
towardwhichsexualintercourseasabiologicalfunctionisori
ented, does not occur. In other words, organic bodily unity is
achievedwhenamanandwomancoordinatetoperformanact
of the kind that causes conception. This act is traditionally
calledtheactofgenerationorthegenerativeact;15if(andonly
15.See,e.g.,THOMAS WALTER LAQUEUR, MAKING SEX, BODYAND GENDERFROM

THEGREEKSTOFREUD48(1990).
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
255
if)itisafreeandlovingexpressionofthespousespermanent
andexclusivecommitment,thenitisalsoamaritalact.
Because interpersonal unions are valuable in themselves, and
notmerelyasmeanstootherends,ahusbandandwifesloving
bodily union in coitus and the special kind of relationship to
whichitisintegralarevaluablewhetherornotconceptionresults
and even when conception is not sought. But two men or two
womencannotachieveorganicbodilyunionsincethereisnobod
ily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate,
reproduction being the only candidate.16 This is a clear sense in
whichtheirunioncannotbemarital,ifmaritalmeanscomprehen
siveandcomprehensivemeans,amongotherthings,bodily.
2.
SpecialLinktoChildren
Mostpeopleacceptthatmarriageisalsodeeplyindeed,in
animportantsense,uniquelyorientedtohavingandrearing
children.Thatis,itisthekindofrelationshipthatbyitsnature
isorientedto,andenrichedby,thebearingandrearingofchil
dren.Buthowcanthisbetrue,andwhatdoesittellusabout
thestructureofmarriage?
Itisclearthatmerelycommittingtorearchildrentogether,or
even actually doing so, is not enough to make a relationship a
marriagetomakeitthekindofrelationshipthatisbyitsnature
orientedtobearingandrearingchildren.Ifthreemonksagreedto
careforanorphan,oriftwoelderlybrothersbegancaringfortheir
latesistersson,theywouldnottherebybecomespouses.Itisalso
clearthathavingchildrenisnotnecessarytobeingmarried;new
lywedsdonotbecomespousesonlywhentheirfirstchildcomes
along.AngloAmericanlegaltraditionhasforcenturiesregarded
coitus,andnottheconceptionorbirthofachild,astheeventthat
consummatesamarriage.17Furthermore,thistraditionhasnever
deniedthatchildlessmarriagesweretruemarriages.
16.Pleasure cannot play this role for several reasons. The good must be truly
commonandforthecoupleasawhole,butpleasures(and,indeed,anypsycho
logicalgood)areprivateandbenefitpartners,ifatall,onlyindividually.Thegood
mustbebodily,butpleasuresareaspectsofexperience.Thegoodmustbeinher
ently valuable, but pleasures are not as such good in themselveswitness, for
example, sadistic pleasures. For more on this philosophical point, see LEE &
GEORGE,supranote1,95115,17697.
17.The Oxford English Dictionary charts the usage of consummation as,
among other definitions not relating to marriage, [t]he completion of marriage
bysexualintercourse.OXFORDENGLISHDICTIONARYIII,at803(2ded.1989).The
256
[Vol.34
How, then, should we understand the special connection be

tweenmarriageandchildren?Welearnsomethingaboutarela
tionship from the way it is sealed or embodied in certain
activities.Mostgenerically,ordinaryfriendshipscenteronaun
ion of minds and wills, by which each person comes to know
andseektheothersgood;thus,friendshipsaresealedinconver
sationsandcommonpursuits.Similarly,scholarlyrelationships
aresealedorembodiedinjointinquiry,investigation,discovery,
anddissemination;sportscommunities,inpracticesandgames.
If there is some conceptual connection between children and
marriage, therefore, we can expect a correlative connection be
tweenchildrenandthewaythatmarriagesaresealed.Thatcon
nection is obvious if the conjugal view of marriage is correct.
Marriageisacomprehensiveunionoftwosexuallycomplemen
tary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relation
ship by the generative actby the kind of activity that is by its
naturefulfilledbytheconceptionofachild.Somarriageitselfis
orientedtoandfulfilled18bythebearing,rearing,andeducation
of children. The procreativetype act distinctively seals or com
pletesaprocreativetypeunion.
Again,thisisnottosaythatthemarriagesofinfertilecouples
arenottruemarriages.Considerthisanalogy:Abaseballteamhas
its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to
winninggames;itinvolvesdevelopingandsharingonesathletic
skillsinthewaybestsuitedforhonorablywinning(amongother
things, with assiduous practice and good sportsmanship). But
suchdevelopmentandsharingarepossibleandinherentlyvalu
ableforteammatesevenwhentheylosetheirgames.
Just so, marriage has its characteristic structure largely be
cause of its orientation to procreation; it involves developing
andsharingonesbodyandwholeselfinthewaybestsuitedfor
honorable parenthoodamong other things, permanently and
exclusively. But such development and sharing, including the
earliestsuchusagerecordedinlawwasthe1548Act23Edw.VI,c.232:Sen
tence for Matrimony, commanding Solemnization, Cohabitation, Consummation
and Tractation as becometh Man and Wife to have. Id. In more modern usage,
consummation of marriage is still regarded in family law as [t]he first post
maritalactofsexualintercoursebetweenahusbandandwife.BLACKSLAWDIC
TIONARY359(9thed.2009).
18.Thatis,madeevenricherasthekindofrealityitis.
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
257
bodily union of the generative act, are possible and inherently

valuableforspousesevenwhentheydonotconceivechildren.19
Therefore,peoplewhocanunitebodilycanbespouseswithout
children, just as people who can practice baseball can be team
mateswithoutvictoriesonthefield.Althoughmarriageisasocial
practicethathasitsbasicstructurebynaturewhereasbaseballis
whollyconventional,theanalogyhighlightsacrucialpoint:Infer
tile couples and winless baseball teams both meet the basic re
quirements for participating in the practice (conjugal union;
practicingandplayingthegame)andretaintheirbasicorientation
to the fulfillment of that practice (bearing and rearing children;
winninggames),evenifthatfulfillmentisneverreached.
On the other hand, samesex partnerships, whatever their
moralstatus,cannotbemarriagesbecausetheylackanyessen
tial orientation to children: They cannot be sealed by the gen
erative act. Indeed, in the common law tradition, only coitus
(not anal or oral sex even between legally wed spouses) has
beenrecognizedasconsummatingamarriage.20
Given the marital relationships natural orientation to chil
dren, it is not surprising that, according to the best available
sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every in
dicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological
parents. Studies that control for other relevant factors, includ
ingpovertyandevengenetics,suggestthatchildrenrearedin
intacthomesfarebestonthefollowingindices:21
Educationalachievement:literacyandgraduationrates;
Emotional health: rates of anxiety, depression, substance
abuse,andsuicide;
Familialandsexualdevelopment:strongsenseofidentity,tim
ing of onset of puberty, rates of teen and outofwedlock
pregnancy,andratesofsexualabuse;and
19.Formoreonthispoint,seeinfraPartI.D.
20.Formoreonthedifferencebetweeninfertileandsamesexcouples,seeinfra
PartI.D.
21.For the relevant studies, see Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good,
signed by some seventy scholars, which corroborates the philosophical case for
marriage with extensive evidence from the social sciences about the welfare of
children and adults. THE WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE, MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC
GOOD: TEN PRINCIPLES 919 (2008), available at http://www.winst.org/
family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf.
258
[Vol.34
Childandadultbehavior:ratesofaggression,attentiondeficit
disorder,delinquency,andincarceration.
Considertheconclusionsoftheleftleaningresearchinstitu
tionChildTrends:
[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure mat
tersforchildren,andthefamilystructurethathelpschildren
the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a
lowconflict marriage. Children in singleparent families,
children born to unmarried mothers, and children in step
familiesorcohabitingrelationshipsfacehigherrisksofpoor
outcomes....There is thus value for children in promoting
strong, stable marriages between biological parents....[I]t
is not simply the presence of two parents,...but the pres
enceoftwobiologicalparentsthatseemstosupportchildrens
development.22
According to another study, [t]he advantage ofmarriage ap

pearstoexistprimarilywhenthechildisthebiologicaloffspring
of both parents.23 Recent literature reviews conducted by the
BrookingsInstitution,theWoodrowWilsonSchoolofPublicand
InternationalAffairsatPrincetonUniversity,theCenterforLaw
and Social Policy, and the Institute for American Values cor
roboratetheimportanceofintacthouseholdsforchildren.24
Note,moreover,thatforarelationshiptobeorientedtochil
dren in this principled as well as empirically manifestedway,
sexualorientationassuchisnotadisqualifier.Theunion ofa
husbandandwifebearsthisconnectiontochildrenevenif,say,
thehusbandisalsoattractedtomen.Whatisnecessaryinthis
respect is rather sexual complementarity. Two men, even if
they are attracted only to women, cannot exhibit this kind of
biological complementarity. In this sense, it is not individuals
assuchwhoaresingledoutasbeinglesscapableofaffection
22.KristinAndersonMooreetal.,MarriagefromaChildsPerspective:HowDoes
FamilyStructureAffectChildren,andWhatCanWeDoAboutIt?,CHILD TRENDS RE
SEARCH BRIEF, June 2002, at 12, 6, available at http://www.childtrends.org/
files/MarriageRB602.pdf.
23.WendyD.Manning&KathleenA.Lamb,AdolescentWellBeinginCohabiting,
Married,andSingleParentFamilies,65J.MARRIAGE&FAM.876,890(2003).
24.See Sara McLanahan, Elisabeth Donahue & Ron Haskins, Introducing the Is
sue, 15 THE FUTURE OF CHILD. 3 (2005); Mary Parke, Are Married Parents Really
BetterforChildren?,CLASPPOLICYBRIEF,May2003;W.BRADFORDWILCOXETAL.,
2 WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: TWENTYSIX CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SOCIAL
SCIENCES6(2005).
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
259
ate and responsible parenting, or anything else. Instead, what

are systematically favored as bearing a special and valuable
linktochildrearingarecertainarrangementsandtheactsthat
complete or embody themto which, of course, particular in
dividualsaremoreorlessinclined.
3.
MaritalNorms
Finally,unionsthatareconsummatedbythegenerativeact,
andthatarethusorientedtohavingandrearingchildren,can
makebettersenseoftheothernormsthatshapemarriageaswe
haveknownit.
For if bodily union is essential tomarriage,25 we can under
stand whymarriage isincomplete and can bedissolved if not
consummated,andwhyitshould be,likethe unionoforgans
intoonehealthywhole,totalandlastingforthelifeoftheparts
(tilldeathdouspart26).Thatis,thecomprehensivenessofthe
unionacrossthedimensionsofeachspousesbeingcallsfora
temporalcomprehensiveness,too:throughtime(henceperma
nence) and at each time (hence exclusivity). This is clear also
fromthefactthatthesortofbodilyunionintegraltomarriage
grounds its special, essential link to procreation,27 in light of
whichitisunsurprisingthatthenormsofmarriageshouldcre
ateconditionssuitableforchildren:stableandharmoniouscon
ditions that sociology and common sense agree are
undermined by divorcewhich deprives children of an intact
biologicalfamilyandbyinfidelity,whichbetraysanddivides
onesattentionandresponsibilitytospouseandchildren,often
withchildrenfromothercouplings.
Thus, the inherent orientation of conjugal union to children
deepens and extends whatever reasons spouses may have to
stay together for life and to remain faithful: in relationships
thatlackthisorientation,itishardtoseewhypermanenceand
exclusivity should be, not only desirable whenever not very
costly(asstabilityisinanygoodhumanbond),butinherently
normativeforanyoneintherelevantkindofrelationship.28
25.FormoreonthispointseesupraPartI.B.I.
26.BOOKOFCOMMONPRAYER220(Oxford1815).
27.FormoreonthispointseesupraPartI.B.I.
28.SeeinfraPartI.E.3.
260
C.
[Vol.34
HowWouldGayCivilMarriageAffect
YouorYourMarriage?
At this point, some revisionists abandon the philosophical

project of attacking the conjugal conception of marriage and
simply ask, whats the harm? Even if we are right, is imple
mentingourviewimportantenoughtojustifytheemotionaland
other difficulties that some may experience as a result of being
deniedrecognitionofthesexualpartnershipstheyhaveformed?
Whyshouldthestatecareaboutsomeabstractmoralprinciple?
Revisionists often capture this point with a question: How
wouldgaymarriageaffectyouoryourmarriage?29Itisworth
noting, first, that this question could be turned back on revi
sionists who oppose legally recognizing, for example, polya
morous unions: How would doing so affect anyone elses
marriage?Ifthiskindofquestionisdecisiveagainsttheconju
gal views constraints on which unions to recognize, it cuts
equally against the revisionists. In fact it undermines neither
since,asevenmanyrevisionistsimplicitlyagree,publicinstitu
tionslikecivilmarriagehavewideanddeepeffectsonourcul
turewhichinturnaffectsotherslivesandchoices.
Thus, supporters of the conjugal view often respond to this
challengerightly,webelievethatabolishingtheconjugalcon
ception ofmarriage would weakenthe social institution of mar
riage,obscurethevalueofoppositesexparentingasanideal,and
threatenmoralandreligiousfreedom.Hereisasketchofhow.
1.
WeakeningMarriage
Noonedeliberatesoractsinavacuum.Wealltakecues(in
cludingcuesastowhatmarriageisandwhatitrequiresofus)
fromculturalnorms,whichareshapedinpartbythelaw.In
deed, revisionists themselves implicitly concede this point.
Whyelsewouldtheybedissatisfiedwithcivilunionsforsame
sex couples? Like us, they understand that the states favored
conception of marriage matters because it affects societys un
derstandingofthatinstitution.
Inredefiningmarriage,thelawwouldteachthatmarriageis
fundamentally about adults emotional unions, not bodily un
29.See,e.g.,Editorial,AVermontCourtSpeaks,BOSTON GLOBE,Dec.22,1999,at
A22 ([Gay marriage] no more undermine[s] traditional marriage than sailing
underminesswimming.).
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
261
ion30 or children,31 with which marital norms aretightly inter

twined.32 Since emotions can be inconstant, viewing marriage
essentiallyasanemotionalunionwouldtendtoincreasemari
tal instabilityand it would blur the distinct value of friend
ship, which is a union of hearts and minds.33 Moreover, and
more importantly, because there is no reason that primarily
emotional unions any more than ordinary friendships in gen
eral should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two,34 these
normsofmarriagewouldmakelessandlesssense.Lessableto
understandtherationaleforthesemaritalnorms,peoplewould
feellessboundtolivebythem.Andlessabletounderstandthe
value of marriage itself as a certain kind of union, even apart
from the value of its emotional satisfactions, people would in
creasingly fail to see the intrinsic reasons they have for marry
ing35orstayingwithaspouseabsentconsistentlystrongfeeling.
In other words, a mistaken marriage policy tends to distort
peoplesunderstandingofthekindofrelationshipthatspouses
aretoformandsustain.Andthatlikelyerodespeoplesadher
ence to marital norms that are essential to the common good.
As University of Calgary philosopher Elizabeth Brake, who
supports legal recognition of relationships of any size, gender
composition, and allocation of responsibilities, affirms, mar
riagedoesnotsimplyallowaccesstolegalentitlements;italso
allows partners to signal the importance of their relationship
andtoinvokesocialpressuresoncommitment.36
Ofcourse,marriagepolicycouldgobadandalreadyhasin
manyways.Manyoftodayspublicopponentsoftherevisionist
viewfor example, Maggie Gallagher, David Blankenhorn, the
U.S. Catholic bishopsalso opposed other legal changes detri
mentaltotheconjugalconceptionofmarriage.37Wearefocusing
30.SeesupraPartI.B.1.
33.SeeinfraPartII.C.
34.SeeinfraPartsI.E.23.
35.StanleyKurtz,TheEndofMarriageinScandinavia,THEWKLY.STANDARD,Jan.23,
2004, at 26, available at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/
000/003/660zypwj.asp.
36.Elizabeth Brake, Minimal Marriage: What Political Liberalism Implies for Mar
riageLaw,120ETHICS302,332(2010)(emphasisadded).
37.RICHARDDOERFLINGER,FAMILYPOLICYINTHEUNITEDSTATES(1980),availableat
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/FaithfulForLife.pdf; MAGGIE GALLAGHER, THE
262
[Vol.34
hereontheissueofsamesexunions,notbecauseitalonematters,
but because it is the focus of a live debate whose results have
wideimplicationsforreformstostrengthenourmarriageculture.
Yes, social and legal developments have already worn the ties
thatbindspousestosomethingbeyondthemselvesandthusmore
securely to each other. But recognizing samesex unions would
mean cutting the last remaining threads. After all, underlying
peoplesadherencetothemaritalnormsalreadyindeclinearethe
deep (if implicit) connections in their minds between marriage,
bodilyunion,andchildren.Enshriningtherevisionistviewwould
notjustweardownbuttearoutthisfoundation,andwithitany
basisforreversingotherrecenttrendsandrestoringthemanyso
cialbenefitsofahealthymarriageculture.
Thosebenefitsredoundtochildrenandspousesalike.Because
children fare best on most indicators of health and wellbeing
when reared by their wedded biological parents,38 the further
erosion of marital norms would adversely affect children, forc
ingthestatetoplayalargerroleintheirhealth,education,and
formationmoregenerally.39Asfortheadults,thoseinthepoor
estandmostvulnerablesectorsofsocietywouldbehitthehard
est.40Butadultsmoregenerallywouldbeharmedinsofarasthe
weakening of social expectations supporting marriage would
makeitharderforthemtoabidebymaritalnorms.
2.
ObscuringtheValueofOppositeSexParentingAsanIdeal
AswehaveseeninPartI.B,legallyenshriningconjugalmar
riagesociallyreinforcestheideathattheunionofhusbandand
wifeis(asaruleandideal)themostappropriateenvironment
forthebearingandrearingofchildrenanidealwhosevalue
ABOLITION OF MARRIAGE: HOW WE DESTROY LASTING LOVE (1996); PROMISES TO

KEEP: DECLINE AND RENEWAL OF MARRIAGE IN AMERICA (David Popenoe et al.
eds., 1996); THE BOOK OF MARRIAGE: THE WISEST ANSWERS TO THE TOUGHEST
QUESTIONS (Dana Mack & David Blankenhorn eds. 2001); THE FATHERHOOD
MOVEMENT: A CALL TO ACTION (Wade F. Horn et al. eds., 1999); UNITED
STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIFE
(1975),
available
at
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/
Marriage&FamilyLife75.pdf; Maggie Gallagher & Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
EndNoFaultDivorce?,75FIRSTTHINGS24(1997).
39.SeeTHEWITHERSPOONINSTITUTE,supranote21.
40.They are clearly the primary victims of the erosion that has already taken
place.SeeW.BradfordWilcox,TheEvolutionofDivorce,1NATL AFFAIRS81,8893
(2009).
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
263
is strongly corroborated by the best available social science.41

Note, moreover, that the need for adoption where the ideal is
practicallyimpossibleisnoargumentforredefiningcivilmar
riage,aunifiedlegalstructureofincentivesmeantpreciselyto
reinforce the ideal socially and practicallyto minimize the
needforalternative,casebycaseprovisions.
Ifsamesexpartnershipswererecognizedasmarriages,how
ever,thatidealwouldbeabolishedfromourlaw:nocivilinsti
tutionwouldanylongerreinforcethenotionthatchildrenneed
both a mother and father; that men and women on average
bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; and that boys
andgirlsneedandtendtobenefitfromfathersandmothersin
differentways.
Inthatcase,totheextentthatsomecontinuedtoregardmar
riageascruciallylinkedtochildren,themessagewouldbesent
thatahouseholdoftwowomenortwomenis,asarule,justas
appropriateacontextforchildrearing,sothatitdoesnotmatter
(even as a rule) whether children are reared by both their
motherandtheirfather,orbyaparentofeachsexatall.
Ontheotherhand,totheextentthattheconnectionbetween
marriage and parenting is obscured more generally, as we
think it would be eventually,42 no kind of arrangement would
beproposedasanideal.
But the currency of either view would significantly weaken
theextenttowhichthesocialinstitutionofmarriageprovided
social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with
theirwivesandchildren.Andtotheextentthatchildrenwere
not reared by both parents, they would be prone to suffer in
thewaysidentifiedbysocialscience.43
3.
ThreateningMoralandReligiousFreedom
Because the states valueneutrality on this question (of the

propercontoursandnormsofmarriage)isimpossibleifthereisto
beanymarriagelawatall,abolishingtheconjugalunderstanding
ofmarriagewouldimplythatcommittedsamesexandopposite
sex romantic unions are equivalently real marriages. The state
would thus be forced to view conjugalmarriage supporters as
42.SeesupraPartI.C.1.
264
[Vol.34
bigotswhomakegroundlessandinvidiousdistinctions.Inways
thathavebeencataloguedbyMarcSternoftheAmericanJewish
Committee and by many other defenders of the rights of con
science,thiswouldunderminereligiousfreedomandtherightsof
parentstodirecttheeducationandupbringingoftheirchildren.44
Already, we have seen antidiscrimination laws wielded as
weaponsagainstthosewhocannot,ingoodconscience,accept
therevisionistunderstandingofsexualityandmarriage:InMas
sachusetts,CatholicCharitieswasforcedtogiveupitsadoption
services rather than, against its principles, place children with
samesexcouples.45InCalifornia,aU.S.DistrictCourtheldthata
students religious speech against homosexual acts could be
bannedbyhisschoolasinjuriousremarksthatintrude[s]upon
theworkoftheschoolsorontherightsofotherstudents.46And
again in Massachusetts, a Court of Appeals ruled that a public
schoolmayteachchildrenthathomosexualrelationsaremorally
gooddespitetheobjectionsofparentswhodisagree.47
The proposition that support for the conjugal conception of
marriageisnothingmorethanaformofbigotryhasbecomeso
deeplyentrenchedamongmarriagerevisioniststhataWashing
tonPostfeaturestory48drewdenunciationsandcriesofjournalis
tic bias for even implying that one conjugalmarriage advocate
was sane and thoughtful. Outraged readers compared the
profiletoahypotheticalpuffpieceonaKuKluxKlanmember.49
A New York Times columnist has called proponents of conjugal
marriagebigots,evensinglinganauthorofthisArticleoutby
44.Marc D. Stern, SameSex Marriage and the Churches, in SAMESEX MARRIAGE

AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: EMERGING CONFLICTS 1, 1114 (Douglas Laycock et al.
eds.,2008).Thiscollectionofessaysincludestheviewsofscholarsonbothsidesof
thesamesexmarriagequestion,whoconcludethatconflictswithreligiousliberty
areinevitablewheremarriageisextendedtosamesexcouples.
45.Maggie Gallagher, Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between SameSex
Marriage and Religious Liberty, THE WKLY. STANDARD, May 5, 2006, at 20, available at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp.
46.Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 345 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1122 (S.D. Cal.
2004).
47.See,e.g.,Parkerv.Hurley,514F.3d87(1stCir.2008).
48.Monica Hesse, Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile, WASH. POST.,
Aug.28,2009,atC01.
49.Andrew Alexander, Sanity & a Smile and an Outpouring of Rage, WASH.
POST,Sept.6,2009,atA17.
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
265
name.50Meanwhile,organizationsadvocatingthelegalredefini
tion of marriage label themselves as being for human rights
and against hate.51 The implications are clear: if marriage is
legallyredefined,believingwhateveryhumansocietyoncebe
lievedaboutmarriagenamely,thatitisamalefemaleunion
willincreasinglyberegardedasevidenceofmoralinsanity,mal
ice,prejudice,injustice,andhatred.
These points are not offered as arguments for accepting the
conjugalviewofmarriage.Ifourviewpointiswrong,thenthe
state could be justified in sometimes requiring others to treat
samesex and oppositesex romantic unions alike, and private
citizens could be justified in sometimes marginalizing the op
posing view as noxious. Rather, given our arguments about
whatmarriageactuallyis,52theseareimportantwarningsabout
theconsequencesofenshriningaseriouslyunsoundconception
ofmarriage.Theseconsiderationsshouldmotivatepeoplewho
accepttheconjugalviewbuthavetroubleseeingtheeffectsof
abolishingitfromthelaw.
In short, marriage should command our attention and en
ergymorethanmanyothermoralcausesbecausesomanydi
mensionsofthecommongoodaredamagedifthemoraltruth
aboutmarriageisobscured.Forthesamereason,bypassingthe
current debate by abolishing marriage law entirely would be
imprudentintheextreme.Almostnosocietythathasleftusa
traceofitselfhasdonewithoutsomeregulationofsexualrela
tionships.AsweshowinPartI.E.1(andthedatacitedinPart
I.B.2suggest),thewellbeingofchildrengivesuspowerfulpru
dentialreasonstorecognizeandprotectmarriagelegally.
D.
IfNotSameSexCouples,WhyInfertileOnes?
Revisionistsoftenchallengeproponentsoftheconjugalview
ofmarriagetoofferaprincipledargumentforrecognizingthe
50.FrankRich,OpEd.,TheBigotsLastHurrah,N.Y. TIMES,Apr.19,2009(Week
inReview),at10.
51.See,e.g.,HUMAN RIGHTSCAMPAIGN,http://www.hrc.org(lastvisitedNov.8,
2010) (selfidentifying the organization as a 501(c)(4) advocacy group working
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights); Annie Stockwell, Stop
theHate:VoteNoon8,ADVOCATE.COM(Aug.20,2008),http://www.advocate.com/
Arts_and_Entertainment/People/Stop_the_Hate (framing opposition to Califor
niasPropositionEight,whichprovidesthatonlymarriagebetweenamananda
womanisvalidorrecognizedinCalifornia,asastruggleagainsthate).
52.SeesupraPartI.B.
266
[Vol.34
unionsofpresumptivelyinfertilecouplesthatdoesnotequally
justify the recognition of samesex partnerships. But this chal
lengeiseasilymet.
1.
StillRealMarriages
Toformarealmarriage,acoupleneedstoestablishandlive
outthekindofunionthatwouldbecompletedby,andbeapt
for,procreationandchildrearing.53Sinceanytrueandhonor
able harmony between two people has value in itself (not
merely as a means), each such comprehensive union of two
peopleeach permanent, exclusive commitment sealed by or
ganicbodilyunioncertainlydoesaswell.
Anyactoforganicbodilyunioncansealamarriage,whether
ornotitcausesconception.54Thenatureofthespousesaction
now cannot depend on what happens hours later independ
ently of their controlwhether a sperm cell in fact penetrates
anovum.Andbecausetheunioninquestionisanorganicbod
ilyunion,itcannotdependforitsrealityonpsychologicalfac
tors.Itdoesnotmatter,then,ifspousesdonotintendtohave
children or believe that they cannot. Whatever their thoughts
or goals, whether a couple achieves bodily union depends on
factsaboutwhatishappeningbetweentheirbodies.55
Itisclearthatthebodiesofaninfertilecouplecanuniteor
ganically through coitus. Consider digestion, the individual
bodys process of nourishment. Different parts of that proc
esssalivation, chewing, swallowing, stomach action, intesti
nal absorption of nutrientsare each in their own way
oriented to the broader goal of nourishing the organism. But
our salivation, chewing, swallowing, and stomach action re
main oriented to that goal (and remain digestive acts) even if
onsomeoccasionourintestinesdonotorcannotfinallyabsorb
nutrients,andevenifweknowsobeforeweeat.56
53.SeesupraPartsI.B.13.
55.Whetherbodilyunionistrulymaritaldependsonotherfactorsforexam
ple,whetheritisundertakenfreelytoexpresspermanentandexclusivecommit
ment.Sobodilyunionisnecessarybutnotsufficientformaritalunion.
56.ProfessorAndrewKoppelmanhasarguedthat[a]sterilepersonsgenitals
arenomoresuitableforgenerationthananunloadedgunissuitableforshooting.
If someone points a gun at me and pulls the trigger, he exhibits the behavior
which, as behavior, is suitable for shooting, but it still matters a lot whether the
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
267
Similarly,thebehavioralpartsoftheprocessofreproductiondo
not lose their dynamism toward reproduction if nonbehavioral
factorsintheprocessforexample,lowspermcountorovarian
problemsprevent conception from occurring, even if the
spouses expect this beforehand. As we have argued,57 bodies
coordinatingtowardasinglebiologicalfunctionforwhicheach
aloneisnotsufficientarerightlysaidtoformanorganicunion.
Thus,infertilityisno impedimenttobodilyunionandthere
fore(asourlawhasalwaysrecognized)noimpedimenttomar
riage. This is because in truth marriage is not a mere means,
even to the great good of procreation.58 It is an end in itself,
worthwhileforitsownsake.Soitcanexistapartfromchildren,
andthestatecanrecognizeitinsuchcaseswithoutdistortingthe
moraltruthaboutmarriage.
Ofcourse,atruefriendshipoftwomenortwowomenisalso
valuableinitself.Butlackingthecapacityfororganicbodilyun
ion,it cannotbe valuablespecificallyas a marriage: it cannotbe
the comprehensive union59 on which aptness for procreation60
and distinctively marital norms61 depend. That is why only a
gunisloadedandwhetherheknowsit.ANDREW KOPPELMAN,THE GAY RIGHTS

QUESTIONINCONTEMPORARYAMERICANLAW8788(2002).
Professor Koppelmans objection is mistaken and misses an important point.
Naturalorgansandorganicprocessesareunlikemanmadeobjectsandartificial
processes,whichretaintheirdynamismtowardcertaingoalsonlysolongaswe
usethemforthosegoalswhichinturnpresupposesthatwethinkthemcapable
of actually realizing those goals. That is, the function of manmade objects and
processesisimposedonthembythehumanbeingswhousethem.Thus,apiece
of metal becomes a knifean artifact whose function is to cutonly when we
intend to use it for cutting. When it is no longer capable of cutting and we no
longerintendtouseitforcutting,itisnolongerreallyaknife.
The same does not hold for the union between a man and a womans human
bodies, however, because natural organs are what they are (and thus have their
naturaldynamismtowardcertainfunctions)independentlyofwhatweintendto
usethemforandevenofwhetherthefunctiontheyservecanbebroughttocom
pletion. Thus, in our example, a stomach remains a stomachan organ whose
natural function is to play a certain role in digestionregardless of whether we
intendittobeusedthatwayandevenofwhetherdigestionwillbesuccessfully
completed. Something analogous is true of sexual organs with respect to repro
duction.
58.Ontheconjugalview,spousespledgetoformaunionthatiscomprehensive
andthusbodily,andthusprocreativebynature.Theydonotandcannotpledge
toformaunionthatresultsinprocreation.
59.Seeid.
268
[Vol.34
manandawomancanformamarriageaunionwhosenorms
andobligationsaredecisivelyshapedbyitsessentialdynamism
towardchildren.Forthatdynamismcomesnotfromtheactual
orexpectedpresenceofchildren,whichsomesamesexpartners
andevencohabitingbrotherscouldhave,andsomeoppositesex
couples lack, but from the way that marriage is sealed or con
summated:62incoitus,whichisorganicbodilyunion.
2.
StillinthePublicInterest
Someonemightgranttheprincipledpointthatinfertilityis
notanimpedimenttomarriage,andstillwonderwhatpub
lic benefit a marriage that cannot produce children would
have. Why, in other words, should we legally recognize an
infertilemarriage?
Practically speaking, many couples believed to be infertile
enduphavingchildren,whowouldbeservedbytheirparents
healthymarriage;andinanycase,theefforttodeterminefertil
itywouldrequireunjustinvasionsofprivacy.Thisisaconcern
presumably shared by revisionists, who would not, for exam
ple,requireinterviewsforascertainingpartnerslevelofaffec
tionbeforegrantingthemamarriagelicense.
More generally, even an obviously infertile coupleno less
thanchildlessnewlywedsorparentsofgrownchildrencanlive
outthefeaturesandnormsofrealmarriageandtherebycontrib
utetoahealthymarriageculture.Theycansetagoodexamplefor
othersandhelptoteachthenextgenerationwhatmarriageisand
isnot.Andaswehaveargued63andwillargue,64everyonebene
fitsfromahealthymarriageculture.
What is more, any marriage law at all communicates some
messageaboutwhatmarriageisasamoralreality.Thestatehas
anobligationtogetthatmessageright,forthesakeofpeoplewho
mightentertheinstitution,fortheirchildren,andforthecommu
nityasawhole.Torecognizeonlyfertilemarriagesistosuggest
that marriage is merely a means to procreation and child
rearingandnotwhatittrulyis,namely,agoodinitself.65Itmay
63.SeesupraPartI.C.
64.SeeinfraPartI.E.1.
65.SeesupraPartsI.B.12
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
269
alsoviolatetheprincipleofequalitytowhichrevisionistsappeal,66
becauseinfertileandfertilecouplesalikecanformunionsofthe
samebasickind:realmarriages.Intheabsenceofstrongreasons
forit,thiskindofdifferentialtreatmentwouldbeunfair.
Finally,althoughalegalschemethathonoredtheconjugalcon
ceptionofmarriage,asourlawhaslongdone,wouldnotrestrict
the incidents of marriage to spouses who happen to have chil
dren, its success would tend to limit children to families led by
legally married spouses. After all, the more effectively the law
teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to
enterintomarriageandabidebyitsnorms.Andthemorepeople
form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is
that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents.
Deathandtragedymakethegapimpossibletoclosecompletely,
butahealthiermarriageculturewouldmakeitshrink.Thus,en
shriningthemoraltruthofmarriageinlawiscrucialforsecuring
thegreatsocialbenefitsservedbyrealmarriage.
E.
ChallengesforRevisionists
Althoughtheconjugalviewis,despiteitscritics,notonlyinfer
ablefromcertainwidelyacceptedfeaturesofmarriageandgood
forsociety,butalsointernallycoherent,noversionoftherevision
istsviewaccountsforsomeoftheirownbeliefsaboutmarriage:
namely, that the state has an interest in regulating some rela
tionships, but only if they are romanticpresumptively sex
ualandonlyiftheyaremonogamous.
Thoughsomeunsatisfactoryeffortshavebeenmade,revision
ists are at a loss to give principled reasons for these positions.67
Unlesssomethingliketheconjugalunderstandingofmarriageis
correct, the first point becomes much harder to defend, and a
principleddefenseofthesecondandthirdbecomesimpossible.
1.
TheStateHasanInterestinRegulatingSomeRelationships?
Whydoesthestatenotsettermsforourordinaryfriendships?
Whydoesitnotcreatecivilcausesofactionforneglectingoreven
betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for
formingfriendshipsorlegalobstaclestoendingthem?Itissimply
66.SeesupraPartI.A.1.
67.Note that only sound arguments based on true principles can be inherently
decisive.
270
[Vol.34
because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common

goodinstructuredwaysthatjustifyorwarrantlegalregulation.
Marriages, in contrast, are a matter of urgent public interest,
astherecordofalmosteverycultureattestsworthlegallyrec
ognizing and regulating.68 Societies rely on families, built on
strongmarriages,toproducewhattheyneedbutcannotformon
theirown:upright,decentpeoplewhomakeforreasonablycon
scientious,lawabidingcitizens.Astheymature,childrenbenefit
fromtheloveandcareofbothmotherandfather,andfromthe
committedandexclusiveloveoftheirparentsforeachother.69
Although some libertarians propose to privatize marriage,70
treatingmarriagesthewaywetreatbaptismsandbarmitzvahs,
supportersoflimitedgovernmentshouldrecognizethatmarriage
privatizationwouldbeacatastropheforlimitedgovernment.71In
theabsenceofaflourishingmarriageculture,familiesoftenfailto
form,ortoachieveandmaintainstability.Asabsenteefathersand
outofwedlockbirthsbecomecommon,atrainofsocialpatholo
gies follows.72 Naturally, the demand for governmental policing
and social services grows. According to a Brookings Institute
study,$229billioninwelfareexpendituresbetween1970and1996
can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and
the resulting exacerbation ofsocial ills:teen pregnancy, poverty,
crime, drug abuse, and health problems.73 Sociologists David
PopenoeandAlanWolfehaveconductedresearchonScandina
viancountriesthatsupportstheconclusionthatasmarriagecul
turedeclines,statespendingrises.74
Thisiswhythestatehasaninterestinmarriagesthatisdeeper
thananyinterestitcouldhaveinordinaryfriendships:Marriages
68.See Maggie Gallagher, (How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage as a Social
Institution:AReplytoAndrewKoppelman,2U.ST.THOMASL.J.33,5152(2004).
70.See,e.g.,DavidBoaz,PrivatizeMarriage:ASimpleSoutiontotheGayMarriage
Debate,SLATE(Apr.25,1997),http://slate.com/id/2440/.
71.Thisisbecause,iftheStatefailedtorecognizetheinstitutionofmarriageal
together, social costs would be imposed, in large part on children, due to the
breakdownoftraditionalfamilystructureswhichlendstability.
73.IsabelV.Sawhill,FamiliesatRisk,inSETTINGNATIONALPRIORITIES:THE2000
ELECTION AND BEYOND 97, 108 (Henry J. Aaron & Robert D. Reischauer eds.,
1999);seealsoTHEWITHERSPOONINSTITUTE,supranote21,at15.
74.DAVID POPENOE, DISTURBING THE NEST: FAMILY CHANGE AND DECLINE IN
MODERN SOCIETIES, at xivxv (1988); ALAN WOLFE, WHOSE KEEPER? SOCIAL
SCIENCEANDMORALOBLIGATION13242(1989).
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
271
bearaprincipledandpracticalconnectiontochildren.75Strength
eningthemarriagecultureimproveschildrensshotatbecoming
uprightandproductivemembersofsociety.Inotherwords,our
reasonsforenshriningany conception ofmarriage,and our rea
sonsforbelievingthattheconjugalunderstandingofmarriageis
thecorrectone,areoneandthesame:thedeeplinkbetweenmar
riage and children. Sever that connection, and it becomes much
hardertoshowwhythestateshouldtakeanyinterestinmarriage
at all. Any proposal for a policy, however, has to be able to ac
countforwhythestateshouldenactit.
2.
OnlyifTheyAreRomantic?
Some argue simply that the state should grant individuals

certain legal benefits if they provide one another domestic
support and care. But such a scheme would not be marriage,
norcoulditmakesenseoftheotherfeaturesofmarriagelaw.
TakeJoeandJim.Theylivetogether,supporteachother,share
domesticresponsibilities,andhavenodependents.BecauseJoe
knowsandtrustsJimmorethananyoneelse,hewouldlikeJim
to betheoneto visithiminthehospital ifhe is ill, give direc
tives for his care if he is unconscious, inherit his assets if he
diesfirst,andsoon.ThesamegoesforJim.
Sofar,youmaybeassumingthatJoeandJimhaveasexualre
lationship.Butdoesitmatter?Whatiftheyarebachelorbrothers?
Whatiftheyarebestfriendswhoneverstoppedroomingtogether
aftercollege,orwhoreunitedafterbeingwidowed?Isthereany
reason that the benefits they receive should depend on whether
theirrelationshipisorevencouldberomantic?Infact,wouldit
notbepatentlyunjustifthestatewithheldbenefitsfromthemon
thesolegroundthattheywerenothavingsex?
Someonemightobjectthateveryonejustknowsthatmarriage
hassomeconnectiontoromance.Itrequiresnoexplanation.But
that is questionbegging against Joe and Jim, who want their
benefits.Anditprematurelystopssearchingforananswertowhy
we tend to associate marriage with romance. The explanation
bringsusbacktoourcentralpoint:Romanceisthekindofdesire
thataimsatbodilyunion,andmarriagehasmuchtodowiththat.
Once this point is admitted, we return to the question of
what counts as organic bodily union. Does hugging? Most
272
[Vol.34
thinknot.Butthenwhyissexsoimportant?Whatifsomeone
derivedmorepleasureorfeltintimacyfromsomeotherbehav
ior(tennis,perhaps,asinourearlierexample)?Wemustfinally
returntothefactthatcoitus,thegenerativeact,uniquelyunites
humanpersons,asexplainedabove.76Butthatfactsupportsthe
conjugalview:Thereasonthatmarriagetypicallyinvolvesro
manceisthatitnecessarilyinvolvesbodilyunion,andromance
isthesortofdesirethatseeksbodilyunion.Butorganicbodily
unionispossibleonlybetweenamanandawoman.
3.
OnlyifTheyAreMonogamous?
Go back now to the example of Joe and Jim, and add a third
man:John.Tofilterthesecondpointoutofthisexample,assume
thatthethreemenareinaromantictriad.Doesanythingchange?
Ifonedies,theothertwoarecoheirs.Ifoneisill,eithercanvisitor
givedirectives.IfJoeandJimcouldhavetheirromanticrelation
shiprecognized,whyshouldnotJoe,Jim,andJohn?
Again,someonemightobject,everyonejustknowsthatmar
riage is between only two people. It requires no explanation.
ButthisagainbegsthequestionagainstJoe,Jim,andJohn,who
wanttheirsharedbenefitsandlegalrecognition.Afterall,itis
notthateachwantsbenefitsasanindividual;marriageisaun
ion. They want recognition of their polyamorous relationship
andthesharedbenefitsthatcomewiththatrecognition.
Butiftheconjugalconceptionofmarriageiscorrect,itisclear
whymarriageispossibleonlybetweentwopeople.Marriageis
acomprehensive interpersonal unionthatisconsummatedand
renewed by acts of organic bodily union77 and oriented to the
bearingandrearingofchildren.78Suchaunioncanbeachieved
bytwoandonlytwobecausenosingleactcanorganicallyunite
three or more people at the bodily level or, therefore, seal a
comprehensive union of three or more lives at other levels. In
deed, the very comprehensiveness of the union requires the
marital commitment to be undividedmade to exactly one
other person; but such comprehensiveness, and the exclusivity
that its orientation to children demands, makes sense only on
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
273
the conjugal view.79 Children, likewise, can have only two par
entsabiologicalmotherandfather.Therearetwosexes,oneof
each type being necessary for reproduction. So marriage, a re
productivetypeofcommunity,requirestwooneofeachsex.
Some may object that this is a red herringthat no one is
clamoring for recognition of polyamorous unions. Arent we
invokinganalarmistslipperyslopeargument?
Itshouldbenoted,tobeginwith,thatthereisnothinginher
entlywrongwitharguingagainstapolicybasedonreasonable
predictions of unwanted consequences. Such predictions
wouldseemquitereasonableinthiscase,giventhatprominent
figures like Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Cornel
West have already demanded legal recognition of multiple
partner sexual relationships.80 Nor are such relationships un
heardof:Newsweekreportsthattherearemorethan500,000in
theUnitedStatesalone.81
Still, this Article does not aim to predict social or legal conse
quencesoftherevisionistview.Thegoalofexaminingthecriteria
of monogamy and romance (Part I.E.2) is to make a simple but
crucialconceptualpoint:Anyprinciplethatwouldjustifythele
gal recognition of samesex relationships would also justify the
legal recognition of polyamorous and nonsexual ones. So if, as
most peopleincluding many revisionistsbelieve, true mar
riageisessentiallyasexualunionofexactlytwopersons,therevi
sionistconceptionofmarriagemustbeunsound.Anyrevisionist
whoagreesthatthestateisjustifiedinrecognizingonlyrealmar
riages82 must either reject traditional norms of monogamy and
sexual consummation or adopt the conjugal viewwhich ex
cludessamesexunions.
University of Calgarys Professor Elizabeth Brake embraces
thisresultandmore.Shesupportsminimalmarriage,inwhich
individualscanhavelegalmaritalrelationshipswithmorethan
one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves deter
80.BeyondSameSexMarriage:ANewStrategicVisionForAllOurFamilies&Rela
tionships, BEYONDMARRIAGE.ORG (July 26, 2006), http://beyondmarriage.org/
full_statement.html.
81.Jessica Bennett, Only You. And You. And You: Polyamoryrelationships with
multiple,mutuallyconsentingpartnershasacomingoutparty,NEWSWEEK(July29,
2009),http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/28/onlyyouandyouandyou.html.
82.SeesupraPartI.A.
274
[Vol.34
mining the sex and number of parties, the type of relationship

involved,andwhichrightsandresponsibilitiestoexchangewith
each.83 But the more that the parties to a minimal marriage
determineonacasebycasebasiswhichrightsanddutiestoex
changeastheymustifagreatervarietyofrecognizedunionsis
availablethe less the proposed policy itself accomplishes. As
we deprive marriage policy of definite shape, we deprive it of
purpose.Rigorouslypursued,thelogicofrejectingtheconjugal
conception of marriage thus leads, by way of formlessness, to
ward pointlessness: It proposes a policy of which, having re
movedthe principledgroundforanyrestrictions,itcanhardly
explain the benefit. Of course, some revisionists will base their
supportfortheirpreferrednormsinsteadoncontingentcalcula
tionsofprudenceorfeasibility,whichweaddressnext.Butwe
challenge the many revisionists who support norms, like mo
nogamy,asamatterofmoralprincipletocompletethefollow
ing sentence: Polyamorous unions and nonsexual unions by nature
cannotbemarriages,andshouldnotberecognizedlegally,because...
F.
IsntMarriageJustWhateverWeSayItIs?
Of those who do base marriage policy on contingent calcula

tions of prudence or feasibility, some are what we might call
constructivists.84Theydenythatthereisanyrealitytomarriage
independentofcustomanysetofobjectiveconditionsthatare
lationshipmustmeettogroundthemoralprivilegesandobliga
tions distinctive of that natural kind of union which we have
called real marriage.85 For constructivists, rather, marriage is
whateversocialandlegalconventionssaythatitis,therebeingno
separate moral reality for these conventions to track. Hence it is
impossibleforthestatespolicytobewrongaboutmarriage:dif
ferentproposalsareonlymoreorlessfeasibleorpreferable.86
83.Brake,supranote36,at303.
84.See, e.g., Eskridge, supra note 5, at 142122 (A social constructivist history
emphasizesthewaysinwhichmarriageisconstructedovertime,theinstitution
beingviewedasreflectinglargersocialpowerrelations.).
85.Seeid.at1434([M]arriageisnotanaturallygeneratedinstitutionwithcer
tain essential elements. Instead it is a construction that is linked with other cul
tural and social institutions, so that the oldfashioned boundaries between the
publicandprivatelifemeltaway.).
86.SeeHernandezv.Robles,805N.Y.S.2d354,377(N.Y.App.Div.2005)(Saxe,
J.,dissenting)(Civilmarriageisaninstitutioncreatedbythestate....);Ander
sen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963, 1018 (Wash. 2006) (Fairhurst, J., dissenting)
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
275
This view is belied by the principled distinction between the

wholespectrumofordinaryfriendshipsontheonehand,andon
the other hand those inherently valuable relationships that first,
organically extend two peoples union along the bodily dimen
sionoftheirbeing;second,bearanintrinsicorientationtochild
bearingandrearing;andthird,requireapermanentandexclusive
commitment.Marriagesindependentrealityisonlyconfirmedby
thefactthattheknownculturesofeverytimeandplacehaveseen
fit to regulate the relationships of actual or wouldbe parents to
eachotherandtoanychildrenthattheymighthave.
Even if marriage did not have this independent reality, our
otherargumentsagainstrevisionistswouldweighequallyagainst
constructivists who favor legally recognizing samesex unions:
Theywouldhavenogroundsatallforarguingthatourviewin
fringessamesexcouplesnaturalandinviolablerighttomarriage,
norfordenyingrecognitiontounionsapparentlyjustassocially
valuableassamesexones,formarriagewouldbeamerefiction
designed to efficiently promote social utility. The needs of chil
drenwouldstillgiveusverystrongutilitybasedreasonstohavea
marriagepolicyinthefirstplace.87Andthesocialdamagethatwe
couldexpectfromfurthererodingtheconjugalviewwouldmore
thanjustifypreservingitinthelaw.88Thisjustificationwouldonly
be strengthened by the possibility of meeting other pragmatic
goalsinwaysthatdonotthreatenthecommongoodasredefining
marriage would.89 So even constructivists about marriage could
andshouldopposelegallyrecognizingsamesexpartnerships.
II
A.
WhyNotSpreadTraditionalNormstotheGayCommunity?
Abstract principles aside, would redefining marriage have

the positive effect of reinforcing traditional norms by increas
ingthenumberofstable,monogamous,faithfulsexualunions
to include many more samesex couples? There are good rea
sonstothinknot.
([M]arriagedrawsitsstrengthfromthenatureofthecivilmarriagecontractitself
andtherecognitionofthatcontractbytheState.).
88.SeesupraPartsI.C,I.D.2.
89.SeesupraPartII.B.
276
[Vol.34
First,althoughtheprinciplesoutlinedaboveareabstract,they
are not for that reason disconnected from reality. People will
tend to abide less strictly by any given norms the less those
normsmakesense.Andifmarriageisunderstoodasrevisionists
understanditthatis,asanessentiallyemotionalunionthathas
noprincipledconnectiontoorganicbodilyunionandthebear
ingand rearingofchildrenthenmaritalnorms,especiallythe
norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity, will make less
sense. In other words, those making this objection are right to
suppose that redefining marriage would produce a conver
gencebutitwould be aconvergenceinexactlythewrong di
rection.Ratherthanimposingtraditionalnormsonhomosexual
relationships, abolishing the conjugal conception of marriage
would tend to erode the basis for those norms in any relation
ship.Publicinstitutionsshapeourideas,andideashaveconse
quences; so removing the rational basis for a norm will erode
adherencetothatnormifnotimmediately,thenovertime.
This is not a purely abstract matter. If our conception of
marriagewereright,whatwouldyouexpectthesociologyof
samesexromanticunionstobelike?Intheabsenceofstrong
reasons to abide by marital norms in relationships radically
dissimilar to marriages, you would expect to see less regard
for those norms in both practice and theory. And on both
counts,youwouldberight.
Considerthenormofmonogamy.JudithStaceyaprominent
New York University professor who testified before Congress
againsttheDefenseofMarriageActandisinnowayregardedby
heracademic colleaguesasa fringe figureexpressedhope that
thetriumphoftherevisionistviewwouldgivemarriagevaried,
creative,andadaptivecontours...[leadingsometo]questionthe
dyadiclimitationsofWesternmarriageandseek...smallgroup
marriages.90 In their statement Beyond SameSex Marriage,
more than 300 LGBT and allied scholars and advocates
includingprominentIvyLeagueprofessorscallforlegalrecog
nitionofsexualrelationshipsinvolvingmorethantwopartners.91
ProfessorBrakethinksthatweareobligatedinjusticetousesuch
legalrecognitiontodenormalize[]heterosexualmonogamyasa
90.SeeGallagher,supranote68,at62.
91.BeyondSameSexMarriage,supranote80.
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
277
wayoflifeforthesakeofrectifyingpastdiscriminationagainst
homosexuals,bisexuals,polygamists,andcarenetworks.92
What about the connection to children? Andrew Sullivan
saysthatmarriagehasbecomeprimarilyawayinwhichtwo
adults affirm their emotional commitment to one another.93
E.J. Graff celebrates the fact that recognizing samesex unions
would make marriage ever after stand for sexual choice, for
cuttingthelinkbetweensexanddiapers.94
Andexclusivity?Mr.Sullivan,whoextolsthespiritualityof
anonymous sex, also thinks that the openness of samesex
unionscouldenhancetherelationshipsofhusbandsandwives:
Samesexunionsoftenincorporatethevirtuesoffriendship
more effectively than traditional marriages; and at times,
amonggaymalerelationships,theopennessofthecontract
makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual
bonds....[T]hereismorelikelytobegreaterunderstanding
of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than
betweenamanandawoman....[S]omethingofthegayre
lationshipsnecessaryhonesty,itsflexibility,anditsequality
could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many het
erosexualbonds.95
Of course, openness and flexibility here are Sullivans

euphemismsforsexualinfidelity.
Indeed,somerevisionistshavepositivelyembracedthegoalof
weakening the institution of marriage. [Former President
George W.] Bush is correct...when he states that allowing
samesex couples to marry will weaken the institution of mar
riage.96VictoriaBrownworthisnorightwingtraditionalist,but
anadvocateoflegallyrecognizinggaypartnerships.Shecontin
ues:Itmostcertainlywilldoso,andthatwillmakemarriagea
farbetterconceptthanitpreviouslyhasbeen.97ProfessorEllen
92.Brake,supranote36,at336,323.
93.Andrew Sullivan, Introduction, in SAMESEX MARRIAGE: PRO AND CON: A
READER,atxvii,xix(AndrewSullivaned.,1sted.1997).
94.E.J. GRAFF, Retying the Knot, in SAMESEX MARRIAGE: PRO AND CON, supra
note93,at134,136.
95.ANDREW SULLIVAN, VIRTUALLY NORMAL: AN ARGUMENT ABOUT
HOMOSEXUALITY20203(1996).
96.Victoria A. Brownworth, Something Borrowed, Something Blue: Is Marriage
RightforQueers?,inIDO/IDONT:QUEERSONMARRIAGE53,5859(GregWharton
&IanPhilipseds.,2004).
97.Id.at59.
278
[Vol.34
Willis,anotherrevisionist,celebratesthatconferringthelegiti
macyofmarriageonhomosexualrelationswillintroduceanim
plicitrevoltagainsttheinstitutionintoitsveryheart.98
MichelangeloSignorile,aprominentgayactivist,urgessame
sexcouples todemandtherighttomarrynotasawayofad
heringtosocietysmoralcodesbutrathertodebunkamythand
radicallyalteranarchaicinstitution.99Samesexcouplesshould
fight for samesex marriage and its benefits and then, once
granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely[, be
causet]hemostsubversiveactionlesbiansandgaymencanun
dertake...istotransformthenotionoffamilyentirely.100
Some revisionist advocates, like Jonathan Rauch, sincerely
hope to preserve traditional marriage norms.101 But it is not
puzzling that he is severely outnumbered: other revisionists
are right to think that these norms would be undermined by
redefiningmarriage.
Preliminarysocialsciencebacksthisup.Inthe1980s,Professors
DavidMcWhirterandAndrewMattison,themselvesinaroman
ticrelationship,setouttodisprovepopularbeliefsaboutgaypart
ners lack of adherence to sexual exclusivity. Of 156 gay couples
that they surveyed, whose relationships had lasted from one to
thirtyseven years, more than sixty percent had entered the rela
tionship expecting sexual exclusivity, but not one couple stayed
sexuallyexclusivelongerthanfiveyears.102ProfessorsMcWhirter
andMattisonconcluded:Theexpectationforoutsidesexualactiv
itywastheruleformalecouplesandtheexceptionforheterosexu
als.103Farfromdisprovingpopularbeliefs,theyconfirmedthem.
Onthequestionofnumbersofpartners,itisimportanttoavoid
stereotypes,whichtypicallyexaggerateunfairly,butalsotocon
sider the social data in light of what is suggested in this Article
about the strength, or relative weakness, of the rational basis for
permanence and exclusivity in various kinds of relationships. A
98. Ellen Willis, Can Marriage BeSaved?A Forum, THE NATION,July 5, 2004, at
16,16.
99.MichelangeloSignorile,BridalWave,OUT,Dec.Jan.1994,at68,161.
100.Id.
101.See generally JONATHAN RAUCH, GAY MARRIAGE: WHY IT IS GOOD FOR
GAYS,GOODFORSTRAIGHTS,ANDGOODFORAMERICA(2005).
102.DAVID P. MCWHIRTER & ANDREW M. MATTISON,THE MALE COUPLE: HOW
RELATIONSHIPSDEVELOP25253(1984).
103.Id.at3.
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
279
1990sU.K.surveyofmorethan5,000menfoundthatthemedian
numbers of partners for men with exclusively heterosexual, bi
sexual,andexclusivelyhomosexualinclinationsovertheprevious
fiveyearsweretwo,seven,andten,respectively.104AU.S.survey
foundthattheaveragenumberofsexualpartnerssincetheageof
eighteen formen who identified ashomosexualor bisexual was
over2.5timesasmanyastheaverageforheterosexualmen.105
So there is no reason to believe, and abundant reason to
doubt, that redefining marriage would make people more
likelytoabidebyitsnorms.Instead,itwouldunderminepeo
ples grasp of the intelligible basis for those norms in the first
place.NothingmorethanaMaginotlineofsentimentwouldbe
lefttosupportbeliefinsexualfidelityandholdbackthechange
ofattitudesandmoresthatarisingtideofrevisionistsapprov
inglyexpectsamesexmarriagetoproduce.
Nor is legal regulation the answer; the state cannot effec
tively encourage adherence to norms in relationships where
those norms have no deep rational basis. Laws that restrict
peoplesfreedomfornorationalpurposearenotlikelytolast,
muchlesstohavesignificantsuccessinchangingpeoplesbe
havior by adherence. On the other hand, traditional marriage
laws merely encourage adherence to norms in relationships
where those norms already have an independent rational ba
sis.106 Preliminary evidence suggests that samesex couples in
jurisdictions that legally recognize their unions tend to be
sexually open by design. The New York Times reported on a
San Francisco State University study: [G]ay nuptials are por
trayedbyopponentsasanefforttorewritethetraditionalrules
of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and court
room spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that....107
Theargumentfromconservatismisveryweakindeed.
104.C.H. Mercer et al., Behaviourally bisexual men as a bridge population for HIV
and sexually transmitted infections? Evidence from a national probability survey, 20
INTLJ.STD&AIDS87,88(2009).
105.EDWARD O. LAUMANN ET AL., THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SEXUALITY:
SEXUALPRACTICESINTHEUNITEDSTATES31416(1994).
107.ScottJames,ManySuccessfulGayMarriagesShareanOpenSecret,N.Y.TIMES,
Jan. 29, 2010, at A17, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/
29sfmetro.html?ref=us.
280
B.
[Vol.34
WhatAboutPartnersConcreteNeeds?
AndrewSullivanquestionsoneoftheauthorsofthisArticle:
ItalsoseemstometobeimportanttoaskGeorgewhathe
proposes should be available to gay couples. Does he be
lieve that we should be able to leave property to one an
otherwithoutotherfamilymemberstrumpingus?Thatwe
shouldbeallowedtovisitoneanotherinhospital?Thatwe
shouldbetreatedasnextofkininmedicalorlegalorcus
todyorpropertytangles?Orgrantedthesametaxstatusas
straightmarriedcouples?Thesedetailsmattertorealpeo
ple living actual lives, real people the GOP seems totally
uninterestedinaddressing.108
First, the benefits cited have nothing to do with whether the

relationshipisorcouldlegallyberomanticorsexual.Buttreat
ing essentially similar cases as if they were radically different
wouldbeunfair.Sothesebenefitswouldneedtobeavailableto
alltypesofcohabitationiftheyweremadeavailabletoany.109If
thelawgrantsthemtoacohabitingmalecoupleinasexualpart
nership,surelyitshouldgrantthem,say,totwointerdependent
brotherswhoalsosharedomesticresponsibilitiesandhavesimi
lar needs. The two brothers relationship would differ in many
waysfromthatoftwomalesexualpartners,butnotinwaysthat
affectwhetheritmakessensetograntthemdomesticbenefits.
But a scheme that granted legal benefits to any two adults
upon requestfor example, romantic partners, widowed sis
ters, or cohabiting celibate monkswould not be a marriage
scheme. It would not grant legal benefits on the presumption
thatthebenefittedrelationshipissexual.Sowehavenoobjec
tiontothispolicyinprinciple.Itwouldnotinitselfobscurethe
natureandnormsofmarriage.
Still,therearequestionstoanswerbeforesuchsexuallyneutral
benefits packages are granted. What common good would be
served by regulating or so benefitting what are essentially ordi
naryfriendships?Whywouldthatgoodbeservedonlybyrela
tionships limited to two people? Can three cohabiting celibate
monksnotdoasmuchgoodforeachotherorsocietyastwo?And
whatevercommongoodisatstake,doesitreallydependon,and
108.AndrewSullivan,OnlytheRightKindofSymbolicSex,THEDAILYDISH(Aug.
4,2009,11:11AM),http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/
onlytherightkindofsymbolicsex.html.
109.SeesupraPartI.E.1.
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
281
justify, limiting peoples freedom to form and dissolve such

friendships,aslegalregulationwouldinevitablydo?Doesitjus
tifydilutingthespecialsocialstatusofrealmarriages,asgeneric
schemesofbenefitswouldinevitablydo?
The value of such a policyat least for individuals who
sharetheresponsibilitiesoflivingtogetherseemstolieinits
benefits to the individuals themselves, like hospitalvisitation
andinheritancerights.Butthesecouldbesecuredjustaswell
bydistinct legalarrangements(likepowerofattorney),which
wethinkthatanyoneshouldbefreetomakewithanyoneelse.
Why create a special legal package for generic partnerships?
Theremaybeanargumentforthisinsomejurisdictionswhere,
forexample,peoplewouldotherwiselacktheeducationorre
sources to make their own legal arrangements. But if such a
schemeisnotsusceptibletothepowerful(and,wethink,deci
sive) objections that apply to legal redefinitions of marriage,
thatisbecauseitisnotaredefinitionofmarriageatall.
C.
DoesnttheConjugalConceptionofMarriageSacrificeSome
PeoplesFulfillmentforOthers?
Some might be unmoved by our arguments because, as they

seeit,wetreathomosexuallyorientedpeopleasiftheywerein
visible,leavingthemnorealopportunityforfulfillment.Afterall,
theymightsay,humanbeingsneedmeaningfulcompanionship,
which involves sex and public recognition. This objection is
rootedinamisunderstandingnotonlyofthenatureofmarriage,
butalsoofthevalueofdeepfriendship.
Ourviewaboutmarriage,likemostpeoplesviewsaboutany
moralorpoliticalissue,ismotivatedpreciselybyourconcernfor
the good of all individuals and communitiesthat is, for the
common good. We have offered reasons for thinking that this
good is served, not harmed, by traditional marriage laws; and
harmed,notserved,byabolishingtheminfavoroftherevision
istunderstanding.
Buttoseeafewoftheproblemswiththisobjection,consider
someofitshiddenassumptions:
First: Fulfillment is impossible without regular outlets for
sexualrelease.
Second:Meaningfulintimacyisimpossiblewithoutsex.
Third: Fulfilling relationships are impossible without legal
recognition.
282
[Vol.34
Fourth: Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity,

suchthatanystatethatdoesntactivelyaccommodateitnec
essarilyharmsordisregardsaclassofhumanbeings.
Some of these assumptions are radically new in the history of

ideas,andthemselvesdependonfurthersignificant,oftenun
critically accepted assumptions. More to the point, though, all
fourareeitherdubiousorirrelevanttothisdebate.
Becausebodiesareintegralpartsofthepersonalrealityofhu
manbeings,110onlycoituscantrulyunitepersonsorganicallyand,
thus,maritally.111Hence,althoughthestatecangrantmembersof
anyhouseholdcertainlegalincidents,andshouldnotpreventany
frommakingcertainprivatelegalarrangements,112itcannotgive
samesexunionswhatistrulydistinctiveofmarriagei.e.,itcan
not make them actually comprehensive, oriented by nature to
children,orboundbythemoralnormsspecifictomarriage.113At
mostthestatecancallsuchunionsmarital,butthiswouldnot
because,inmoraltruth,itcannotmakethemso;anditwould,to
societys detriment, obscure peoples understanding about what
truly marital unions do involve. In this sense, it is not the state
thatkeepsmarriagefromcertainpeople,buttheircircumstances
thatunfortunatelykeepcertainpeoplefrommarriage(oratleast
makemarryingmuchharder).Thisisso,notonlyforthosewith
exclusivelyhomosexualattractions,butalsoforpeoplewhocan
notmarrybecauseof,forexample,priorandpressingfamilyobli
gations incompatible with marriages comprehensiveness and
orientationtochildren,inabilitytofindamate,oranyothercause.
Those who face such difficulties should in no way be marginal
izedorotherwisemistreated,andtheydeserveoursupportinthe
faceofwhatareoftenconsiderableburdens.Butnoneofthises
tablishesthefirstmistakenassumption,thatfulfillmentisimpos
sible without regular outlets for sexual releasean idea that
devaluesmanypeopleswayoflife.Whatwewishforpeopleun
abletomarrybecauseofalackofanyattractiontoamemberof
theoppositesexisthesameaswhatwewishforpeoplewhocan
111.Again,wedonotthinkallactsofcoitusevenwithinmarriagesaremarital.
Unlovingcoitusbetweenspouses,especiallywhereitisbasedoncoercionorma
nipulation,isnottrulymaritalitfailstoembodyandexpresstrue(comprehen
sive)spousalcommunion.
112.SeesupraPartII.B.
113.SeesupraPartsI.B.13.
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
283
not marry for any other reason: rich and fulfilling lives. In the
splendorofhumanvariety,thesecantakeinfinitelymanyforms.
Inanyofthem,energythatwouldotherwisegointomarriageis
channeledtowardennoblingendeavors:deeperdevotiontofam
ilyornation,service,adventure,art,orathousandotherthings.
But most relevantly, this energy could be harnessed for deep
friendship.114 Belief in the second hidden assumption, that
meaningfulintimacyisnotpossiblewithoutsex,mayimpover
ish the friendships in which single people could find fulfill
mentby making emotional, psychological, and dispositional
intimacyseeminappropriateinnonsexualfriendships.Wemust
notconflatedepthoffriendshipwiththepresenceofsex.Doing
so may stymie the connection between friends who feel that
they must distance themselves from the possibility or appear
ance of a sexual relationship where none is wanted.115 By en
couraging the myth that there can be no intimacy without
romance, we deny people the wonder of knowing another as
whatAristotlesoaptlycalledasecondself.116
Thethirdassumption is baffling(butnot rare)tofind in this
context. Even granting the second point, legal recognition has
nothingtodowithwhetherhomosexualactsshouldbebanned
or whether anyone should be prevented from living with any
oneelse.Thisdebateisnotaboutanyonesprivatebehavior.In
stead, public recognition of certain relationships and the social
effectsofsuchrecognitionareatstake.Somehavedescribedthe
pushforgaymarriageasanefforttolegalizeoreventodecrimi
nalize such unions. But you can only decriminalize or legalize
what has been banned, and these unions are not banned. (By
contrast,bigamyreallyisbanned;itisacrime.)Rather,samesex
unions are simply not recognized as marriages or granted the
benefits that we predicate on marriage. Indeed, recognizing
114.Many samesex attracted people who do not support legally recognizing

samesex unions have explored the special value for themselves of deep friend
ships.See,e.g.,JohnHeard,Dreadtalk:HolySex&ChristianFriendshipJohnHeard
LifeWeek2009AtTheUniversityofSydneyRemarks,DREADNOUGHTS(May4,2009,
3:33 PM), http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2009/02/dreadtalkholysexchristian
friendship.html.
115.Formoreontheeffectsofasexualizedcultureonfriendship,seeAnthony
Esolen,ARequiemforFriendship:WhyBoysWillNotBeBoys&OtherConsequencesof
the Sexual Revolution, 18 TOUCHSTONE MAGAZINE, Sept. 2005, at 21, available at
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=1807021f.
116.See ARISTOTLE, NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 260 (Terrence Irwin trans., Hackett
Pub.Co.1985).
284
[Vol.34
samesex unions would limit freedom in an important sense: it

wouldrequireeveryoneelsetotreatsuchunionsasiftheywere
marriages,whichcitizensandprivateinstitutionsarefreetodo
ornotundertraditionalmarriagelaws.
The fourth assumption draws an arbitrary distinction be
tweenhomosexualandothersexualdesiresthatdonotcallfor
thestatesspecificattentionandsanction.Itoftenleadspeople
tosupposethattraditionalmoralityunfairlysinglesoutpeople
whoexperiencesamesexattractions.Farfromit.Ineveryone,
traditional morality sees foremost a person of dignity whose
welfaremakesdemandsoneveryotherbeingthatcanhearand
answer them. In everyone, it seessome desires that cannot be
integrated with the comprehensive union of marriage. In eve
ryone, it sees the radical freedom to make choices that tran
scend those inclinations, heredity, and hormones; enabling
menandwomentobecomeauthorsoftheirowncharacter.
D.
IsntItOnlyNatural?
Thediscussioninthelastsectionofwhetherhomosexualori
entation is a basic human identity relates to another objection,
the answer to which may be inferred from the structure of ar
gumentsuntilthispoint.Somepeopleonbothsidesofthisde
bate are concerned with whether samesex attractions are
innateand therefore, some theists conclude, intended by
Godormerelyaresultofoutsidefactors.117Ifhomosexualde
sireisinnate,theysuppose,thensamesexunionsshouldbele
gally recognized. After all, how could anything natural or
intendedbyGodbeanimpedimenttoagoodsuchasmarriage?
Wedonotpretendtoknowthegenesisofsamesexattrac
tion, but we consider it ultimately irrelevant to this debate.
Onthispoint,weagreewithsamesexmarriageadvocatePro
fessorJohnCorvino:
The fact is that there are plenty of genetically influenced
traits that are nevertheless undesirable. Alcoholism may
have a genetic basis, but it doesnt follow that alcoholics
oughttodrinkexcessively.Somepeoplemayhaveagenetic
predispositiontoviolence,buttheyhavenomorerighttoat
tack their neighbors than anyone else. Persons with such
117.Phyllis Zagano, Nature vs. Nurture, NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER (Sept.

30,2010),http://ncronline.org/blogs/justcatholic/naturevsnurture.
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
285
tendenciescannotsayGodmademethiswayasanexcuse
foractingontheirdispositions.118
Neither we nor Professor Corvino mean to equate samesex

attraction with diseases like alcoholism or injustices like vio
lenceagainstonesneighbor.Thepointissimplythatwhether
samesex unions can be marriages has nothing to do with
what causes homosexual desire. Surely the fact that some
thing is natural in the sense that it isnt caused by human
choiceprovesnothing:Disabilitiesorpressingspecialobliga
tions can be natural in that sense, and yet they may prevent
somepeoplefromgettingmarried.
Similarly, if we discovered (plausibly) a genetic basis for
male desire for multiple partners, that would not be an argu
mentforpolygamy;andifwediscovered(implausibly)thatno
sexual desire had a genetic basis, that would not be an argu
ment against marriage in general. There is simply no logical
connectionbetweentheoriginofsamesexdesireandthepos
sibilityofsamesexmarriage.
E.
DoesntTraditionalMarriageLawImposeControversialMoral
andReligiousViewsonEveryone?
This objection comes at the end for a reason. By now, as

promised in the introduction, this Article has made a case for
enshriningtheconjugalviewofmarriageandaddressedmany
theoretical and practical objections to it, without appeals to
revelationorreligiousauthorityofanytype.Thisreflectsacru
cial difference between marriage and matters of purely reli
gious belief and practice, such as the doctrines of the Trinity
and Incarnation, the enlightenment of the Buddha, baptisms,
bar mitzvahs, and rules concerning ritual purification, fasting
andprayer.Unlikethesematters,thehumangoodofmarriage,
anditsimplicationsforthecommongoodofhumancommuni
ties, can be understood, analyzed, and discussed without en
gagingspecificallytheologicalissuesanddebates.
Of course, many religions do have ceremonies for recogniz
ing marriages and teach the conjugal view of marriage (or
118.John Corvino, Nature? Nurture? It Doesnt Matter, INDEPENDENT GAY

FORUM (Aug. 12, 2004), http://igfculturewatch.com/2004/08/12/naturenurtureit
doesntmatter/. Professor Corvinos piece deals specifically with the morality of
samesexrelations,whichisnotourtopichere.Butthesamepointsapply.
286
[Vol.34
somethingmuchclosertoitthantotherevisionistview).And
many people are motivated to support the conjugal view for
reasonsthatincludereligiousones.Butnoneofthesefactsset
tles the debate about which view of marriage should be em
bodied in public policy. After all, some religions today teach,
andmotivatepeoplesadvocacyof,therevisionistview.Thus,
religiousmotivationsmustdisqualifyboththeconjugalandthe
revisionistviewsfrompolicydebates,orneither.
Evenso,somewouldsay,enshriningtheconjugalviewofmar
riage involves privileging a controversial moral belief. Again,
such an argument would equally exclude the revisionist view.
Bothwouldinvolveclaimsaboutwhichtypesofrelationshipwe
should publicly honor and encourageand, by implication,
whichweshouldnot.Therevisionistview,atleastintheversion
describedabove,wouldhonorandprivilegemonogamoussame
sexunionsbutnot,forexample,polyamorousones.Aswehave
pointed out,119 our law will teach one lesson or another about
whatkindsofrelationshiparetobeencouraged,unlessweabol
ish marriage law, which we have strong reasons not to do.120 In
thissense,thereisnotrulyneutralmarriagepolicy.
Finally,itisimportanttorealizethatthereisnothingspecialin
these respects about marriage. Many other important policy is
sues can be resolved only by taking controversial moral posi
tions, including ones on which religions have different
teachings:forexample,immigration,povertyrelief,capitalpun
ishment,andtorture.Thatdoesnotmeanthatthestatecannot,
orshouldnot,takeapositionontheseissues.Itdoesmeanthat
citizensoweittooneanothertoexplainwithcandorandclarity
thereasonsfortheirpositions,aswehavetriedtodohere.
CONCLUSION
A thought experiment might crystallize our central argument.
Almosteverycultureineverytimeandplacehashadsomeinsti
tution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine
that human beings reproduced asexually and that human off
spring were selfsufficient. In that case, would any culture have
119.SeesupraPartI.D.2.
120.SeesupraPartsI.B.2,I.E.2.
No.1]
WhatisMarriage?
287
developed an institution anything like what we know as mar

riage?Itseemsclearthattheanswerisno.
Andourviewexplainswhynot.Ifhumanbeingsreproduced
asexually, then organic bodily unionand thus comprehensive
interpersonal unionwould be impossible, no kind of union
wouldhaveanyspecialrelationshiptobearingandrearingchil
dren,andthenormsthatthesetworealitiesrequirewouldbeat
bestoptionalfeaturesofanyrelationship.Thus,theessentialfea
tures of marriage would be missing; there would be no human
needthatonlymarriagecouldfill.
Theinsightthatpairbondsmakelittlesense,anduniquelyan
swer to no human need, apart from reproductivetype union
merely underscores the conclusions for which we have argued:
Marriage is the kind of union that is shaped by its comprehen
sivenessandfulfilledbyprocreationandchildrearing.Onlythis
can account for its essential features, which make less sense in
other relationships. Because marriage uniquely meets essential
needs in such a structured way, it should be regulated for the
common good, which can be understood apart from specifically
religious arguments. And the needs of those who cannot pru
dentlyordonotmarry(evenduetonaturallyoccurringfactors),
andwhoserelationshipsarethusjustifiablyregardedasdifferent
inkind,canbemetinotherways.
SotheviewlaidoutinthisArticleisnotsimplythemostfa
vorable or least damaging tradeoff between the good of a few
adults, and that of children and other adults. Nor are there
mereargumentsontheonehandsquaringoffagainstpeoples
concrete needs on the other. We reject both of these dichoto
mies. Marriage understood as the conjugal union of husband
andwifereallyservesthegoodofchildren,thegoodofspouses,
and the common good of society. And when the arguments
against this view fail, the arguments for it succeed, and the ar
gumentsagainstitsalternativearedecisive,wetakethisasevi
dence that it serves the common good. For reason is not just a
debaterstoolforidlyrefractingargumentsintopremises,buta
lensforbringingintofocusthefeaturesofhumanflourishing.

Law 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHATISMARRIAGE?

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155

Revisionists today miss this central questionwhat is mar

More decisively, though, the analogy to antimiscegenation

As many people acknowledge, marriage involves: first, a

Marriage is distinguished from every other form of friend

parts, for acommon biological purpose of thewhole: our bio

15.See,e.g.,THOMAS WALTER LAQUEUR, MAKING SEX, BODYAND GENDERFROM

How, then, should we understand the special connection be

bodily union of the generative act, are possible and inherently

According to another study, [t]he advantage ofmarriage ap

ate and responsible parenting, or anything else. Instead, what

At this point, some revisionists abandon the philosophical

ion30 or children,31 with which marital norms aretightly inter

ABOLITION OF MARRIAGE: HOW WE DESTROY LASTING LOVE (1996); PROMISES TO

is strongly corroborated by the best available social science.41

Because the states valueneutrality on this question (of the

44.Marc D. Stern, SameSex Marriage and the Churches, in SAMESEX MARRIAGE

gunisloadedandwhetherheknowsit.ANDREW KOPPELMAN,THE GAY RIGHTS

because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common

Some argue simply that the state should grant individuals

mining the sex and number of parties, the type of relationship

Of those who do base marriage policy on contingent calcula

This view is belied by the principled distinction between the

Abstract principles aside, would redefining marriage have

Of course, openness and flexibility here are Sullivans

First, the benefits cited have nothing to do with whether the

justify, limiting peoples freedom to form and dissolve such

Some might be unmoved by our arguments because, as they

Fourth: Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity,

Some of these assumptions are radically new in the history of

114.Many samesex attracted people who do not support legally recognizing

samesex unions would limit freedom in an important sense: it

117.Phyllis Zagano, Nature vs. Nurture, NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER (Sept.

Neither we nor Professor Corvino mean to equate samesex

This objection comes at the end for a reason. By now, as

118.John Corvino, Nature? Nurture? It Doesnt Matter, INDEPENDENT GAY

developed an institution anything like what we know as mar

You might also like