Customer Reviews

Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

The social battle over same sex marriage has become part of the presidential debate, as George "amendment happy" Bush and John "wuss union not marriage" Kerry argue the so-called cons. Vice President Cheney cannot look himself in the eyes while shaving as he hides behind his boss. Amongst the known leaders only Senator Gephardt shows courage supporting his daughter's rights.

Author Jonathan Rauch provides a timely powerful argument that gender is not the key. Instead if a couple fall in love why can't they marry and care for each other as they grow old together. Mr. Rauch says whether the couple consists of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, who cares. What should matter is the participants are willing adults wanting to form a permanent relationship that actually enhances the community.

Mr. Rauch logically defends GAY MARRIAGE as supporting family values and strengthening the meaning of marriage while making and extending the inclusiveness of basic rights. Easy to follow the critical thinking path laid out by the author in which he eloquently defends that if marriage is a sacred historical bond between a man and a woman, then why does so many break this "consecrated" act including social conservatives who scream for its sanctity. Those unsure of their stand will find Mr. Rauch makes quite a powerful pitch reversing the arguments of opponents by using the social conservative's logic to defend GAY MARRIAGE. For a well written historical similar venue involving interracial couples, see the well written TELL THE COURT I LOVE MY WIFE: RACE, MARRIAGE, AND LAW - AN AMERICAN HISTORY by Peter Wallenstein.

Harriet Klausner

Jonathan Rauch's new book, "Gay Marriage" is just what the country needs right now....less shouting and more reason. Rauch wisely frames his arguments regarding homosexuality in America around the issue of marriage as it has emerged in a rapid-fire way as the central social issue of the day.

De-mystifying most of the arguments made by conservatives, Rauch nonetheless is willing to be open and fair with them...to a point. His point, that same-sex marriage will be good for everyone is accurate, but as he also stresses it could have the possibility of a downside in its implementation. His premise reflects the old saying, "a rising tide lifts all boats".

Rauch encourages the reader to think about the issue which is good advice as it seems that so many in the United States more viscerally react to the idea of same-sex marriage than give it a mindful rendering. In his discussion regarding what some perceive to be an immature side to homosexuality I wish he had made note of one thing.....the fact that a few states allow heterosexual minors to marry... Hawaii and Georgia for instance, allow marriages at sixteen.

The author makes it clear that until gay marriage is accepted homosexuals will continue to be viewed as second-class citizens. Civil unions just won't do, he remarks, but adds that at least they are better than nothing. His beginning and ending chapters reflect what all gays feel and all straights should read....imagining a life without the possibility of marriage. Jonathan Rauch gives clarity to his arguments and a hope that marriage will someday be an option for all people. His book is not so much ahead of its time, but more appropriately right on time....and right on the mark.

I am a great fan of Jonathan's work in general. I got the book today and read it immediately. I was not disappointed. The writing is crisp and entertaining. The logic, as ever, reminded me of children playing with fireworks on a Fourth of July beach. And you may read the work as lightly or as deeply as you choose. No puffy or intellectual language here.

Jonathan's unique claim to your attention, among all the other articles and books coming down upon us, is that his is a profoundly religious work.

Excuse me! Religious? You bet.

Jonathan is one of our greatest proponents of liberal Secular Humanism... which the Supreme Court informs me is a religion. His point of view is so steeped in Secular Humanism that he cannot accept, nor will he raise to the level of discussion, any attitude or opinion not based within it. The proffered wisdom of your particular religious tradition is not worthy of consideration. Tens of thousands of years of tradition is not something of any great moment to a modern and adaptive society. [His grasp of systems theory applied to Hayek is weak but he does go through the exercise.] The box surrounding his arguments is as rigid as that of the screaming sermon of a radio preacher or the latest strident Islamic fatwah. But he is far more entertaining, gentle and polite.

Most other writers on gay marriage suffer from an inability to focus on a single scheme of argument. They leave us, in the end, still confused. Jonathan is quite clear about his scheme, though it takes him until page 94 to make it explicit. Just hang in there. You will be rewarded. For he has diagrammed and dissected the sprawling cobweb of humanist arguments in 196 pages without breaking a sweat. You won't sweat either, save perhaps intellectually as you contemplate his arguments. But you will encounter many instances of the "Ah-Ha" reflex when Jonathan makes some complicated issue clear in a few simple sentences. And from time to time you may wonder from what hat he pulled a particular categorical assertion. All part of the fireworks.

Whatever your opinion on the matter as you turn the last page, you will be far more sure of why you believe what you believe and vastly more capable in discussion... as long as you are talking with, and most of us are, modern Humanists.

Do read this book.

(...) Gay people should have rights too. You can't enforce a ban that takes away someone's rights.

You mention traditions as if they're really reliable... Traditions are meant to be broken. Interracial marriage's not traditional, and it's allowed today, because it's right. Two people who love each other should not have their rights denied. It's just that. We live in America, the land of the FREE. If you can't accept another person's rights, maybe it's not the right place for you to live.

You don't speak for everyone; just because gay marriage isn't allowed yet doesn't mean it's not in people's interest. Some people don't care. Why would you try to prevent something that seems so right? Two consensual adults? Were it a kid and an adult, it'd be a totally different issue. Oh, by the way, it's been a tradition to marry young teenagers back whenever... Again traditions don't hold up; they're not always right

The minorities are important too, and frankly you can't ignore them; issues involving them will always come up whether you like it or not.

Marrying gay people is another way to solidify what our country stands for. People have different religions; you can't force YOUR religion on everyone. That's just hypocritical of what our country stands for. Through marriage, gay people's rights will be expanded: tax reduction, legal protection, visitation rights, inheritances, etc. Gay people are denied that, denied acceptance. How is it that they pay tax and not get their voices heard?

It's time for change, and changes are sometimes righteous.

A friend of mine (straight) was given this by a marriage counseler, and he passed it along to me with a comment that it could help a lot of troubled marriages. It is as much a dissertaion on marriage as an argument for gay marriage. It certainly points out, in ways that would be hard to refute, the intellectual dishonesty in arguments against marriage equality. He addresses all of the arguments against marriage equality and lays out a rather simple and compelling argument for it. Anyone who cares enough to debate the issue would do well to read this first. Rauch is a good writer and very smart. You can breeze through this unlike a lot of social commentary, due to his simple and clear writing style. For its genre, it's exceptionally well written, and after reading it, I think the final word in the debate.

This book is welcome illumination on a topic where there is far more heat than light. Jonathan Rauch is a brilliant practitioner of the dying art of rational discourse, an art which entails the charity to take opposing arguments seriously. He succeeds in constructing a thoroughly objective and dispassionate analysis, at the same time being passionately forthright about where he stands on this issue and why he has a vital stake in it. He methodically analyzes the issue from every angle, answering every counter-argument, taking them all seriously (some even more so than they deserve), all in delightfully readable prose. In the course of his rigorous approach, Rauch presents not only a compelling political argument, but a profound philosophical treatise on what marriage is for. This book will defy the contemporary popular desire to categorize it as "left" or "right", as Rauch argues for a "liberal" conclusion from very "conservative" premises. Whether you are for gays or for marriage or for both, this book will challenge and expand your thinking on the subject.

Rauch is a leading author and contributor to numerous magazines, including the prestigious "National Journal." He is often identified as a "libertarian" and less often as a "conservative." I consider Rauch to be one of the leading writers, gay or straight, in America today.

This book is an appeal primarily to heterosexual conservatives to accept gay marriage, because it will tame gay promiscuity in favor of long-term relationships that benefit not only gays, but society as a whole, giving gays stable and safe environments. I did not find the case compelling.

Why do people marry? The usual reasons are: (1) procreation, (2) mutual care, (3) love, and (4) benefits, although not always in this order. Rauch's argument centers on (2). Yet, obviously, each of these things, except (4), can be done without the benefit of marriage, so except for (4), these are NOT the reasons people marry.

People marry because of (4) and (4) primarily. Only from the ontology of (3) will come (1), (2), and (4) derivatively. This is the only logical reason people marry. I wish Rauch had made this argument, but he focuses instead on (2).

As far as I am concerned, the case for gays marrying is simply a matter of justice, fairness, and equality under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. That's the long and short of it. All other considerations are ancillary. All but (4) are available to gays already; so all they want is (4) the benefits that attend to legalized marriage.

Maybe this book will appeal to its target audience (conservative heterosexuals), but I thought it missed its mark.

Many of the other reviewers have offered fine summarys of the author's arguments. I only wish to add the following heretofore unmentioned observation. The primary reason for many, if not most people's hesitations, reservations, or outright objections to homosexual marriage have religious roots or foundations, eg. what does it mean to be a man or a woman or married in his or her particular faith. For better or worse, the primary locus of marriage in the western world has been the Church or synagogues. Clearly there are liabilities to both the Church and synagogues as well as to the state in this arrangement. However, marriage and its meaning have, and probably still is primarily located in the religious context and the transcendent orientation of marriage, however much that is also suffused with humanism.

Unfortunately Mr. Rauch sidesteps this issue. He primarily addresses the issue of religion in one paragraph on pages 13,40, 70 and 118 respectively and by a somewhat unimaginative and stale appeal to secularism after trying to relativize religious statements about marriage by saying different religions say different things about marriage. This seems a silly and unfortunate argument as really only two religions have been primarily relevant in the discourse of the west: Christianity and Judaism and they are remarkably consistent about what they have said about marriage.

This choice seriously weakens Mr. Rauch's argument in that he ends up simply speaking past most people in their concern about homosexual marriage. Further, this move by Mr. Rauch forces him to conclude that marriage is primarily a contract, which is simply overly reductionist, and merely the least common denominator in marriage discourse in the west, as important as it is.

Having read two excellent books, A History of the Wife by Marilyn Yalom and Public Vows : A History of Marriage and the Nation by Nancy F. Cott I was interested in why anyone gay/lesbian or heterosexual would want anyone to be 'married'.

Fact is contrary to what anyone suggests, what people want is legal protection so that they can visit each other in the hospital, have inheritance rights like conventionally married folks have, as well as all the rights and privileges that heterosexuals who 'marry' have.

Human and society evolve and its my view that we need to look at 'marriage' as separate from legal protection in the form of legal unions. One need not be 'married' with a piece of paper to have a common law marriage, so why not allow the same benefits to those who are not heterosexual? Heck why not have common law marriage be as accepted as someone who has a piece of paper noting time and date that they joined with someone else to become a 'legal' couple?

What did catch my eye when reading this book is where on page 112 the author notes when dealing with heterosexuals that most who marry want and will have children. Then he write 'But the point here is fundamental. There are at least as many sterile heterosexual couples in America as homosexual ones, and every one of them is allowed to marry. If the possibility of procreation is what gives meaning to a marriage, then a post menopausal woman who applies for a marriage license should be turned away at the courthouse door'. What he doesn't seem to note which I think is important is that in Christian beliefs there is a Biblical belief that if a woman in the Bible could conceive in old age that anything is possible and so the woman would be allowed to marry. Remembering that marriage law is deeply rooted in Judea-Christian beliefs.

Then there is the fact that even in recent years in a southwest state a couple was denied a Catholic wedding because the Priest deemed the disable partner as unable to have sex and thus unable to procreate. Now I know this is splitting hairs, because one need not marry in a church but need only marry at city hall to be 'legally' married.

But its a great book nonetheless because the author challenges the reader to think outside the box which to many anti-gay marriage/union folks don't like doing. I simply would like to challenge the author and others to think even more outside the box, by getting outside the box.

As a widow who was legally married to a great man for thirty seven years, I think of all the times when asked if I was married or he was asked how the word 'married' reeked of ownership, whereas we felt we were a legal partnership in which we both wanted to be for better or for worse. Its the same reason we never had wedding rings since the idea reeked of being branded and neither one of us wanted to have a brand, since we trusted each other not to make a mess of what we had.

And with the advent of no fault divorce and prenuptial agreements I cant see where any sane person can have some romantic idea that Americans marry for love since at least half bail or only marry if there are stipulations. So we are already so close to legal partnerships that I think we need to cut the BS and be honest enough to see marriage for what it really is for (in my opinion) most Americans.

Its an excuse to spend thousands of dollars for a dog and pony show where the attendees bring gifts that an overly materialistic couple don't need, over priced cakes and food, honeymoons that start the marriage off in debt, and a whole business genre that brings in billions of dollars on what is basically a show.

Then the couple who has this marriage license lives in a dream world, has kids they often cannot afford or even want, only to struggle for five, ten years and then split because its finally dawned on them that their views on what marriage was is far different than what it is.

So allow for legal partnerships that prenups and no fault divorce already have in place and lets get real about what is best for people and society. Heck how many people marry because they think that two incomes will get them further than being single? Or how many people marry because they want and expect reliable sex?

Again the book is well worth the read and is a book I think more people should read.