FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE?

By Richard Stengel

IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN. --Paul, I Corinthians 7:9

The funny thing is, on the issue of same-sex marriage, both sides agree with Paul. In fact, advocates of same-sex marriage and their opponents concur that it is better to marry than almost anything else. They both embrace the idea that marriage is the bedrock of a stable society, and that it is the ideal method of civilizing wayward and wanton males, something every society must do. In short, hooray for till-death-us-do-part. The only problem is that both sides disagree vehemently on who should be allowed to take that vow.

Compared with, say, the federal deficit or welfare, the issue of same-sex marriage is not exactly a crisis in the Republic. But it has become a hot campaign issue because of a 1993 Hawaiian supreme court ruling that denying marriage licenses to gay couples may violate the equal-protection clause in the state constitution. Sending the case back to the trial court, the supreme court directed the government to show that it has a "compelling" state interest in maintaining the ban--a test it is unlikely to meet. Although the case is now on appeal in a state court in Honolulu, Hawaii will probably rule late this fall that such marriages are permissible. Christian conservatives, in particular, are worried that if gay marriages are allowed in Hawaii, the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution would require every other state to recognize the legitimacy of such unions.

In this campaign season, the Hawaiian case has stirred fury in statehouses across the country. Thirty-five states have considered legislation against same-sex marriage, with 11 states enacting such bans and 17 refusing to do so. Last week the issue engaged the campaign's two protagonists. President Clinton announced that if Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages, co-sponsored by Bob Dole, Clinton would say "I do" and sign it. Presumably the move would show that he is not beholden to the homosexual community. The President chose to make the point just after the U.S. Supreme Court last week struck down a Colorado law nullifying civil-rights protection for homosexuals, a decision viewed as a significant victory for gay rights.

Whatever the electoral points to be gained on it, same-sex marriage is less a political issue than a moral, philosophical and legal one. The debate on precisely those grounds has engaged prominent thinkers on both sides.

NEVER MARRY BUT FOR LOVE. --William Penn

One of the most persuasive advocates of same-sex marriage is Andrew Sullivan, the departing editor of the New Republic. His writings suggest the following syllogism: Marriage is for people who love; homosexuals love; ergo marriage is for them. He and others push the argument further by claiming that denying homosexuals access to this fundamental societal institution is a denial of their civil and human rights. Citing the philosopher Hannah Arendt, who proposed same-sex marriage in a pioneering 1959 essay, Sullivan suggests that the right to marry whomever one wishes is an elementary human right, part of the Declaration's inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--or a long-term partner, as the case may be.

Advocates also argue that legalizing gay unions is a way of getting the spousal benefits--health insurance, pension plans, inheritance rights--that long-term domestic partners deserve. Moreover, Sullivan maintains that marriage will encourage care giving to partners, something especially vital in the age of AIDS.

One of the fundamental contentions of Sullivan and other same-sex advocates is that marriage--for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals--"domesticates" young men. Even the eminent social scientist James Q. Wilson asserts that nothing beats marriage for civilizing men, something every culture must find a way to do. Sullivan asserts marriage is such an important investment in social stability that the benefits to society outweigh any real or imagined harm.

IF A MAN ALSO LIE WITH MANKIND, AS HE LIETH WITH A WOMAN, BOTH OF THEM HAVE COMMITTED AN ABOMINATION. --Leviticus 20:13 The primary argument against same-sex marriage is really a religious animus against homosexuality. In short, homosexuality is a grave sin in the eyes of God and should not be condoned or comforted by the mystical union of marriage, which is a covenant with God. Opponents of same-sex marriage point to the fact that disapproval of homosexual behavior is one of the most deeply rooted and consistent moral teachings in Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions.

THE FIRST BOND OF SOCIETY IS MARRIAGE. --Cicero, De Officiis

Cicero's statement reflects what is known as the natural-law argument against same-sex unions. This is the idea that marriage evolved in society over thousands of years as a childbearing union between a man and a woman, and that there is a profound wisdom in the tradition that should not be lightly discarded. Virtuecrat William J. Bennett contends that same-sex marriages "would do significant long-term social damage" to "society's most important institution." And that stretching the definition of marriage would jeopardize an already shaky institution.

The Christian right takes this belief a step further, suggesting that gay activists are in fact attempting to poison the youth of America with same-sex propaganda. Christian conservatives fear that children are being exposed to gay alternatives too early in life, when they are not old enough to make a mature judgment about their own inclinations. The Utah legislature recently passed a bill banning gay clubs in state high schools. And at Merrimack High School in New Hampshire, teachers have stopped using a film on the life of Walt Whitman because it mentions he was gay.

THE NATURAL AND INHERENT RIGHT OF MARRIAGE...WHICH IS TO INCREASE AND MULTIPLY. --Pope Leo XIII Sullivan answers those who argue that marriage is for procreation by saying that same-sex marriage is no different from sterile or elderly heterosexuals' marrying. Why should they have the right to marry and not homosexuals? But social scientist Wilson believes the raising of children remains the central role of marriage because "we have found nothing else that works as well." Besides, both Bennett and Wilson say, Sullivan undermines his own argument that the absence of children should not be an impediment to gay marriages when he says that it will give gay couples "greater freedom" to enjoy "extramarital outlets." Marriage, Bennett says, is not an open construct; "its essential idea is fidelity."

MARRIAGE--WHAT AN ABOMINATION! LOVE--YES, BUT NOT MARRIAGE. --George Moore Some gay activists spurn the idea of same-sex marriage, suggesting that homosexuals are buying into the corrupt ideology of an outworn institution. Writing in the New York Times, author Frank Browning maintained, "The problem is with the shape of marriage itself. What we might be better off seeking is civic and legal support for different kinds of families that can address the emotional, physical and financial obligation of contemporary life." This is the idea that endorsing marriage is endorsing the traditions of a society that explicitly rejects homosexuality. In other words, don't join them if you can't beat them.

THE WEDLOCK OF MINDS WILL BE GREATER THAN THAT OF BODIES. --Erasmus

Despite the glaring differences between the two sides, there is a corner of consensus. Both sides are united in the desire to strengthen the foundations of civil society. But is there a way to accomplish this in a manner that satisfies all concerned? Is there an evolutionary middle ground? Is it not possible, for example, to be against discrimination toward homosexuals yet not in favor of gay marriage? Compromises are already taking shape. Some cities, including New York, offer bereavement leave and health insurance to the domestic partners of city employees. Stuart Kelman, a Conservative rabbi in Berkeley, California, has proposed an alternative to traditional religious marriage: a ceremony for what he calls a "covenant of love" for couples wishing to sanctify lifelong monogamous relationships. Ancient Roman law recognized three categories of marriage--a legally sanctioned union, marriage by purchase and marriage by mutual consent. Perhaps states might recognize different types of unions for both same-sex and heterosexual partnerships.

One conviction shared by both sides is that love, not law, conquers all. Sullivan writes that the heart of both marriage and being human is "the ability to love and be loved." State representative Ed Fallon of Iowa, who opposed a bill outlawing same-sex marriage, noted afterward, "There isn't a limited amount of love in Iowa. It isn't a nonrenewable resource." It is one natural resource that neither side need be shy about exploiting.

--With reporting by Wendy Cole/Chicago, Viveca Novak/ Washington and Richard N. Ostling/New York

With reporting by WENDY COLE/CHICAGO, VIVECA NOVAK/ WASHINGTON AND RICHARD N. OSTLING/NEW YORK