Two Views of Marriage: Appendix
A reply to Sherif Girgis.


3. If Girgis finds his interlocutor’s position “difficult to rephrase without seeming to ridicule,” might it be that he has read ridiculously?

4. “[Steorts] sneers [I do not] at the idea that ‘the value of a relationship between two persons in love [would] depen[d] on the structure of their genitals.’ He might as well ridicule the idea that Juliet’s attraction to Romeo would depend ‘on the structure of Romeo’s genitals.’” Here Girgis confuses Juliet’s attraction to Romeo with the value of committed romantic love as such. He might as well say that Romeo cannot love Juliet unless Sherif Girgis loves her too.

VIII. Disclaimer
1. I am not making a legal argument. As the editors of this magazine have argued, the Constitution is silent on the question of same-sex marriage, not having contemplated it. This debate is properly to be resolved through legislative action or plebiscite, and my purpose has been to present the considerations that strike me as relevant to that resolution. (Professor Franck, that is all I meant by “Let us now write our marriage law on a tabula rasa.” You misunderstood me about the lotus flowers, too — see VII:2.)

2. I would oppose any effort to deprive any private entity of the liberty to teach and express what it believes is right, or to compel it to perform marriages or offer adoption services against its conscience.

— Jason Lee Steorts is managing editor of National Review.