I was looking forward to reading a balanced, nuanced take on gay marriage issues, but was surprised by your piece because it focused so heavily on the views held by the anti-gay marriage camp, while giving little attention to the views of those in favor.  Your analysis is predicated on three main points, all of which correspond with conservative views on what marriage should be.  First was the idea that marriage should be a religious institution.  Whose religion are we talking about exactly?  What about religious institutions that recognize homosexual couples?  Furthermore, what about atheists who are married or desire to be married in the future?  This leads into the second point, which is the idea that the ultimate goal of marriage is to procreate.  Again, this is a conservative stance and heavily rooted in Judeo-Christian religion.  What does this say for married couples who can’t or don’t want to have children, or what about those who adopt?  Are these marriages somehow less valid because there’s no genetic offspring?  Third, assuming that the gay marriage controversy should not be decided by the government is another conservative (and libertarian) stance.  For those of us who aren’t adamantly opposed to large government, it’s not a terrifying thought, though in this particular case it should ultimately be their duty to protect the right for each person to marry whomever they desire rather than to limit.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing is that you failed to mention the single-most important aspect of the argument for gay marriage: It’s about love, and choosing the person that you want to have as a companion for the rest of your life.  Love is the crux of the argument against traditional marriage, which was about having kids and wasn’t about actually liking your spouse as a person.

Lindsay York

doctoral student, English