Mr. Schulman purports to explain "Gay marriage: Why Judge Walker got Proposition 8 ruling wrong." He doesn't actually do that, or even make a great deal of sense. There are a number of problems with Schulman's essay, and all of them are inherent in Schulman's understanding of the nature of marriage, and the purpose of marriage in human history. He thinks marriage began as a way to protect women; marriage, to Schulman is

a necessary defense of a woman's sexuality and her human liberty from determined assault by men who would turn her into a slave, a concubine—something less than fully human.

He adds:

Heterosexual relationships need marriage because of inferiority: the physical inferiority of sexual defenders to sexual attackers and the moral inferiority of male sexual attackers

In other words, for Schulman, marriage is all about pussy, getting pussy, protecting pussy, and keeping other men from, yes, your pussy. He has a very poor opinion about men, since, according to him, without women being protected by being safely stowed away with a man, men would, apparently, rape us. I note, by the way, that marriage has never been a hinderance, at all to rape; in fact, most women who are raped are raped by someone they know—often, their husband or boyfriend, or a male who is ostensibly protective. 1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her lifetime; 1 in 7 women will be raped by her husband. Most women aren't raped by strangers—and marriage hardly prevents a stranger from raping a married woman. Marriage clearly is not a defense against rape.

Nor indeed, is that the real reason Schulman wants to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. His real reason for making marriage heterosexual only is that

As a species, we need to protect female sexuality in order to assure ourselves of a future.

Yes, that's right; to Mr. Schulman, women are portable baby-making factories. Mr. Schulman, humanity is in no danger of dying from underpopulation; rest assured, sperm are finding ova all over the world, with or without respecting the sanctity of married women.

Aside from the repellant, revolting attitudes Schulman displays about women, and the underlying assumptions that all men are essentially rabid, sex-obsessed agressive sexual predators and rapists—there's a problem with his inaccurate depiction of marriage.

Marriage is not now, nor has it ever, been about protecting the sanctity of women.

It's about inheritance and property. It's about not sexuality, but property, and the desire of men to control who gets their property. Men bought wives in order to have progeny that could inherit; fathers sold daughters in order to control the dispersal of their property. Even the language around marriage is very clear that it's not about protecting women, it's about protecting property. The root word of spouse means "contract partner." A wedding is a ceremony where the wed, the physical token of a contract, is exchanged with a contract partner, as spouse, in public before witnesses as proof of the contract. (I give you my daughter, you promise to make her progeny your heirs, and I get cash up front. Sort of like a breeding fee for a cow.)

Marriage is not about kinship in the sense that Schulman wants it to be—As a practicing Jew, Mr. Schulman should be aware of matrilineal descent laws; they are not unique to Jews; there's a reason that historically we have, as a species, a fixation on sister-sons, and why so very many cultures and languages trace kinship via the female line; we generally know who our mothers are. Father? Not so easy. I mention in passing that biologically, male mammals are designed to procreate with as many females as possible; perhaps Mr. Schulman's argument would be better turned towards encouraging the return of the harem?

This touching concern for protecting a woman's puss the sanctity of femininity, does not extend to lesbian women. I'm surprised he is unaware that they too are potentially baby making factories, except of course, without the icky parts. Ah—my mistake; Mr. Schulman is only interested in protecting heterosexul women. He's fine with lesbians roaming freely, unprotected from the ravening hoards of men. He is merely concerned for the safety of straight girls, and wants to be sure they're protected. I note, in passing, that Mr. Schulman's desire to protect the sanctity of women's bodies has much in common with the historic role of the pimp; he too is concerned with protecting his chattle. As Mr. Schulman notes, one reason he doesn't want lesbian women, or gay men, to have marriages is that

What protects women, ultimately, is that marriage laws and customs confer upon her independence something extra - dignity, protection, sacredness - that others must respect. And if this quality can be bestowed upon anyone, even those not in intersexual relationships - it reduces, even dissolves its force.

This is the old "If we let same-sex marriages exist, they will destroy our heterosexual marriages!" That is of course, nonsense; heterosexuals are quite capable of destroying marriages on their own; witness the high level of divorce. It's also the old "My marriage is better than yours because, like, we could make babies!" I note of course, that a large number of gay and lesbian couples have also figured out the basic principles behind fecundity; it's not all that hard. The average heterosexual fourteen year old has a fairly good idea of how to go about procreation.

Marriage is not, historically, about love, or romance or protecting the sanctity of women. It is about property—there's a reason that historically laws about marriage, like other contract laws, are a subset of property laws; there's a reason, historically, for women being referred to as chattel; there's a reason, historically, for just about every culture, and every major language group having a word for currency that translates as "woman," or "female slave." Marriage as far as the state is concerned is completely about goods and chattels. It's about receiving Federal tax benefits that same-sex couples pay for—like the social security benefits and pension benefits heterosexual couples receive, including the ability to leave your paid for benefits to your spouse, to receive the social security death benefit, to leave your jointly owned property to your spouse without paying inheritance tax, to have automatic power of attorney, and medical visitation rights, and guardianship over your children, and higher amounts for IRAs and 401ks—benefits which same-sex couples do not have.

Separate but equal didn't work in our past; it won't work now. Same-sex couples want exactly the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples have—and the legal tax penalties, for those couples where one spouse makes substantially more income than the other.

Schulman closes with this:

We are merely voicing a sensible desire to preserve an institution that recognizes and protects the special status of women. If marriage becomes a legislative courtesy available to everyone, like a key to the city, it will be women who will lose.

By "special status," I suspect Schulman is referring to women being goods and chattel, there to serve a man, and bear his children. His special status is a limitation on the rights of women. It's also a vile view of marriage—when a woman is no longer fertile, is she still "special?" Are the heterosexual couple still really married when he becomes impotent, or she is no longer fertile? What about couples who choose, for whatever reason, not to have children? Are their marriages still "special?" I note that most women I know who are in heterosexual marriages emphatically do not view their husbands as protectors of their sanctity; indeed, I am at a loss to see what distinction Mr. Schulman makes between a prostitute with an exclusive client (or a pimp) and a husband.

Mr. Schulman has also opined on "The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage: It Isn't Going to Work," where, again, he makes poorly supported ahistorical statements about kinship and the nature of marriage. Mr. Schulman, you really need to read more. Your patriarchal twentieth century heteronormative concept of kinship is just plain wrong. This particular piece is all about how marriage was historically about protecting the virginity of the woman. I take Mr. Shulman has never read a Ketubah? I'm fairly sure he's never seen pre-1800 examples; I have. They do not mention virginity. They do mention goods and services and various contractual obligations of the groom to provide for the bride. In short, they are about property. I note that even earlier, the tradition of a mohar, a bride-price was more important; it served the same function as the wed served in Christian marriage rites.

The most upsetting thing about Mr. Schulman's articles is not his dismissal of same-sex relationships; it's his appalling and misogynistic view of women as chattel, and his underlying assumption that men are all rapists, looking for an opportunity.