The Corner

The one and only.

Benefits Challenge


I see that Andrew Sullivan has issued me a challenge to say what sort of benefits, if any, I would approve of or advocate for gay couples, short of marriage. I am on the road right now, but would be happy to respond to that challenge when I return–on the assumption that Sullivan will first take up a challenge of mine. In my latest piece I noted Sullivan’s persistent failure to respond to my writings on lesbian triple parenting. I would like to see Sullivan finally address that issue. In my recent piece, I also noted Sullivan’s failure to take up the real challenge of the slippery slope argument as it relates to polyamory. In fact, I don’t think the word polyamory has ever been formed on Sullivan’s keyboard. I would love to hear his views on what it is, why it has developed out of nowhere in the last seven years, and what implications it has for the future of marriage. I would love to hear why exactly Sullivan believes that a finding for gay marriage on equal protection grounds would not result in eventual legalized polyamory. How exactly does Sullivan believe that a legal case can and should be built against polyamory, and why does he believe that that the case against polyamory will survive an equal protection challenge? I would also like to see Sullivan acknowledge and respond to my point about gay marriages of convenience. I would be very curious to see Sullivan’s analysis of Canada’s “Beyond Conjugality” report. In particular, I would like to know how Sullvian accounts for the fact that in that report, support for legalized gay marriage is combined with a proposal to all but abolish marriage. And it would be both fascinating and important to hear Andrew Sullivan’s views on the American Law Institute’s “Principle’s of Family Dissolution.” Sometime after Andrew Sullivan addresses these issues, I would be most pleased to respond to his challenge.


Subscribe to National Review

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today: