Loving v. Marriage
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/loving-v-marriage/391730/
Only 35 years agoa breath in the life of a culturestraight America saw gays and lesbians as forces of sexual anarchy who threatened a nation of happily married couples living in tidy houses with their beloved children.
In states where anti-gay initiatives were on the ballot, TV ads showed lesbians in leather and gays in spangles cavorting across the screen, accompanied by warnings that a lifestyle of deviant sex, pedophilia, and bestiality was about to drown us all.
Flash forward to April 28, 2015. John J. Bursch, the solicitor general of Michigan, explained to the Supreme Court that gay couples should not marry because they are too staid: They stand outside the anarchic swirl of straight sexuality that creates abandoned children and one-parent households.
Gays and lesbiansbless their naïve heartsbelieve that marriage is about love, about commitment, about mutual support in sickness and health as long as we both shall live. But government, Bursch explained, knows that this is not true. Bursch was representing four statesKentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennesseewhose constitutions ban same-sex marriage. The challengers are residents of those states, all involved inor survivors ofcommitted and stable same-sex relationships. Except for their gender, they are models of the kind of family life Americans once believed to be menaced by the emergence of gay America from the shadows. But they should not win, Bursch said, because they falsely believe that that marriage is all about love and commitment. And as a society, we can agree that that's important, but the State doesn't have any interest in that.