The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage
May 24, 2006
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.
A Man and His Horse
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a man has been told he may not marry
his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his
argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual
The man claims that the essential elements of marriage--love and
commitment--are indeed present: "She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving.
I'm very proud of her. ... Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with
Why is the state of ,
as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the
holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be "wife"?
It seems the state of
is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a
22-year-old mare named Pixel.
The Threat to
man and homosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the
definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole
criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and
"mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man
and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two
or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners."
To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual
preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very
suggestion that two men or two women could "marry" was itself greeted
Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact that
redefining marriage logically leads to the man and his mare. Instead, media
reports typically focus instead on homosexual couples who resemble the
stereotypical ideal of a married couple. Ignored in such reports is social
science research indicating that such idealized "families" are
utterly atypical among homosexuals.
In this pamphlet we will show the following:
1. Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of traditional marriage
3. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue
4. Americans overwhelmingly reject gay marriage
5. Gay marriage is not a moral alternative to traditional marriage.
6. Homosexuality is rightly viewed as unnatural.
"Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His
girlfriend has another boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating Sean's wife." Description
of "polyamory" relationship2
The movement to redefine marriage has found full expression in what is
variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks
to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations
between various groups of individuals.
"Polyamory" is derived from Greek and Latin roots, and is loosely
translated "many loves." Polyamorists reject the "myth" of
monogamy and claim to practice "harmonious love and intimacy between
multiple poly partners."3
Kurtz describes the "bewildering variety of sexual combinations. There are
triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual group marriages; groups in which
some or all members are bisexual; lesbian groups, and so forth."4
The polyamory movement took its inspiration from Robert Heinlein's 1961
sci-fi novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, in which sexual possessiveness
(as in marital exclusivity) is portrayed as an evil leading to societal ills
such as murder and war. The book helped spawn a number of ill-fated sexual
communes, such as 's
Kerista community, in which members had sexual relations with each other
according to a rotating schedule.
The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has taken
hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents
"are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of
marriage and family law." Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor
of "a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family
Kurtz concurs that the "gradual transition from gay marriage to
state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is
now the most influential paradigm within academic family law." One prominent
advocate of polyamory, David Chambers, professor of law at the , argues: "By ceasing to
conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the
state may become more receptive to units of three or more."6
The Frat House
Concept of "Family"
This radical definition of marriage gives rise to bizarre conceptions of
family that include virtually any relationship or social group. In 1990, a task force
on family policy led by lesbian activist Roberta Achtenberg defined the family
as a "unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together
over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage,
birth, and adoption."7
The "frat house with revolving bedroom doors" concept of marriage
and the family poses dangers to children.
Polyamory advocates pay scant attention to the dangers posed to children
being raised according to this "frat house with revolving bedroom
doors" concept of marriage and the family. Yet, this nebulous, free-for-all
model of the family looms ahead for our society unless a bulwark is created in
the form of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
The slippery slope leading to the destruction of marriage as we know it
draws ever closer with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
to compel the state legislature to grant homosexual sex partners the legal
status of married people. This decision has emboldened public officials in
various localities to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples, igniting a
national debate on the question: What is marriage--and where do we draw the
limits on who can marry?
Relationships are not the Equivalent of Marriage
A growing body of research indicates that in key respects homosexual and
lesbian relationships are radically different than married couples.
-- Relationship duration: While a high percentage of married couples
remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for
life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and
transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal
oppression." A study in the , a gay-tolerant nation
that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a
homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.8
-- Monogamy versus promiscuity: Studies indicate that while
three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other,
homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The
same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an
average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.9
-- Intimate partner violence: homosexual and lesbian couples
experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with
married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples.10 Lesbians, for
example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married women.11
What about the
In his exhaustive examination of human history, Giovanni Battista Vico
(1668-1744), Professor of Rhetoric at the ,
concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential
characteristic of civilization, and as such is the "seedbed" of
society. Vico warned that chaos would ensue in the absence of strong social norms
encouraging marital faithfulness and the loving care of children born to the
Since reproduction requires a male and a female, society will always depend
upon heterosexual marriage to provide the "seedbed" of future
generations. The evidence indicates that homosexual or lesbian households are
not a suitable environment for children.
Data from the 2000 U.S. Census and other sources indicates that only a small
percentage of homosexual households choose to raise children.12 One reason for
this is that the raising of children is inimical to the typical homosexual
lifestyle, which as we have seen typically involves a revolving bedroom door.
With the added problem of high rates of intimate partner violence, such
households constitute a dangerous and unstable environment for children.
Homosexuals and lesbians are unsuitable role models for children because of
their lifestyle. Dr. Brad Hayton observes that homosexual households
"model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and
belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature.
... And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and]
should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship."13
The Phony Comparison
Many black Americans are understandably offended when gay activists, who
have never been relegated to the back of a bus, equate their agenda with racial
discrimination. In a statement supporting traditional marriage, several black
pastors wrote:"We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of
special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the
1960s and 1970s abhorrent."14
A majority of Black Americans reject the facile comparison of sexual
behavior with an immutable characteristic such as race, and disagree with the
oft-heard contention by gay activists that homosexuals are "born that
way." A Pew Research poll found that by an overwhelming 61 to 26 percent
margin, Black Protestants believe sexual orientation can be changed.15 The same
poll reported that Black Americans oppose homosexual marriage by a 60 to 28
Gay Marriage is not a
Civil Rights Issue
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny
homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill
of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded
from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry.
However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A
parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more
spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based
upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of
societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
Neither can gay activists appeal to a "natural rights" argument:
i.e., no reasonable person would deny homosexuals and lesbians their
self-evident right to marry. Harry Jaffa cogently replies that such arguments
actually argue against homosexual marriage: "Nature and reason tell
us that a Negro is a human being, and is not to be treated like a horse or an
ox or a dog, just as they tell us that a Jew is a human being, and is not to be
treated as a plague-bearing bacillus. But with the very same voice, nature and
reason tell us that a man is not a woman, and that sexual friendship is
properly between members of opposite-sexes, not the same sex."17
Marriage is not "Discrimination"
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or
opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be
treated equally. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate
regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not
trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because
they are not allowed to fly an airplane.
On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed
pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this
case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race.
The issue of alleged discrimination was addressed by the Minnesota Supreme
Court in Baker v. Nelson, when it rejected the argument that denying a
same-sex couple the right to marry was the equivalent of racial discrimination.
The court found: "In common sense and constitutional sense, there is a
clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one
based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
Similarly, in October 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of
Appeals ruled unanimously against two homosexuals who argued in a lawsuit that
marriage is a fundamental right, and that prohibiting it for same-sex couples
violates constitutional protections for due process. The court found that the
state's ban on homosexual marriage "rationally furthers a legitimate state
interest," and thus does not discriminate against homosexuals by depriving
them of their constitutional rights.18 The court further noted:
"Recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the
established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of
When gay activists and their supporters cry "discrimination!" they
conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being
granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves our close
examination, for the danger posed to our society by redefining marriage is no
less than permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.
Americans Reject Gay
Typical of polls on the subject, a Fox News poll conducted after the ruling
found that Americans oppose same-sex marriage by an overwhelming 66 to 25
A majority of Americans also support a constitutional amendment banning gay
marriage. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll in August 2003 reported that 58
percent of respondents favored amending the Constitution, with 34 percent
opposed.20 A Zogby poll released in February 2004 found that, by a 51 to 43
percent margin, voters agreed that a constitutional amendment should be passed
limiting marriage to a man and a woman.21 Similarly, a February 2004 Gallup
poll found that 53 percent of respondents favored a constitutional amendment
banning gay marriage, with 44 percent opposed.22
Homosexual marriage is a potent political issue, with opponents ever more
dedicated to preserving the traditional definition of marriage. A follow-up Pew
Research poll conducted in February 2004 found: "Gay marriage has
surpassed other major social issues like abortion and gun control in its
influence on voters. Four in ten voters say they would not vote for a candidate
who disagrees with them on gay marriage, even if they agree with the candidate
on most other issues." The poll reported that "voters oppose gay
marriage by more than two to one (65 percent to 28 percent), a margin that has
remained generally steady since October."23
Polls Cite Moral
Objections to Homosexuality
A Pew Research poll released in November 2003 reported: "The most
common reasons given for objecting to gay and lesbian marriage are moral and
religious. ... More than eight in ten opponents of gay marriage (82 percent)
say it runs counter to their religious beliefs, with 73 percent completely
agreeing with that sentiment." 24
The poll found that the top two reasons for opposing gay marriage are that
"The Bible says it is morally wrong/a sin" (28 percent), followed by
the response that homosexual marriage is "against my religious
beliefs" (17 percent).25 Unexpressed religious beliefs are reflected in
the next two largest categories of responses. Sixteen percent of respondents
based their opposition to gay marriage on the fact that the "definition of
marriage is a man and a woman," followed by "It's just wrong/I just
don't agree with it" (12 percent).
A Barna Research poll, also released in November 2003, confirmed that
Americans consider homosexual behavior to be morally objectionable. Only 30
percent of respondents agreed that "having a sexual relationship with
someone of the same sex" was morally acceptable. By comparison, the
respondents considered "getting drunk" (35 percent), "using
profanity" (36 percent), sex outside of marriage (42 percent),
cohabitation (60 percent), and gambling (61 percent) all to be more acceptable
It is outside the scope of this pamphlet to discuss the biblical and
theological understanding regarding homosexual behavior. See the FRC booklet
"Keeping the Churches Marriage Friendly: How the Bible and Tradition
Refute the 'Gay Theology' (available at www.frc.org or by calling
The Validity of Moral
The oft-repeated mantra "you can't legislate morality"--the
contention that moral arguments have no place in formulating public policy--is
absurd. It is the duty of legislators to evaluate the right legislation
needed to correct some wrong or injustice, or promote some positive
or good result. Many of the same people who wish to exclude
religiously informed moral arguments from the debate about marriage are little
troubled by the use of moral and religious arguments when discussing other
issues such as racial discrimination, capital punishment, or the war in
The conviction that human sexuality is rightfully expressed within marriage
between a man and a woman is deeply rooted in our history and Judeo-Christian
beliefs. Over a century ago, In Maynard v. Hill (1888), the U.S. Supreme
Court recognized that the understanding of marriage springs from the fundamental
morality of a people. The Court described marriage as "creating the most
important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and
civilization of a people than any other institution."
Similarly, in Baker v. Nelson (1971), the Minnesota Supreme Court
affirmed the Judeo-Christian roots of the definition of marriage:"The
institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the
procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of
The advocates of anti-marriage and anti-family sexuality face yet another
foe: divinely created nature itself. According to the above-mentioned Pew Poll,
the next most frequent reason given for opposing gay marriage is that
"homosexuality is not natural/normal" (9 percent). This response is
followed by "the purpose of marriage is to have children" (4
percent), which also recognizes a purposeful--and thus
"natural"--design for human sexuality.
In his epistle to Christians living in ,
the Apostle Paul speaks of an undeniable "law" regarding normative
human behavior that is written on the hearts of mankind "to which their
own conscience also bears witness." Those who would reject this law find
themselves in opposition to the Divine intent for mankind, a reality that every
culture from the dawn of civilization has either recognized--or failed to
acknowledge at its peril.
The power of the innate realization that there is something fundamentally
"unnatural" about homosexuality--even among those who consider
themselves non-religious--should not be underestimated, and may well provide
the vital motivation that will turn back the seemingly invincible juggernaut of
the gay agenda.
The Gay Agenda vs.
In their 1989 book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and
Hatred of Gays in the '90s, homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter
Madsen presented a strategy for achieving the full acceptance of homosexuality
in American culture. Kirk and Madsen write: "In any campaign to win
over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so
that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector."
That this strategy has met with considerable success is undeniable. But
wait! The subtitle of Kirk and Madsen's book reveals the confident presumption
would conquer its (purported) fear and hatred of gays in the '90s.
did not, as expected, embrace the homosexual agenda with open arms. When
queried regarding homosexuality as a behavioral lifestyle--as opposed to
a civil rights issue--many Americans continue to register strong negative
A Public Perspectives survey found that 69 percent of those surveyed
report being "very much" or "somewhat" bothered by seeing a
person "kissing someone of the same sex in public."27 This hesitancy
is not limited to those holding to traditional morality. No less than the
liberal icon Glamour magazine reported the results of a readership poll
in which 59 percent of the respondents were "put off" by a lesbian
kiss shown on network television.28
This "ick factor," far from irrational, is rooted in the
subconscious realization of what is normal and what is not, and which forms an
inescapable part of our being. And it may be that by underestimating the power
of this innate understanding, gay activists have made their greatest tactical
A Coming Spiritual
Camille Paglia, a self-confessed radical lesbian and atheist feminist,
addresses this fundamental miscalculation of gay activism, which,
"encouraged by the scientific illiteracy of academic postmodernism, wants
to deny that there is a heterosexual norm. This is madness." Paglia warns
that eventually "the insulting disrespect shown by gay activists to
religion ... would produce a backlash."29
Paglia notes:"History shows that massive spiritual revivals are a
fundamental, recurrent element in culture." She further warns that
"there may unfortunately be deep, slow-moving forces at work like those
that led to Christianity's triumph over cosmopolitan, sexually permissive, but
ethically weak late-paganism during the
Gay Marriage: A No
Show in History
Some scholars claim that marriage between homosexuals has been commonly
practiced and accepted by various peoples throughout history. One prominent
advocate of this view, William Eskridge, contends that same-sex unions and even
"marriages" have been common in other times and cultures.
Responding to Eskridge, professors Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan point out
that the so-called "evidence" for homosexual marriage comes primarily
from small, isolated pre-literate tribes. Lubin and Duncan point out that
"a great many of the primitive societies deemed by Eskridge to be tolerant
of [same-sex marriage] ... have also been known to engage in other practices,
such as cannibalism, female genital mutilation, massacre or enslavement of
enemies taken in war, and other practices which was once held to be the duty of
the civilized to extirpate."31
Furthermore, what Eskridge takes for homosexual marriage are actually male
bonding rituals that he mistakenly eroticized. Alleged examples from ancient , such as Nero and
Elagabalus, only reveal the degree to which homosexuality was held in contempt
by Roman society. In referring to Nero's homosexuality, Tacitus wrote that the
emperor "polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, [and] had
not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity." This
hardly constitutes an endorsement of homosexuality in ancient
summarize: "There is no 'rich history of same-sex marriage' that
[Eskridge] has 'uncovered,' that was 'suppressed in recent Western history, and
is only now coming to light.' The 'resistance' to same-sex marriage is not
limited to 'Western culture' with its age-old 'anti-homosexual hysteria and
bigotry,' but extends to almost every culture throughout the world."32
On the face of it, theories about the supposed widespread practice of
homosexual marriage throughout history lack merit, given the biological
imperative of families consisting of husbands and wives producing children,
which is a basic requirement for the preservation of any culture or society.
How Does Gay Marriage
Harm Your Marriage?
One might as well ask, "How does my printing counterfeit $20
bills hurt your wallet?" Or to use another example, can you imagine
a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man
and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested
"yardstick" for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage
without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the
definition of a yardstick.
Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual
complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens
and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately
apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard
sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years
on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to
regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a
woman, and survived.33
A Federal Marriage
Amendment: Protection against Judicial Tyranny
Given the strong public opposition to homosexual behavior, it is hardly
surprising that no state has voted to extend full marriage rights to gay and
lesbian couples. Having failed to achieve their agenda through the democratic
process, homosexual activists are now focusing on advancing their agenda
through the courts as well as through "civil disobedience" such as
the illegal issuance of marriage licenses by public officials in and
There is growing danger of activist judges disregarding marriage laws passed
by a majority of the population and enshrined in centuries of legal precedence,
and imposing homosexual marriage on the nation. States' "Defense of
Marriage" laws will help to protect against counterfeit marriage. But such
statutes can be overturned in state courts on the argument that they violate
state constitutional equal protection and due process clauses.
Amending state constitutions to bar gay marriage will also offer some
protection. However, observers fear that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn
state constitutional amendments on the basis of the equal protection and due
process clauses in the U.S. Constitution. Robert Bork writes: "One of the
last obstacles to the complete normalization of homosexuality in our society is
the understanding that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. ... Many
court watchers believe that within five to ten years the U.S. Supreme Court
will hold that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, just as
that court invented a right to abortion. The chosen instrument will be the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."34
A constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a
woman offers the ultimate protection against the agenda of gay and lesbian
activists such as Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal
Defense and Education Fund, who unabashedly states: "Being queer means
pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the
very fabric of society."35
We enjoy the blessing of living in a nation that has enshrined democratic
principles--but this privilege also entails the obligation to make our voices
heard in the political process. Those who value the family have a God-given
duty to become involved in what is shaping up as the preeminent moral issue of
our day:protecting the very institution of marriage.
Our elected representatives must be put on notice that they face an historic
choice between catering to the demands of a well-heeled, powerful cadre of
homosexual activist organizations determined to radically alter the definition
and nature of marriage, or listening to the voice of people across the nation
who seek to preserve marriage as the wellspring of society and culture for
themselves and their families for generations to come.
Written by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage
and Family Studies at Family Research Council
1 Melinda Roth, "All Opposed, say 'Neigh'" Riverfront Times-
Missouri (December 15, 1999).
2 Sondi Bruner, "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice ... Carol and Ted and
Bob and Alice,"
Sun (February 14, 2004): F1.
Kurtz, "Beyond Gay Marriage," The Weekly Standard 8 (August
4-11, 2003): 28.
5 "The Marriage Amendment; Editorial" First Things 136
(October 1, 2003): 1048.
6 Kurtz, "Beyond Gay Marriage," 29.
7 Roberta Achtenberg, et al., "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges
to San Francisco's Families," the Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force
on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p. 1.
8 Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual
Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in 17
10 "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner
Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs (July, 2000): 30. Cp.
"Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics
Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
12 "PCT 14: Unmarried-Partner Households by Sex of Partners" ( Census
Bureau: Census 2000 Summary File 1). Cp. Dan Black et al., "Demographics
of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the : Evidence from
Available Systematic Data Sources," Demography 37 (May 2000): 150.
13 Bradley P. Hayton, "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage
and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy
Institute, 1993), p. 9.
14 Cheryl Wetzstein, "Blacks Angered by Gays' Metaphors,"
Times (March 3, 2004): 3.
15 "Religious Beliefs," p. 7.
16 Ibid, 12.
17 Harry ,
Homosexuality and the Natural Law (Claremont, CA: The Claremont
Institute for the Study of Statsmanship and Political Philosophy, 1990): 19.
18 "Court Upholds State's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage" Associated
Press (October 8, 2003).
19 Dana Blanton, "Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll: Majority Opposes
Same-Sex Marriage," (November 21, 2003).
20 "Attitudes about Homosexuality and Gay Marriage," AEI
Studies in Public Opinion (American Enterprise Institute
Compilation:February 13, 2004): 31.
21 "Bush Leads in Red States, Kerry Ahead in Blue States" Zogby
Poll (February 18, 2004).
22 "The Poll: Homosexual
Organization (February 9-12, 2004).
23 "Gay Marriage a Voting Issue, but Mostly for Opponents," The
for the People and the Press (February 27, 2004): 1.
24 Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality," The Pew
Forum on Religion and Public Life (November 18, 2003):13.
26 "Morality Continues to Decay," Barna Research (November
27 Kenneth Sherrill and Alan Yang, "From Outlaws to In-Laws: Anti-Gay
Attitudes Thaw," Public Perspectives 11 (January/February 2000):
28 Bonnie Fuller, "Editor's Letter" Glamour (February,
29 Camille Paglia, "I'll Take Religion over Gay Culture," Salon.com
(June 23, 1998).
30 Camille Paglia, "Men and Their Discontents," Salon.com (October
31 Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan, "Follow the Footnote or the Advocate
as Historian of Same-sex Marriage," Catholic University Law Review 47
(Summer 1998): 1300.
32 Ibid., 1324.
33 Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution, (Boston:Peter
Sargent Publishers, 1956): 77-105.
34 Robert Bork, "Stop Courts from Imposing Gay Marriage," Wall
Street Journal (August 7, 2001): 14.
35 Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in "Since When is Marriage a Path to
Liberation?" by William B. Rubenstein, Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law (New
York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 398, 400.
on the Center for Christ & Culture website are the responsibility of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of S. Michael Craven or Center
for Christ & Culture. Links to outside articles or websites are for
informational purposes only and do not necessarily imply endorsement of their