In my previous article in Theology Matters I considered Jesus’ declaration, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). This is the only instance in the Gospels of Jesus using “the way” as a self-reference. The Gospels speak of preparing the way for Jesus (Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27) or of Jesus teaching the way (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21), but not of Jesus as the way. Other terminology that Jesus used of himself was similarly guarded and even elusive. He refused to claim for himself leading Old Testament titles such as king (Mark 15:2; John 6:15) or Messiah (Matt. 26:63–64), although he welcomed the title “teacher” and occasionally “prophet” (Luke 4:24; 11:32). His most preferred self-designation was the Son of Man, an Old Testament title that was uncommon and poorly understood. In the sense he often used it of himself—as a divine figure who would come on the clouds of heaven to receive dominion over the earth—Son of Man occurs only once in the Old Testament (Dan. 7:13–14). When crowds pressed Jesus if he was the promised Messiah of Israel, he employed the Son of Man title in response: “‘The Son of Man must be lifted up.’” But this obscured rather than clarified his identity, for the crowds inquired, “‘Who is this Son of Man?’” (John 12:34). Throughout the Gospels, people are undecided and even mystified about Jesus’ identity, and this is largely the result of Jesus’ reserve in self-disclosure. The most common conjecture about his identity was that he was a figure returned from the past, either John the Baptist or Elijah or one of the prophets. These opinions were shared equally by non-disciples, indeed by Herod Antipas, an arch-opponent of Jesus,[i] as well as by his own disciples.[ii] That opponents and advocates were united in this judgment indicates, surprisingly perhaps, that being a follower of Jesus did not necessarily give one an inside track in understanding his identity.
Professor Eduard Schweizer, with whom I studied at the University of Zürich, believed that Jesus’ avoidance and even subversion of messianic imagery and titles was an all-important first step in understanding his person and mission. Schweizer called Jesus “The Man Who Fits No Formula.”[iii] By avoiding stereotypical titles, suggested Schweizer, Jesus skirted the preconceptions that such titles and imagery sparked in peoples’ imaginations, requiring them to decide for themselves who he might be.
What was true of the master in this respect was also true of his disciples, for the first generation of Jesus-followers developed its distinctive communal life and missionary program without reference to a “brand name.” The earliest name for Jesus-followers was probably mathetes, which we translate as “disciples,” although the word itself means “students,” “learners,” or “apprentices,” and thus stands in correlation to the common designation of Jesus as “teacher.” As other names developed, “disciples” was retained, although it was often altered to “the twelve (disciples)” in deference to the original disciples of Jesus. “Nazarenes” and “Galileans” were early names associated with geographical locations of Jesus’ followers. Similes and analogies also appear as early designations of believers: “God’s people,” “Israel in the Spirit,” “Seed of Abraham,” “Chosen People,” “the Elect,” “Twelve Tribes,” and “Servants of God.” Many of these names did not survive, but they are informative, for all of them recall Old Testament images and designations, attesting that the early church rooted its self-understanding in, and sought names and analogies from, God’s covenant with Israel. The first Christians, in other words, did not think of themselves as a novelty but rather as a continuation, indeed a consummation, of God’s redemptive work in Israel that had begun with the call of Abraham.
In addition to “disciples,” three other designations emerge with increasing frequency in the New Testament: “believers” (Gk. pisteuontes), “brothers” (Gk. adelphoi), and “saints” (Gk. hagioi). Both disciples and believers occur with reference to followers during Jesus’ earthly ministry, the latter being especially prominent in the Gospel and First Epistle of John. The Greek noun pistis (“faith,” “belief”) never occurs in the Gospel of John, but the verb pisteuein (“to believe”) occurs nearly a hundred times, accentuating the importance of active commitment to the person and proclamation of Jesus. “Brothers” and “saints” appear in the New Testament with reference to the post-resurrection community of Jesus-followers. Brothers identifies believers in terms of family members. The family was the most important social unit of Jewish life, and it defines connectivity in Christian communities in terms of genetic bonds and sibling relationships. “Saints,” on the other hand, is a cultic term, deriving from Israelite worship communities centered in tabernacle, temple, and synagogue. The holy God sanctified his dwelling place in tabernacle and temple, and, by extension, in the people called by his name. “I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44). The early church appropriated this commandment (1 Pet. 1:16) and applied it to believers in Jesus Christ, “who loved the church and gave himself up for it, to make it holy, cleansing it by the washing of the water in the word” (Eph. 5:25–26).
The Way
The first name for the post-resurrection Christian movement to gain widespread currency was “the way” (Gk. he hodos). The way was a self-designation of early Christians that was recognized by both believers and non-believers in Palestine and beyond. The Acts of the Apostles is the only book of the New Testament to refer to the church as “the way.” Acts employs it with reference to Christians in Damascus and Ephesus (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23), and in the mouth of the Apostle Paul, “the way” designates believers in speeches before hostile Jewish crowds (Acts 22:4), in trials before the Sanhedrin (Acts 24:14, 22), and before Roman officials, including Felix, Festus, and Agrippa II (Acts 24:22; 26:13). These uses attest to the scope and versatility of the way as a designation for Jesus-followers by mid-first century.
What Acts does not tell us, and what scholars are at a loss to explain, is why early Christians chose to identify their public persona as “the way.” For my part, I believe the way of God in the Old Covenant and the way of Jesus in the New set the stage for the use of “the way” as a self-designation of the early church. As we have noted, the way does not occur as a title of Jesus or of Jesus-followers in the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament, and neither does it appear as a name for the people or tribes of Israel in the Old Testament. The way does, however, appear as a characteristic of God’s people in the prophetic tradition, in which God promises to make of his people “one heart and one way” (Jer. 32:38–39).[iv] More importantly, the Hebrew verb halak (“to walk”) appears in the Old Testament as a summary metaphor of faithfulness to God.[v] The early Hebrews were semi-nomadic, a people “on the move,” an exodus-people en route from Egypt to the Promised Land. Their life and faith in God were a pilgrimage from slaves to Chosen People, from no-people to Holy People. They experienced God in the journey to the Promised Land, and ever after they interpreted faith as a journey. Halak captures his sense. The Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible rendered halak regularly in the Septuagint by poreuesthai (“to travel,” “to make a journey”) rather than simply by erchesthai (“to go”). For Israel, the experience of God was a journey of faith. God was both the destination of the journey and the companion on the journey. The earliest exemplars of the journey of faith were Enoch and Noah, both of whom “walked with God” (Gen. 5:22, 24; 6:9). For the Israelites, God was not an idea or object, but a commanding Presence who required a mental, volitional, and behavioral response, a “walk” of the whole life.
The early Christians understood their relationship with Jesus similarly. They characterize his kingdom variously as “the way of peace” (Luke 1:79), “the way of truth” (2 Pet. 2:2), “the way of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:21; Matt. 21:32), “the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17), or all-inclusively, “the way(s) of the Lord” (Acts 13:10; 18:25). The early Christians also experienced the ministry of Jesus “on the move.” Jesus called disciples to follow him as he walked the shore of the Sea of Galilee and passed through Galilean villages. He was the Son of Man who had no place to lay his head (Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58). “On the way” to Caesarea-Philippi he revealed his messianic call to the disciples (Mark 8:27–30; Matt. 16:13–20). “On the way” to Jerusalem he revealed his impending passion to the disciples (Mark 10:32–34; Matt. 20:17–19; Luke 18:31–34). The long mid-section of the Gospel of Luke (chs. 9–18) portrays Jesus not simply “on the way” to Jerusalem, but as the way of life. On the walk to Emmaus, “beginning with Moses and all the prophets Jesus explained to the disciples the things concerning himself in all the scriptures” (Luke 24:27). I believe that Jesus’ climactic self-reference in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” is an all-encompassing metaphor of both himself and the gospel.
The early church thus had strong precedents from both Israel’s self-understanding and Jesus’ self-portrayal to adopt “the way” as its earliest and most comprehensive self-designation. The early church never employs “the way” as a self-reference in the plural, as though the church were an amalgamation of ways, one way among equally valid ways, perhaps, or one truth among others. With reference to the early church, the way always appears in the singular, not with reference to the way of something beyond itself—“the way of the gospel,” perhaps, or “the way of life”—but absolutely as “the way.” Its governing antecedent is the way of God set forth in the First Covenant, which was incarnated in the Word of God in the Second Covenant, to which the early church as “the way” bears witness in its proclamation and life.
The way includes the gospel, of course, its faithful witness in the kerygma of church proclamation, and the proper identification of its message with the content and character of divine revelation in Jesus of Nazareth. Additionally, the way includes the ethical form of the Christian life, both personal and corporate, as a truth that is lived as well as articulated. One might even say that the way is best articulated in life. And further still, the way entails a deep transformation with regard to things unseen and unspoken. We refer to such a transformation as a perception of reality or a “world view.” This way, too, was learned and embraced rather than a natural response. It included identifying with the way of God in this world as demonstrated in the way of Jesus of Nazareth, living in trust of God’s promises in spite of all to the contrary, embracing of suffering as a means of disarming powers of evil, and the hope of eternal bliss in which God’s sovereign purpose is finally and forever fulfilled. The way was thus a composite of the cardinal virtues—faith, love, and hope—and the effect of these virtues in the lives, both personal and corporate, of those hold them. “The way” was a way of seeing, believing, and living that reflects the Kingdom of God as introduced by Jesus, of which the church is here and now the first-fruits, the final fulfillment of which is awaited in faith and hope.
“The way” was thus the earliest public name of the Jesus-movement. As we know, however, the way was not the most important or most enduring name. It was rightly superseded by the name that continues to designate Jesus-followers to this day—“Christian.” Christian is the most proper and deserving name, because unlike “way,” which describes a composite of characteristics, “Christian” identifies believers by the Lord of the church, “our savior Jesus Christ who gave himself in our behalf, in order that he might ransom us from all evil and cleanse for himself a people chosen and zealous for good works” (Tit. 2:13–14).
The Way Today
I wish to note two things about “the way” that I think relevant for the church today, and conclude with an illustration. The first point of relevance is that the growth and development of Christianity was not impeded by lack of a formal name. The marketing industry has drilled into our modern minds that a product cannot be successful and profitable without a “brand name,” distinctive logo, or cipher that triggers a desired response in the minds of consumers. Marketing was of course not the powerhouse in the ancient world that it is today, but it was not unimportant. The leading institutions and images of Judaism were consciously symbolic, including temple architecture, elaborate priestly vestments, worship rituals, Torah scrolls, tefillin, and tassels on garments. These and other symbols promoted and publicized Judaism. The leading institutions and images of the Roman Empire symbolized and promoted it on a grander scale, including the ubiquity of theaters and arenas that showcased the empire’s power and prestige in parades and pageantry, athletic competitions and blood sports, seats of honor, military standards, and insignia. The Roman logo SPQR (senatus populusque romanus, “the senate and people of Rome”)was omnipresent, and Roman citizenship was the single greatest passport to privilege in the empire. How utterly exceptional was “the way,” by contrast. Without any visual identification whatsoever, and with only its itinerant preachers and primitive churches that met in private homes and in remote caves, early Christians set roots that extended deeply and widely in the ancient world.
The early roots of the way constituted a broad range of essential tenets—including identification with the name and person of Jesus, bearing witness to Jesus in a summary proclamation known as the kerygma, weekly gatherings (increasingly on Sunday), sharing common meals, acts of mercy, and missionary preaching and teaching. One of the earliest badges—a genuinely red badge of courage—was the willingness of early Christians to suffer persecution. Arthur Darby Nock, the great 20th century American historian of early Christianity, makes the remarkable observation that in the first two centuries Jesus-followers largely multiplied beneath the radar of the ancient world. Christians did not wear distinctive clothing, they did not identify with official ceremonies, they visited no temples, they had no priestly class, they did not showcase themselves in any particular way to the ancient world. One of the first and most lasting ways the ancient world become aware of Christians, maintains Nock, was as martyrs. Nock employed martyrs primarily with reference to physical martyrdom, but the word includes the full significance of the Greek root martyrein, meaning a genuine witness to Jesus Christ in both lie and death. It was not in the quest for power and influence, but rather in distinctive acts of Christian witness that the profile of Christians first emerged in the ancient world. May we be reminded that martyrs are once again dying in our world in unprecedented numbers, and Nock’s observation is equally true today: the world that otherwise feigns disinterest, perhaps even dislike, for Christianity is today, as in the ancient world, profoundly influenced when believers in Christ bear genuine and even costly witness to their faith in Jesus Christ. Despite what marketing analysts say, brand names, logos, and ciphers are not the most important thing in the success of a product. The most important factor in the success of the product is its value. The greatest “market factor” of Christianity has always been the witness of the transformed human life.
My second point is that the relationship of Christian churches to modern Western culture, including American culture, more closely approximates the relationship of the early church to the ancient world, both Jewish and Roman, than at any point in modern history. The tires of “mainline Christianity” that gained famous traction in 1950s America have grown smooth in American society today. In attempts to be more accessible, mainline churches are dropping denominational references from their names; they are relaxing ecclesial practices that have long characterized and governed them, such as rites related to weddings, celebration of sacraments, ordination, church discipline, and confirmation classes. While mainline churches have declined, independent and non-traditional churches have grown, churches that are not determined by, and are often consciously divorced from, the traditions and authorities of mainline ecclesiologies. This newer church phenomenon often reaches people unreached by mainline churches, but its reliance on charismatic pastoral personalities who, typically, are sparsely theologically trained and not accountable to larger pastoral networks often results in spectacular but short-lived seasons of bloom. The American ecclesiastical scene has become increasingly eclectic and individualistic; like the period of the Judges, each does what seems right in its own eyes.
The church in both Western and American culture looks more like “the way” of the early church in the Book of Acts than most churches of memorable past have looked. How can churches that are increasingly unfettered from historic and ecclesiastical traditions, and untutored in theological resources, connect with the deep, rich, and lasting traditions of historic Christianity? How can churches that no longer enjoy prestige with the dominant culture affirm this reality by reclaiming and proclaiming the gospel without both the privileges and compromises of cultural entitlement? How can the church learn from the disastrous consequences of accommodating with ruling powers, and trust instead in the saving sufficiency of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the one Lord of the one Church, and whose life, death, and resurrection are Good News for rich and poor, privileged and dispossessed, and people of all colors and cultures, languages and locations, tribes and traditions. How can the church repent of ecclesiastical grandstanding and devote itself to faithful and humble proclamation of the Word and actions characterized by charity and sacrifice. The way of the church is not the way of the world. It is the way of Jesus Christ in the world, who is the Word Made Flesh, the one Word of God attested to us in Scriptures whom we are to love, trust, fear, and obey in life and in death.
How can the church be “the way” today? Perhaps this illustration can point to some first steps. In 2003 my son Mark joined me in fulfilling a lifelong dream of mine to climb the Mittellegi Ridge of the Eiger in Switzerland. Mark and I took the Jungfraujoch train from Kleine Scheidegg as far as the Eismeer station, where got out, met our guides, and climbed to a hut at 11,000 feet on the Mittellegi Ridge. We spent the night there. At 3:30 A.M. next morning we were on the ridge climbing toward the summit. The mountain was largely snow-free, weather was superb, and at 8:30 A.M. we ate lunch on the summit. With a whole day before us, our guides suggested we forego the normal descent down the West Face and make a more adventurous traverse behind the Monch to the summit of the Jungfraujoch, from which we could take the train down to the base of the Eiger. The new route was long and arduous. We had not eaten since the morning and had exhausted our supply of water. By mid-afternoon we had only to cross a long ice ridge, at the far end of which the Jungfraujoch train terminal was in sight. The ice ridge was as narrow as the roof ridge of a house, and it fell away precipitously on both sides. There was no way to protect ourselves with ice pitons, and any use of an ice ax would throw one off balance. The only way across was a sheer act of balance—for a hundred yards.
I was exhausted and thirsty, and this final obstacle—greater than anything we had faced on the climb—sapped my strength and confidence. I could not summon the courage to cross the ridge. My guide, Jürg Anderegg, sensed my crisis, and since I was roped to him, my crisis was his as well. He could have reasoned with me, lectured me, even commanded or shamed me, but he seemed to know those would not work. He chose a different option, and it got me across the ridge. “We’re going to do this together,” he said. “I will walk in front of you on the ridge. Don’t look to either side. Follow me, watch my feet, I’ll take you across.” Jürg’s plan, his presence, his pace … they brought me across.
Jürg did not show me the way, he was the way! May the church be such a way today.
[su_expand more_text=”Show Footnotes” height=”40″ link_color=”#cdcdcd” link_style=”button” link_align=”center” more_icon=”icon: chevron-down” less_icon=”icon: chevron-up”]1. See John M. Finnis, Law, Morality, and “Sexual Orientation,” 69 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1049, 1066 (1994);
John Finnis, “Marriage: A Basic and Exigent Good,” THE MONIST, July–Oct. 2008, 388–406. See also
PATRICK LEE & ROBERT P. GEORGE, BODYSELF DUALISM IN CONTEMPORARY ETHICS AND
POLITICS 176–97 (2008).
2. See Stephen Macedo, Homosexuality and the Conservative Mind, 84 GEO. L.J. 261, 279 (1995).
3. Even in traditions that permit or have permitted polygamy, each marriage is between a man and a woman.
4. See infra Part II.E.
5. See William N. Eskridge, Jr., A History of Same‐Sex Marriage, 79 VA. L. REV. 1419, 1424 (1993).
6. See, e.g., id.
7. See, e.g., id.
8. Id.
9. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967).
10. Throughout history, no society’s laws have explicitly forbidden gay marriage. They have not explicitly
forbidden it because, until recently, it has not been thought possible. What is more, antimiscegenation laws, at
least in the United States, were meant to keep blacks separate from whites, and thus in a position of social,
economic, and political inferiority to them. But traditional marriage laws were not devised to oppress those
with same‐sex attractions. The comparison is offensive, and puzzling to many—not least to the nearly
two‐thirds of black voters who voted to uphold conjugal marriage under California Proposition Eight. See Cara
Mia DiMassa & Jessica Garrison, Why Gays, Blacks are Divided on Prop. 8, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 8, 2008, at
A1.
11. For a brief defense of this idea, and the implications for our argument of denying it, see infra Part I.F.
12. See Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
13. This point requires elaboration: Some revisionists might deny that there is a “real marriage” from which any
relationship might deviate, and instead maintain that marriage is purely conventional. Those who think
marriage is a useless or unjustifiable fiction have no reason to support any marriage law at all, while those who
think it is a useful and legitimate fiction must explain why the state should keep even the restrictions on
marriage that they support. On this latter point, see infra Part II.B. On the implications of regarding marriage
as pure construction, see infra Part I.F.
14. Among revisionists, see, for example, Jonathan Rauch, For Better or Worse? The case for Gay (and Straight)
Marriage, THE NEW REPUBLIC, May 6, 1996, at 18, available at
http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/gay_marriage_1_the_case_for_ marriage; Ralph Wedgwood,
The Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage, 7 J. POL. PHIL. 225, 229 (1999); Jonathan Rauch, Not
So Fast, Mr. George, INDEP. GAY F. (Aug. 2, 2006), http://igfculturewatch.com/2006/08/02/not‐so‐fast‐mrgeorge. Among supporters of the conjugal view, see, for example, ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA
THEOLOGICA Supp., Q. 44, Art. 1.
15. See, e.g., THOMAS WALTER LAQUEUR, MAKING SEX, BODY AND GENDER FROM THE GREEKS
TO FREUD 48 (1990).
16. Pleasure cannot play this role for several reasons. The good must be truly common and for the couple as a
whole, but pleasures (and, indeed, any psychological good) are private and benefit partners, if at all, only
individually. The good must be bodily, but pleasures are aspects of experience. The good must be inherently
valuable, but pleasures are not as such good in themselves—witness, for example, sadistic pleasures. For more
on this philosophical point, see LEE & GEORGE, supra note 1, 95–115, 176–97.
17. The Oxford English Dictionary charts the usage of “consummation” as, among other definitions not relating to
marriage, “[t]he completion of marriage by sexual intercourse.” OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY III, at
803 (2d ed. 1989). The earliest such usage recorded in law was the 1548 Act 2–3 Edw. VI, c. 23 § 2: “Sentence
for Matrimony, commanding Solemnization, Cohabitation, Consummation and Tractation as becometh Man
and Wife to have.” Id. In more modern usage, “consummation of marriage” is still regarded in family law as
“[t]he first postmarital act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife.” BLACK’S LAW
DICTIONARY 359 (9th ed. 2009).
18. That is, made even richer as the kind of reality it is.
19. For more on this point, see infra Part I.D.
20. For more on the difference between infertile and same‐sex couples, see infra Part I.D.
21. For the relevant studies, see Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good, signed by some seventy
scholars, which corroborates the philosophical case for marriage with extensive evidence from the social
sciences about the welfare of children and adults. THE WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE, MARRIAGE AND
THE PUBLIC GOOD: TEN PRINCIPLES 9–19 (2008), available at http://www.winst.org/
family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf.
22. Kristin Anderson Moore et al., Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect
Children, and What Can We Do About It?, CHILD TRENDS RESEARCH BRIEF, June 2002, at 1–2, 6,
available at http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf.
23. Wendy D. Manning & Kathleen A. Lamb, Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and
Single‐Parent Families, 65 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. 876, 890 (2003).
24. See Sara McLanahan, Elisabeth Donahue & Ron Haskins, Introducing the Issue, 15 THE FUTURE OF
CHILD. 3 (2005); Mary Parke, Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?, CLASP POLICY BRIEF,
May 2003; W. BRADFORD WILCOX ET AL., 2 WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: TWENTY‐SIX
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 6 (2005).
25. For more on this point see supra Part I.B.I.
26. BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 220 (Oxford 1815).
27. For more on this point see supra Part I.B.I.
28. See infra Part I.E.3.
29. See, e.g., Editorial, A Vermont Court Speaks, BOSTON GLOBE, Dec. 22, 1999, at A22 (“[Gay marriage] no
more undermine[s] traditional marriage than sailing undermines swimming.”).
30. See supra Part I.B.1.
31. See supra Part I.B.2.
32. See supra Part I.B.3.
33. See infra Part II.C.
34. See infra Parts I.E.2–3.
35. Stanley Kurtz, The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, THE WKLY. STANDARD, Jan. 23, 2004, at 26,
available at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp.
36. Elizabeth Brake, Minimal Marriage: What Political Liberalism Implies for Marriage Law, 120 ETHICS 302,
332 (2010) (emphasis added).
37. RICHARD DOERFLINGER, FAMILY POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES (1980), available at
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/FaithfulForLife.pdf; MAGGIE GALLAGHER, THE ABOLITION OF
MARRIAGE: HOW WE DESTROY LASTING LOVE (1996); PROMISES TO KEEP: DECLINE AND
RENEWAL OF MARRIAGE IN AMERICA (David Popenoe et al. eds., 1996); THE BOOK OF
MARRIAGE: THE WISEST ANSWERS TO THE TOUGHEST QUESTIONS (Dana Mack & David
Blankenhorn eds. 2001); THE FATHERHOOD MOVEMENT: A CALL TO ACTION (Wade F. Horn et al.
eds., 1999); UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
LIFE (1975), available at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Marriage&FamilyLife75.pdf; Maggie
Gallagher & Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, End No-Fault Divorce?, 75 FIRST THINGS 24 (1997).
38. See supra Part I.B.2.
39. See THE WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE, supra note 21.
40. They are clearly the primary victims of the erosion that has already taken place. See W. Bradford Wilcox, The
Evolution of Divorce, 1 NAT’L AFFAIRS 81, 88–93 (2009).
41. See supra Part I.B.2.
42. See supra Part I.C.1.
43. See supra Part I.B.2.
44. Marc D. Stern, Same-Sex Marriage and the Churches, in SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY: EMERGING CONFLICTS 1, 11–14 (Douglas Laycock et al. eds., 2008). This collection of essays
includes the views of scholars on both sides of the same‐sex marriage question, who conclude that conflicts
with religious liberty are inevitable where marriage is extended to same‐sex couples.
45. Maggie Gallagher, Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious
Liberty, THE WKLY. STANDARD, May 5, 2006, at 20, available at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp.
46. Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 345 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1122 (S.D. Cal. 2004).
47. See, e.g., Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008).
48. Monica Hesse, Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile, WASH. POST., Aug. 28, 2009, at C01.
49. Andrew Alexander, ‘Sanity & a Smile’ and an Outpouring of Rage, WASH. POST, Sept. 6, 2009, at A17.
50. Frank Rich, Op-Ed., The Bigots’ Last Hurrah, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 19, 2009 (Week in Review), at 10.
51. See, e.g., HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, http://www.hrc.org (last visited Nov. 8, 2010) (self-identifying the
organization as a 501(c)(4) advocacy group “working for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights”);
Annie Stockwell, Stop the Hate: Vote No on 8, ADVOCATE.COM (Aug. 20, 2008),
http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/People/Stop_the_Hate (framing opposition to California’s
Proposition Eight, which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California,” as a struggle against hate).
52. See supra Part I.B.
53. See supra Parts I.B.1–3.
54. See supra Part I.B.1.
55. Whether bodily union is truly marital depends on other factors—for example, whether it is undertaken freely
to express permanent and exclusive commitment. So bodily union is necessary but not sufficient for marital
union.
56. On the conjugal view, spouses pledge to form a union that is comprehensive and thus bodily, and thus
procreative by nature. They do not and cannot pledge to form a union that results in procreation.
57. See id.
58. See supra Part I.B.2.
59. See supra Part I.B.3.
60. See supra Part I.B.2.
61. See supra Part I.C.
62. See infra Part I.E.1.
63. See supra Parts I.B.1–2
64. See supra Part I.A.1.
65. Note that only sound arguments based on true principles can be inherently decisive.
66. See Maggie Gallagher, (How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage as a Social Institution: A Reply to
Andrew Koppelman, 2 U. ST. THOMAS L.J. 33, 51–52 (2004).
67. See supra Part I.B.2.
68. See, e.g., David Boaz, Privatize Marriage: A Simple Soution to the Gay-Marriage Debate, SLATE (Apr. 25,
1997), http://slate.com/id/2440/.
69. This is because, if the State failed to recognize the institution of marriage altogether, social costs would be
imposed, in large part on children, due to the breakdown of traditional family structures which lend stability.
70. See supra Part I.B.2.
71. Isabel V. Sawhill, Families at Risk, in SETTING NATIONAL PRIORITIES: THE 2000 ELECTION AND
BEYOND 97, 108 (Henry J. Aaron & Robert D. Reischauer eds., 1999); see also THE WITHERSPOON
INSTITUTE, supra note 21, at 15.
72. DAVID POPENOE, DISTURBING THE NEST: FAMILY CHANGE AND DECLINE IN MODERN
SOCIETIES, at xiv-xv (1988); ALAN WOLFE, WHOSE KEEPER? SOCIAL SCIENCE AND MORAL
OBLIGATION 132–42 (1989).
73. See supra Part I.B.2.
74. See supra Part I.B.1.
75. See supra Part I.B.1.
76. See supra Part I.B.2.
77. See supra Part I.B.3.
78. Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families & Relationships,
BEYONDMARRIAGE.ORG (July 26, 2006), http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html.
79. Jessica Bennett, Only You. And You. And You: Polyamory—relationships with multiple, mutually consenting
partners—has a coming-out party, NEWSWEEK (July 29, 2009),
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html.
80. See supra Part I.A.
81. Brake, supra note 36, at 303.
82. See, e.g., Eskridge, supra note 5, at 1421–22 (“A social constructivist history emphasizes the ways in which
marriage is ‘constructed’ over time, the institution being viewed as reflecting larger social power relations.”).
83. See id. at 1434 (“[M]arriage is not a naturally generated institution with certain essential elements. Instead it is
a construction that is linked with other cultural and social institutions, so that the old-fashioned boundaries
between the public and private life melt away.”).
84. See Hernandez v. Robles, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354, 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) (Saxe, J., dissenting) (“Civil
marriage is an institution created by the state . . . .”); Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963, 1018 (Wash.
2006) (Fairhurst, J., dissenting) (“[M]arriage draws its strength from the nature of the civil marriage contract
itself and the recognition of that contract by the State.”).
85. See supra Part I.B.2.
86. See supra Parts I.C, I.D.2.
87. See supra Part II.B.
88. See Gallagher, supra note 68, at 62.
89. Beyond Same-Sex Marriage, supra note 80.
90. Brake, supra note 36, at 336, 323.
91. Andrew Sullivan, Introduction, in SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: PRO AND CON: A READER, at xvii, xix
(Andrew Sullivan ed., 1st ed. 1997).
92. E.J. GRAFF, Retying the Knot, in SAME‐ SEX MARRIAGE: PRO AND CON, supra note 93, at 134, 136.
93. ANDREW SULLIVAN, VIRTUALLY NORMAL: AN ARGUMENT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY 202–03
(1996).
94. Victoria A. Brownworth, Something Borrowed, Something Blue: Is Marriage Right for Queers?, in I DO/I
DON’T: QUEERS ON MARRIAGE 53, 58–59 (Greg Wharton & Ian Philips eds., 2004).
95. Id. at 59.
96. Ellen Willis, Can Marriage Be Saved? A Forum, THE NATION, July 5, 2004, at 16, 16.
97. Michelangelo Signorile, Bridal Wave, OUT, Dec.–Jan. 1994, at 68, 161.
98. Id.
99. See generally JONATHAN RAUCH, GAY MARRIAGE: WHY IT IS GOOD FOR GAYS, GOOD FOR
STRAIGHTS, AND GOOD FOR AMERICA (2005).
100. DAVID P. MCWHIRTER & ANDREW M. MATTISON, THE MALE COUPLE: HOW RELATIONSHIPS
DEVELOP 252–53 (1984).
101. Id. at 3.
102. C.H. Mercer et al., Behaviourally bisexual men as a bridge population for HIV and sexually transmitted
infections? Evidence from a national probability survey, 20 INT’L J. STD & AIDS 87, 88 (2009).
103. EDWARD O. LAUMANN ET AL., THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SEXUALITY: SEXUAL
PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES 314–16 (1994).
104. See supra Part I.B.3.
105. Scott James, Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 29, 2010, at A17,
available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?ref=us.
106. Andrew Sullivan, Only the Right Kind of Symbolic Sex, THE DAILY DISH (Aug. 4, 2009, 11:11 AM),
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/only-the-right-kind-of-symbolic-sex.html.
107. See supra Part I.E.1.
108. See supra Part I.B.1.
109. Again, we do not think all acts of coitus even within marriages are marital. Unloving coitus between spouses,
especially where it is based on coercion or manipulation, is not truly marital—it fails to embody and express
true (comprehensive) spousal communion.
110. See supra Part II.B.
111. See supra Parts I.B.1–3.
112. Many same-sex attracted people who do not support legally recognizing same-sex unions have explored the
special value for themselves of deep friendships. See, e.g., John Heard, Dreadtalk: ‘Holy Sex & Christian
Friendship’ John Heard-Life Week 2009 At The University of Sydney-Remarks, DREADNOUGHTS (May 4,
2009, 3:33 PM), http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2009/02/dreadtalk-holy-sex-christian-friendship.html.
113. For more on the effects of a sexualized culture on friendship, see Anthony Esolen, A Requiem for Friendship:
Why Boys Will Not Be Boys & Other Consequences of the Sexual Revolution, 18 TOUCHSTONE
MAGAZINE, Sept. 2005, at 21, available at http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-07-
021-f.
114. See ARISTOTLE, NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 260 (Terrence Irwin trans., Hackett Pub. Co. 1985).
115. Phyllis Zagano, Nature vs. Nurture, NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER (Sept. 30, 2010),
http://ncronline.org/blogs/just-catholic/nature-vs-nurture.
116. John Corvino, Nature? Nurture? It Doesn’t Matter, INDEPENDENT GAY FORUM (Aug. 12, 2004),
http://igfculturewatch.com/2004/08/12/nature-nurture-itdoesnt-matter/. Professor Corvino’s piece deals
specifically with the morality of same-sex relations, which is not our topic here. But the same points apply.
117. See supra Part I.D.2.
118. See supra Parts I.B.2, I.E.2.[/su_expand]
