Sociology

When reading the arguments from both sides on the legalization of same-sex marriage, its interesting to note that at no two points do the perspectives of Andrew Sullivan or James Wilson intersect. Perhaps this is why I have such difficulties in following the argument of Wilson. Like Sullivan, I believe that to recognize homosexuality as a natural occurrence, no more chosen than skin color, is to erase much of the social inequality that plagues Americas relationship with the gay community. The question of same-sex marriage does not undermine the traditional values of marriage, as asserted by Wilson, but instead elaborates on the definition. The declining success rate of heterosexual marriages is not caused by a loosened definition of marriage and family but instead by social and political changes which have given both sexes equal rights in divorce and child custody laws. As the legal restrictions and social  inequalities that existed between male and female relationships began to be altered, they no longer felt themselves to be trapped in marriages that may be unhappy or unhealthy. Just as the law and society changed to recognize women beyond gender roles, so too must the law and society recognize homosexuals as integral parts of our population. As American citizens they should be afforded the same rights as anyone else. Having not chosen to be attracted to someone from the same sex, they are no less deserving of their right to marriage and family that the white heterosexual male or even a woman or minority heterosexual. So why does this tolerance, both legal and not part of our social morality, why does it not exist in respect to homosexuals.

Sullivan makes a strong argument, that teamed with Stephanie Coontz examination of the evolution of family structure, illustrates how closely the subject of homosexuality touches on the delicate, and much defended, institution of marriage and family as solely a heterosexual right. As the issue summary preceding the opposing perspectives of Sullivan and Wilson notes, on most areas of homosexual civil rights, Americans are supportive. They do not believe that there should be allowances for job place discrimination or legal condemnation of homosexuality as  abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse  (76) but many still do not support the idea of same sex marriage. Part of this, I think, and both Wilson and Popenoe illustrate in their defense of traditional values and marriage, is simply fear. It is fear of change and fear created by individuals such as Popenoe and Wilson who see the change in marital structure as a precursor, and ultimate destroyer, of the family unit.

It is here where the debate between same-sex marriage and the  decline of the traditional family  intersect. Deeply rooted in the objection to same sex marriage is the idea that it is to be defined, not only by biology but by God, to be between a man and a woman only (Wilson 84). Wilson more deeply delves into the subject of heterosexual marriage as a mean for procreation and the instilling of social values. He rejects Sullivans assertion that  Gay marriage is not a radical step it is a profoundly humanizing, traditionalizing step (82). For Wilson, recognizing gay marriage would be devaluing heterosexual marriage, it appears simply for putting it on the same level with homosexual unions.

Tradition is what Wilson and Popenoe profess to want to protect but as Coontz, shows there never has been a golden tradition of family. Marriage itself has evolved to reflect the changes in our society from womens rights and civil rights of minorities, as a country we have redefined out rules on marriage, divorce, and family to reflect the changing needs of our nation. The question remains, why cannot we not do the same when it is gay rights that hang in the balance If there is no such thing as traditional marriage, as shown by Coontz, than why do we cling to this ideal The first step, as Sullivan recommends is to recognize that the differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality are not contradictory to one another but instead that exists separately but equally as two manifestations of manwomans nature to seek out companionship.