Second Circuit nominee Matthew Schwartz lambasted a same-sex wedding at Princeton
He referred to homosexuality as a “capital crime” and decried the “emotional harm” the ceremony caused when he attended the university.
Last week, the Facebook group Queer Princeton Alumni commemorated the anniversary of the first same-sex marriage ceremony to take place in the university’s chapel. Nearly three decades ago, Jason Rudy and Michael Beer were married in a ceremony officiated by Reverend Sue Ann Steffey Morrow, the associate dean of religious life and of the chapel.
Dean Morrow was happy that the wedding was taking place at Princeton, saying “This is a wonderful reflection that humankind can change for the better. We’re seeing a deepening of civil rights in the country and at the University.”
Not everyone on campus felt that way. Matthew Schwartz, an undergraduate student at the time, wrote in the Princeton Tory — a journal of conservative and moderate political thought — that “The homosexual community is fighting a crusade not only for its misconceived notion of equal rights, but also for religion to recognize and approve homosexual lifestyles.”
Last month, Trump nominated Schwartz, now one of Trump’s personal lawyers, to a New York-based seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In his article, which was published in the October/November 1997 issue of the journal, Schwartz railed against what he said were “clear political overtones” of the wedding, claiming that because the men hoped to see subsequent same-sex marriages in the chapel, they were setting an example for change — “a political goal,” he said. But he also called it smart “for political reasons.” It stimulated debate, he said, and “made gay marriage seem normal.” The couple denied any political motivations.
Schwartz’s story, which he disclosed on his Senate questionnaire, was deeply dehumanizing, repeatedly framing same-sex marriage as something that advocates were “irresponsibly and offensively” seeking to thrust onto the nation using “pure force” and “accusations of bigotry” against those who disagreed. He said that holding the wedding in the chapel was a “raw political calculation” that “revealed the worst attribute of the gay movement: a complete disregard for the beliefs of others in the quest for the satisfaction of the gay movement’s goals.” He opposed those public policy goals, saying that “Prudent public policy should be based on what is good for society.” Gay people having equal rights certainly wasn’t good for society, in his view, and any claims that same-sex marriage “seemingly disproves the promiscuity of gays” were wrong.
For Schwartz, it was profoundly offensive that two people who are not religious would want to get married in the university’s chapel. “It seems peculiar that two gay atheists would want to hold their wedding in a building that represents religious groups, almost all of which not only disagree with gay marriage, but moreover, teach that homosexuality is immoral,” he wrote. “Surely the two bridegrooms could have found a building on the campus that did not represent groups that teach against their fundamental way of life.”
He called out the “sheer offensiveness and lack of respect to the religious community” that the men displayed by having their wedding in the university’s chapel, saying that nearly all major world religions condemn homosexuality. In his article, Schwartz matter-of-factly stated that “Judeo-Christian objections to homosexuality arise from the Bible, which makes homosexuality a capital crime” — meaning punishable by death (he did not say that some people consider this to be true or interpret the Bible that way — he stated it as fact). He said that the few sects of Judaism and Christianity that accept gay people have “unfortunately sacrificed Biblical teachings to political pressures.”
Because of her support of the couple and her role in the wedding, Schwartz actually called on Dean Morrow to reconsider her position at Princeton or resign, saying that while the ceremony she officiated didn’t violate anyone else’s rights, “the emotional harm caused to God-fearing Princetonians is inexcusable.” He wrote that “possibly the most irresponsible action” was Dean Morrow declaring that the two men were “united before God.”
Schwartz also wrote that “It seems difficult to find the value that a homosexual union gives to a heterosexual family,” saying that “only sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can produce a child.” But what about straight couples who can’t or don’t have children? Schwartz had an explanation for that, too. He wrote:
Heterosexual couples that do not bear children, whether by their own will or by God’s, still provide an example for children of a healthy heterosexual union. The constant reinforcement of marriages between a man and a woman serves as a positive role-model for children to form heterosexual marriages, which often lead to more children. The ability of gays to raise adopted children does not legitimize government recognition of their marriages. Whether gays should be permitted to adopt at all is a highly debatable issue that itself is not resolved.
He then said that too much was still unknown about what happens when gay people adopt children, including “whether parents of the same sex can raise children that are as emotionally, psychologically and spiritually healthy as children of heterosexual parents.” He also seemed to imply that being gay and forming same-sex relationships is a choice or something that can be influenced, and that fewer people would go that route if only they constantly saw more examples of a “healthy heterosexual union.”
“The ceremony at the Chapel was the gay community’s attempt to force an unpopular and logically weak position on the public and on religion,” Schwartz wrote as he began to conclude his piece. But he couldn’t end without expressing his hope, again, that same-sex marriage never becomes legal or normal. “Hopefully, the policy-making-by-prior-fact represented in Princeton’s gay marriage does not represent a trend on the part of the gay community in America at large,” he said. “If the homosexual lobby succeeds in changing current marriage laws (most likely through judicial activism), they will deal a blow to prudent public policy and will damage basic rights theory.”
Schwartz’s article was published nearly three decades ago, long before Obergefell v. Hodges brought marriage equality to America in June 2015. According to Gallup, somewhere between 27 and 35 percent of people believed same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid when Schwartz published his piece, meaning many Americans agreed with him that it shouldn’t be legal.
But Schwartz went much further, choosing to publish his thoughts in a college publication and publicly stating that homosexuality is a “capital crime.” He used incredibly disturbing language that revealed a level of bias and deeply held beliefs that it’s hard to imagine he has completely abandoned in the years since. His work now in private practice, including his legal representation of Trump, suggests he likely hasn’t.
Schwartz consistently works in opposition to civil rights, including the rights of working people and consumers. He recently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case and overturn its own decision upholding a core civil rights protection. He has defended a mortgage company that engaged in reverse redlining, making communities of color more likely to lose their homes — while also supporting efforts to criminalize people who don’t have a place to live. Schwartz twice clerked for a fierce opponent of civil rights, Justice Samuel Alito, both on the Third Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. That he worked for Alito once and then sought an additional clerkship in his chambers was a choice. Justice Alito, of course, dissented in Obergefell, saying that the decision “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.” Justice Alito also attended Princeton, and he was a member of an organization that was hostile to the inclusion of women and people of color at the university. That alumni organization wasn’t around when Schwartz graduated, but he certainly carried on Alito’s legacy of animosity toward certain people having access to spaces on campus.
Schwartz’s article will likely be dismissed as something he wrote long ago in college — the musings of a young man in America at a time when many in the nation weren’t yet ready to embrace marriage equality and to recognize the dignity of gay couples. I agree that an article someone wrote in college in the late 90s should not completely define them today. But Schwartz’s words, which he felt strongly enough about to have published for all to read, were deeply troubling — and his views were clear. He did not want gay people to have equal rights, found the couple’s marriage to be offensive and the source of inexcusable emotional harm, and believed it was not good for society.
What does he believe now?
He will have an opportunity under oath later this month, when he appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, to renounce his hateful statements. Senators should ask whether he will.