AS
ANDREW
SULLIVAN
began
updating
the
1997
book
he
edited
about
same-sex
marriage,
he
had
no
shortage
of
material
from
which
to
choose.
“Amazingly
huge
amounts
happened
last
year
and
this
year,”
he
says,
just
before
beginning
a
promotional
tour
for
the
new
edition
of
“Same-Sex
Marriage,
Pro
and
Con:
A
Reader.”
A
collection
of
essays,
media
pieces
and
other
texts
related
to
the
issue,
the
book
was
released
on
May
17,
the
effective
date
of
the
Massachusetts
Supreme
Judicial
Court’s
landmark
decision
directing
municipalities
in
the
state
to
begin
issuing
marriage
licenses
to
same-sex
couples.
“When
I
first
started
writing
about
[same-sex
marriage]
in
1989,
there
wouldn’t
have
been
enough
for
a
book,”
Sullivan
said,
from
his
home
in
Washington,
D.C.
The
2003
ruling
in
Massachusetts
“accelerated
everything
and
really
panicked
the
right
wing,”
he
said.
“The
religious
right
is
absolutely
apoplectic
about
this.”
THE
40-YEAR
OLD
writer,
editor
and
blogger
was
raised
Catholic
in
a
small
town
in
Great
Britain,
later
earning
an
undergraduate
degree
from
Oxford,
and
master’s
and
doctorate
degrees
from
Harvard.
A
journalist
since
1987,
Sullivan
was
named
editor
of
the
New
Republic
magazine
in
1991
and
quickly
became
famous
as
a
gay
conservative
polemicist
and
pundit.
The
well-received
books
“Virtually
Normal”
and
“Love
Undetectable”
(Vintage)
expanded
his
reputation
as
an
eloquent
advocate
for,
among
other
things,
same-sex
marriage.
Since
leaving
the
top
job
at
the
New
Republic,
where
he
continues
to
serve
as
a
senior
editor,
Sullivan
has
been
a
regular
contributor
to
a
variety
of
national
publications.
His
blog
recently
drew
a
record-breaking
100,000-plus
visits
in
a
single
day.
Although
a
good
part
of
that
traffic
is
driven
by
Sullivan’s
position
on
Iraq
(he
strongly
backed
the
removal
of
Saddam
Hussein),
his
equally
unequivocal
support
for
same-sex
marriage
also
draws
visitors
to
the
site.
If
e-mails
are
any
indication,
a
good
number
of
those
folks
are
strongly
opposed
to
the
notion
of
same-sex
marriage.
“Here’s
one
issue
where
it
comes
down
to
the
crunch,”
Sullivan
says.
“We’re
saying
this
is
an
institution
we’d
like
to
participate
in
…
[but
some
opponents]
regard
gay
people
as
fundamentally
alien
to
the
human
experience.”
Although
the
religion-based
arguments
haven’t
changed,
some
secular
critics
“have
raised
a
bunch
of
objections
that
have
to
be
taken
seriously,”
Sullivan
says.
“It’s
not
like
everyone
who
opposes
us
is
hateful
…
there
is
discomfort.”
THE
DISCOMFORT
IS
evident
on
the
part
of
Maggie
Gallagher,
whose
lengthy
essay,
“What
Marriage
is
For”
is
among
the
conservative
contributions
to
the
new
edition
of
“Same-Sex
Marriage.”
Others
represented
from
the
right
include
the
New
York
Times
columnists
William
Safire
and
David
Brooks,
UCLA
professor
emeritus
James
Q.
Wilson,
syndicated
columnist
Charles
Krauthammer,
and
National
Review
Online
contributor
Stanley
Kurtz.
Except
Brooks,
all
of
the
above
oppose
same-sex
marriage,
and
right-wing
voices
represent
the
bulk
of
the
book’s
new
material.
Sullivan
said
this
is
because
secular
conservatives
have
had
to
play
“catch-up”
to
the
case
made
earlier
and
more
consistently
by
marriage
equality
advocates.
Those
who
fall
in
the
“pro”
column
are
well-represented
in
the
new
edition,
which
features
selections
by
Evan
Wolfson,
perhaps
the
nation’s
best-known
activist
on
behalf
of
same-sex
marriage;
Harvard
pastor
Peter
J.
Gomes;
writers
Doug
Ireland
and
Henry
Alford;
and
U.S.
Sen.
John
Kerry
(D-Mass.),
the
presumptive
Democratic
presidential
nominee.
Sullivan
includes
the
full
text
of
the
surprisingly
passionate
speech
Kerry
—
who,
in
his
presidential
campaign,
opposes
same-sex
marriage
but
supports
civil
unions
—
delivered
on
the
Senate
floor
in
opposition
to
the
federal
“Defense
of
Marriage
Act”
in
1996.
Sullivan
also
mentions
in
the
book
President
Bush’s
announcement
of
support
for
a
constitutional
amendment
strictly
defining
marriage
as
a
male-female
arrangement.
The
book
also
features
excerpts
from
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court’s
Lawrence
vs.
Texas
decision
that
struck
down
state
sodomy
laws
and
the
2003
Goodridge
vs.
Department
of
Public
Health
ruling
from
Massachusetts
that
led
to
the
legalization
of
same-sex
marriage
in
that
state.
IN
FACT
IF
not
in
law,
“there
have
been
gay
marriages
as
long
as
there
have
been
gay
people,”
Sullivan
observes.
He
does
acknowledge
the
word
“marriage”
is
a
loaded
one,
but
bona
fide
marriage
“is
the
only
thing
worth
going
for,”
he
adds.
“You
can’t
shortchange
equality.
We
would
never
have
gotten
civil
unions
if
we
hadn’t
asked
for
marriage.
You
don’t
get
half
a
loaf
by
asking
for
half.”
Sullivan
doesn’t
believe
same-sex
marriage
will
be
a
major
issue
in
the
presidential
campaign,
although
he
also
believes
it
will
be
deployed
“under
the
radar”
by
the
GOP.
As
for
the
president
himself,
“I’m
just
guessing,
but
my
guess
is
he
hasn’t
thought
much
about
it,”
Sullivan
says.
“He
hasn’t
even
said
the
word
‘gay.’
That
in
itself
is
revealing.”
Meanwhile,
despite
Bush’s
support,
the
proposed
constitutional
ban
on
same-sex
marriage
“is
just
sitting
there”
in
Congress,
says
Sullivan,
who
likens
the
notion
to
“writing
graffiti
on
a
sacred
monument.”
All
the
more
reason
why
it’s
incumbent
upon
gay
people
and
other
same-sex
marriage
advocates
to
“argue
[the
case]
until
you’re
blue
in
the
face,
until
you
can’t
talk
any
more,”
he
says.
Although
he
declined
to
predict
when
same-sex
marriage
will
become
a
reality,
Sullivan
clearly
believes
the
momentum
is
with
marriage
equality.
“The
younger
generation
is
on
our
side,”
he
says.
“They’ve
grown
up
with
gay
people
…
and
once
we
get
marriage
rights,
it’s
the
beginning
of
the
end
of
the
gay
rights
movement.”
Elaborating
later,
via
e-mail,
Sullivan
says,
“I
simply
mean
that
marriage
represents
the
apogee
of
our
civil
equality.
Everything
else
is
a
mop-up
operation.
That
end
is
a
very
long
way
off,
but
from
the
peak
of
marriage
equality,
it
is
visible.
And
it
should
be
our
aim.”
