Back Home

This is a list of common arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, followed by my brief response to those arguments. Following each response, I have also taken the opportunity to defend my theory that accepting arguments for same-sex marriage necessarily entails accepting parallel arguments for legalized marriage of three or more.

Argument: Same-sex marriage is justified because research shows that outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples are just as good as outcomes for children raised by their biological parents; all that really matters for child development is the love of the parents.

Response: Even advocates of same-sex marriage acknowledge that there is insufficient quality research to make this conclusion. Jonathan Rauch, a prominent advocate, has written that researchers of children being raised by same-sex couples faced "daunting methodological challenges" and usually had a "sympathetic or protective attitude toward the children and families they studied."1 ChildTrends, a Washington D.C. based, non-partisan research group has stated, "It is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development."2 Richard E. Redding, a law professor with a Ph.D in psychology who supports same-sex marriage, has also analyzed the available research and concluded that "dual-gender parenting may be modestly advantageous for children's development, and one can well imagine why it is plausible to assume that most children would prefer to have a mother and a father."3 It is simply irresponsible to redefine marriage without quality data on the outcomes of children of same-sex couples and without knowing how redefining marriage will affect society’s perception of the needs of children.

Slippery Slope: If positive outcomes for children really did depend merely on the love of the children’s parents, there is no reason why a child raised by group of polyamorous adults wouldn’t have identical positive outcomes as one raised by a same-sex couple. This idea was expressed by Judith Stacey, a notable liberal researcher, who wrote, "Of course, if two parents are generally better than one, three or four might prove better yet."4 In fact, children of polyamorous parents are currently being studied, and “[a]necdotally, research shows that children can do well in poly families—as long as they're in a stable home with loving parents."5 Any social science "research" that suggests that the biological relation and gender of parents doesn’t matter also lends support to the idea that any number of parents will do just as well; in this regard, polyamorous marriage is justified to the same extent as same-sex marriage.

Argument: Opposing same-sex marriage is akin to opposing interracial marriage; it is nothing more than discrimination based on sexual orientation instead of discrimination based on skin color.

Response: Actually, understanding the history of marriage in America leads to the opposite conclusion, that favoring same-sex marriage is more akin to opposing interracial marriage. The common-law requirements for marriage in the original thirteen colonies, inherited from England, recognized the validity of any marriage between one man and one woman, regardless of race, who were not closely related and who were not minors. Prohibitions on interracial marriage had to be affirmatively enacted by colonial/state lawmakers; thus, anti-miscegenation laws represented a departure from and a redefinition of traditional marriage. The clear objective of anti-miscegenation laws was to promote racial purity by preventing mixed-race couples from having mixed-race children (the connection between marriage and procreation was undisputed back in those days). In other words, proponents of racial purity redefined marriage in order to seek a peripheral goal: Preserving the "purity" of the white race. Similarly, proponents of same-sex marriage seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve a different peripheral goal: Equating homosexuality and heterosexuality.6

Slippery Slope: Arguing that marriage ought to be redefined in order to redress "discrimination" based on sexual orientation works just as well for group marriage as it does for same-sex marriage. Liberal lawyers are already arguing that it would be "reasonable" to "[add] polyamory to current statutory definitions of sexual orientation" because polyamory is "a sufficiently embedded identity" and polyamorists face a sufficient "degree of discrimination."7 If gay and lesbian sexual orientation justifies same-sex marriage, it necessarily follows that polyamorous sexual orientation justifies group marriage; arguing otherwise would be "discrimination."

Argument: The Supreme Court has stated in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a "fundamental right;" therefore, forbidding two men or two women from marrying denies them their rights.

Response: All the Supreme Court has ever said was that marriage between two people, who are of the opposite sex, is a fundamental right. The Court said "'Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.' Whether the Court viewed marriage and procreation as a single indivisible right, the least that can be said is that it was obviously contemplating unions between men and women when it ruled that the right to marry was fundamental. This is hardly surprising inasmuch as none of the United States sanctioned any other marriage configuration at the time."8

Slippery Slope: Creating new rights by redefining established rights works just as well for group marriage as it does for same-sex marriage: "The same semantic sleight of hand could transform every other restriction on marriage into an infringement of a right of fundamental importance. For example, if one assumes that a group of mature, consenting, committed adults can form a 'marriage,' the prohibition on polygamy infringes on their 'right' to 'marry.'"9

Argument: The primary purpose of marriage is not procreation because infertile couples are allowed to get married; thus, there is no reason to prevent two men or two women from marrying.

Response: In a free society, the government could not possibly prevent infertile couples from marrying: "The practical problems with using fertility as a criterion for marriage should be obvious. Some couples that believe themselves to be infertile (or even intend not to have children) end up having children. Government could not filter out those marriage applicants who are certain not to be able to have children without extreme intrusiveness."10 Just because the government fails to do the impractical does not mean that marriage is unrelated to procreation.

Slippery Slope: Rejecting the idea that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, and replacing it with the idea that recognizing love between consenting adults is the primary purpose, opens the door for group marriage. As one advocate of group marriage has stated, "[Conservatives say] the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and polyamory.... As if that is a bad thing? Celebrating more love and more commitments between consenting adults?"11

Argument: Traditional marriage violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment because it treats same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.

Response: The Equal Protection clause only requires that similarly-situated persons be treated equally, and same-sex couples are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples in one critical respect: Only the latter can experience the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Courts have recognized this difference: "[T]he Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.... It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement—in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits—to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other."12

Slippery Slope: Accepting the idea that marriage "equality" ought to be extended to same-sex couples necessarily entails accepting the idea that marriage "equality" also ought to include groups of three or more people. Some liberals have acknowledged that there is simply no way to draw the line between same-sex marriage and group marriage: "I'm in favor of real marriage equality. Love the one you're with. Love the two or more you're with, if you can work that out. Marry them if you're into that kind of thing. But until the gay marriage movement embraces polygamy...well, they are just acting like bigots and haters, aren't they?"13


1. William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children, Marriage and Child Wellbeing, Princeton University, Fall 2005.
2. Kristin Anderson Moore et al., Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does
Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It?, ChildTrends Research Brief, June 2002.
3. Richard E. Redding, It’s Really About Sex: Same-Sex Marriage, Lesbigay Parenting, and the Psychology of Disgust, 15 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 127, 193 (2008).
4. Judith Stacey, In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family Values in the Postmodern Age, Beacon Press, 1996, pg. 80.
5. Jessica Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution?, Newsweek, July 29, 2009.
6. See Francis J. Beckwith, Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage, The Witherspoon Institute, May 21, 2010.
7. Ann E. Tweedy, Polyamory as a Sexual Orientation, MSU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-15, June 29, 2010.
8. Baehr v. Lewin 852 P.2d 44, 55-56 (Hawaii 1993)(citations and emphasis omitted).
9. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 984 (Mass. 2003)(Cordy, J., dissenting).
10. Editors, The Case For Marriage, National Review Online, Sept. 7, 2010.
11. Tristan Taormino, Poly Pride Keynote, New York City, Oct. 4, 2008.
12. Hernandez v. Robles 855 N.E.2d 1, 7 (N.Y. 2006).
13. Lee Stranahan, Why Are Gay Marriage Advocates Not Defending Polyamory, Huffington Post, Jan. 6, 2009.