|
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.
Gay
Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for
Straights, and Good for America,
by
Jonathan Rauch
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|