The "Gender Complementarity" Objection to Same-Sex Unions

[Some MOJ-readers may be interested in this paper:]

"God's Created Order, Gender Complementarity, and the Federal
Marriage Amendment"
     Hofstra University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-33
          Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, Vol.
          20, 2006

  Contact:  LINDA C. MCCLAIN
              Hofstra University - School of Law
    Email:  [email protected]
Auth-Page:  http://ssrn.com/author=233178

Full Text:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=950109

ABSTRACT: Does marriage, in the United States, need the
protection of an amendment to the federal constitution, which
would enshrine marriage as only the union of a man and a woman?
In answering "yes" to this question, sponsors and supporters of
the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment (FMPA), in the House of
Representatives and the Senate, have made various appeals to the
gender complementarity of marriage: (1) opposite-sex marriage is
part of "God's created order;" (2) procreation is the purpose of
marriage and has a tight nexus with optimal mother/father
parenting; (3) marriage bridges the "gender divide" by properly
ordering heterosexual desire and procreation; (4) marriage is
"about children," not adult love; and (5) traditional marriage
transmits values crucial to democracy. This article canvasses and
critically evaluates a sampling of these arguments, as they have
featured in Congressional hearings and debates about the FMPA. It
asks whether FMPA supporters can reconcile their stance about the
imperative of protecting the gender complementarity of
traditional marriage with the transformation of marriage brought
about by family law reforms and contemporary Equal Protection
jurisprudence. It argues that FMPA supporters continually and
uncritically appeal to gender complementarity as a justification
for preserving "traditional marriage" without addressing
marriage's evolution and whether marriage's definition should
continue to evolve.