Corvino: A gay marriage opponent responds

Last week I wrote about marriage-equality opponents' "Always and Everywhere" argument - the claim that since marriage has "always" been heterosexual, we ought not to tinker with it now.

In response, a prominent same-sex marriage opponent e-mailed me to explain what was "logically and philosophically wrong" with my critique. In particular, she argued that my claim that "each new same-sex marriage is a living counterexample to it" fails, because it misunderstands the rationale behind "always and everywhere."

According to this opponent, the "always and everywhere" argument is not intended as a straightforward descriptive claim-in which case, a single counterexample would indeed refute it-but rather as a tool to uncover the REASON why society after society constructs marriage heterosexually. Full story...