1

Summary of For Gay Marriage

In his essay For Gay Marriage, Andrew Sullivan argues that marriage isnt and has
never been, in his view just a private contract between two people, and that now marriage is
seen as a social and public recognition of such a commitment (404). Sullivan argues that to
refuse homosexuals the right to marry is a public offense to their rights and equality as citizens.
Sullivan makes the case in his essay that homosexual couples deserve the same rights, the right
to marry, because they are just as capable of fulfilling the requirements of marriage as
heterosexuals.
Throughout his essay Sullivan argues that marriage should be allowed between any two
people. He explains that marriage can no longer just be defined in the narrow sense as between
a man and a woman, rather it has to be viewed in a broader perspective as it is an emotional,
financial, and psychological bond between two people, who are consenting adults who are not
closely related to one another (404). Sullivan makes the argument that marriage should not be
denied to same sex couples because marriage is no longer viewed in our society as being for the
sole function of procreation. It no longer matters if a couple has children or not, so why should
whether or not a couple can have children be a stipulation that keeps the right to marry from
homosexual couples. Sullivan finally asserts that marriage is an emotional commitment by two
people for life, and that it requires sacrifice, commitment, and responsibility. He argues that by
that definition one cannot believe in equality for all and still believe that homosexuals should
not be allowed to marry.
In his essay Sullivan also introduces and argues the point, one that comes from the
conservative side, that domestic partnerships undermine the idea of marriage. Many cities

2

across the United States recognize relationships that do not fit into the mold of a heterosexual
marriage and give them benefits that previously had been set aside for heterosexual couples.
Some of these benefits include health insurance, adoption, pension and inheritance rights.
Sullivan states that conservatives worry about the ease of such a relationship. All domestic
partners have to do is be able to prove is that they share living spaces, a financial connection ,
and that they are both committed to caring for one another. A domestic partnership doesnt
have to include a sexual relationship or even resemble and old-style marriage (405) either;
this means that anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, could qualify for a domestic partnership.
Even an elderly woman and her live-in nurse or even two frat buddies (405) could qualify.
While still only heterosexual couples in many states can be married. Youre either married or
youre not, its a simple question, Sullivan states. However, domestic partnerships lay in a grey
area and are hard to define. This Sullivan believes makes homosexual couples feel lesser and
unequal in that regard. Domestic partnerships take away from the esteem of traditional
relationships and erode at the importance we give them. Sullivan says society has strong
reasons to give benefits to heterosexual couples that embrace marriage over simply living
together. They make increased commitment to one another and to society as a whole. Sullivan
then reasons that if this is the case then why the right to marry and benefits cant be extended
to homosexuals. Sullivan says that marriage is the rock in the storm of sex and relationships
(406) that we all experience and are susceptible to. It provides a structure for economic safety
and an emotional backbone.
Finally Sullivan asserts that a law institutionalizing gay marriage would reinforce a
healthy trend that is growing in society. Homosexual marriages have always existed, in many

3

different forms, they have just been pushed under the rug (406). Sullivan argues that a law
establishing legal gay marriage would provide numerous positive effects in the gay community.
It would finally provide role models for young homosexuals that in todays society many times
fall into a pattern of short relationships with no hope of a future in legal matrimony. It would
provide young gays with some kind of goal; some older faces to apply to their unraveling lives, a
road map to their eventual fair shake at some kind of constructive happiness (406). Sullivan
believes that homosexuals would, in fact, seize such an opportunity with as much responsibility
as heterosexuals. He states that many homosexual couples are virtual textbooks (406) of
monogamy, and that for many in sickness and in health has become a duty rather than a vow.
He states legalizing gay marriage could also, bridge the gap between gays and straights more
than any amount of gay rights legislation ever could. It could, he explains, bring parents and
their gay children closer together again, and normalize the idea of a gay family. Though
conservatives may believe that this will hurt children in these families, Sullivan states that there
is no proof that shows it has a harmful impact on a child or children brought up by homosexual
parents, and that it is far better than children being raised by single parents (gay or straight). He
argues that because of these examples they would not feel as though their emotional shape
was just merely about pleasure, sin, or shame, rather, by the ability to love and be loved as
complete, imperfect human beings (407); that until homosexual marriage is allowed, he
argues, this crucial aspect of human dignity with be withheld from a whole culture of people.
Sullivan concludes his essay by putting the reader in their shoes. He asks the reader,
male or female, to imagine what their lives would be like if they were never allowed that
precious institution called marriage to seal their relationships. To imagine life without

4

recognized family. Dating without there ever being a means to an end. Being told that your
attraction to the opposite sex was wrong, that all your crushes and loves were immoral, or that
your future held nothing but singlehood and shame (407). Sullivan states that legalizing gay
marriage would not be a revolutionary step, rather it would be humanizing and
traditionalizing (407). He declares that if no other steps were taken in the gay rights
movement except the legalization of gay marriage, then 90 percent (407) of the work needed
to bring about homosexual equality would have been accomplished, and that he argues, is the
only reform that truly matters.

Works Cited
Sullivan, Andrew. For Gay Marriage. Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. ed. 11. Ed.
Suzanne Phelps Chambers. Boston: Longman, 2011. 404-407. Print.