This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. They are contending that sexual activity has been privileged over other kinds of bonding activities in determining who gets to marry. Are they thereby married? No.” While the purpose of this distinction is initially mystifying, the authors are making a serious point. They pledge to play tennis with each other, and only with each other, until death do them part. The article argues for common procreation as the sole basis for a “real” or “conjugal” marriage by asserting that only a man and a woman can create a “comprehensive union.” In defining that special status, the authors begin by drawing a distinction between “sexual” exclusivity and “tennis” exclusivity: “Suppose that Michael and Michelle build their relationship not on sexual exclusivity, but on tennis exclusivity. With two graduate student co-authors, he claims to have revealed the true nature of marriage. Princeton professor Robert George is a conservative heavyweight in debates over same-sex marriage. Closely examined, the common-procreation argument denigrates not only same-sex couples but several kinds of married opposite-sex couples. Yet the article’s more comprehensive elaboration of the argument reveals why the Proposition 8 defenders were right not to shine too bright a light on it.
