Suddenly, there seems to be an avalanche of books about the gay-marriage issue appearing in America's bookstores. There is little doubt now that the controversy over granting legal marriages to gay persons is snowballing and has become the hot topic of the times. Jonathan Rauch's book is another contribution to the debate and, to his credit, he does provide a slightly different slant on the issue from what I've read in other books.
Rauch, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, columnist for National Journal, and a writer-in-residence at the Brookings Institution, tends to de-emphasize the all-too-common "equal rights" argument and suggests, instead, that gay marriage would be good for American society because it would increase respect for the institution of marriage itself. To be clear about this, he doesn't dismiss the matter of equal rights but says "I wouldn't support same-sex marriage as a matter of equal rights if I thought it would wreck opposite-sex marriage."
One of the very basic questions regarding the question of marriage is, What is marriage for? He spends an entire chapter discussing this question, which sets the stage for his argument that gay marriage would be good, not only for gays, but for straights and for marriage in general. So, what is marriage for? Well, whatever else it is, he says, "it is a commitment to be there." I interpret him to mean that in this special relationship called "marriage," both parties to the compact promise to help and comfort one another when times are tough, in sickness and in health, etc., etc., which is, of course, a common understanding of what is, in fact, involved in a marriage -- at least ideally. He uses the term "prime-caregiver" and maintains that this is an essential condition of the marriage relationship. I don't think anyone would disagree.
But then Rauch goes on to use this condition and some other benefits of the marital relationship to argue for gay-marriage as opposed to "same-sex unions" or "domestic partnerships," situations which he refers to as "marriage-lite." I'm not sure I buy his argument at this point. I don't think many would disagree that gay couples have a legitimate concern regarding caregiver status, legal and financial benefits, hospital visitation rights, and all the other rights and privileges that opposite-sex couples currently enjoy under the marriage umbrella. I don't see why these conditions cannot be realized within the "same-sex union" designation, without applying the term "marriage" to the relationship. In Chapter Two of his book, Rauch presents his case against my reservation. And, frankly, he presents a good case. It isn't compelling, in my opinion, but it comes close to persuasive. And I am sympathetic with most of the points he makes.
Now we come to a section of the book that one might consider the "trilogy of benefits." In Chapter Three, Rauch discusses the specific benefits that gays will enjoy if given the right to marry and they are fairly obvious, of course. In Chapter Four, on how the straights will benefit, he includes some very interesting material and states some points that I suspect most of us haven't done much thinking about. In Chapter Five, he discusses how marriage-in-general will benefit from gay marriage, and again he presents an interesting argument, one which should not be taken lightly by the opponents of gay marriage. I think I won't disclose any details about the latter two chapters, hopefully providing a teaser for the potential reader.
One of the major concerns that social conservatives seem to have with the gay-marriage issue surrounds the idea that gays, particularly of the male persuasion, are unduly promiscuous and that granting gays the right to marry would fail to change that behavior. Furthermore, bringing this alleged promiscuousness into marriage would harm the institution itself. Rauch addresses this concern and is upfront and honest about it and he should be commended for his forthrightness. He admits there are important problems here and offers some suggestions as to how they might be resolved.
In my opinion, one of the best chapters in Rauch's book deals with "The Debt to Tradition." Here he seems to be at his best. No where else, and I mean nowhere, have I read a discussion about the gay-marriage issue quite like he provides in this chapter. Suffice to say, he brings two of my favorite people into the debate, F.A. Hayek and Edmund Burke (excellent political theorists both), and then the topics of utopias, social engineering, church-state relations, secular culture, reactionary traditionalism, and so on are thrown into the mix, and finally some rational light is thrown on how to deal with, not only the legitimacy of gay marriage, but how to transition to it. (The reading of this short chapter is worth the price of the book.)
And, if gay marriage is to become a reality, how the transition to it takes place is vital. The position that Rauch takes is basically the same as the one I would take. I am already on record as opposing any constitutional amendment regarding the definition of marriage. Messing with the Constitution seems to get us into trouble. Furthermore, I don't think that Congress should be involved in the situation. Rauch suggests, and I concur, that the best approach is to leave the matter to the individual states. Let us "try it out" here and there, see what happens, make adjustments where necessary, and so on. Actually, Rauch's position is very "conservative" and he comes off like a good proponent of "states rights." His next-to-last chapter on "Getting It Right" outlines his proposals and I think one will find it difficult to argue against them.
This is a very readable book by someone who has a deep interest in his subject and has done his homework, that is, the thinking necessary to present a complex argument regarding a controversial change in our nation's social fabric. I recommend it to all those interested in the gay-marriage issue.
