Rating: 
Summary: Thoughtful, But...
Review: ...clearly an argument that displays first a loyalty to a specific outcome, and then seeks a way to get there.
Rauch does well not to demonize the opposition, who, certainly, can be their own worst enemies when it comes to debating the issue, trotting out canned phrases like "family values," and "the sanctity of marriage."
Nevertheless, his assertion that allowing gays to marry will strengthen the instution misses the point entirely. First of all, he rightly recognizes that marriage is not just a religious institution, it is a social one. By legalizing gay marriage--and even civil unions--you are forcing people not only to accept, but to endorse behavior that they find abnormal and morally abhorrent. Like it or not, marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman; it has never been anything else, until very recently in those mercifully few countries that have legalized it. Dismissing this fact as a reactionary loyalty to tradition doesn't change it.
Gay marriage probably won't weak the instution of marriage as a whole--it is on shaky legs as it is--but it certainly won't help it. The state regulates marriage as it is--we are NOT free to marry whomever we want, and just because we might want to badly, that doesn't make it our right. It is government's job to protect the interests of its citizens, and clearly citizens feel they have a very strong interest in NOT redefining marriage. And in fact, gays do have the same rights as the rest of us, contrary to what Mr. Rauch suggests. Gays are free to marry a member of the opposite sex, within the boundaries set by law. That they don't want to is hardly society's fault, and hardly a reason to change a fundamental social institution, just to satisfy their desires.
His arguments that gay marriage is not a slippery slope remain unconvincing. If objective values like tradition are so easily discarded to accomodate a small minority of malcontents, then what logical reasons can there be not to accomodate other malcontents? Does this mean that we can realistically expect people to petition to marry their dogs? Of course not. But is there really a compelling argument, then, for continuing to outlaw polygamy? No.
I agree with Rauch regarding leaving the argument to legislators rather than the judiciary. Most Americans despise the idea of having a judiciary shove its values down our throats, and this more than anything is probably what has given traction to the anti's position. As a matter of strategy, it's bad for gays; as a matter of policy, it's bad for America.
Rating: 
Summary: some very good arguments
Review: Boy, this guy really has a hard-on for marriage. It's cool though; he presents all of his arguments (very good ones, by the way) in a clear concise way which explains the compact nature of this book. It's a pretty easy read, I think I finished it in a day, but that's not to say that the content is light. Jonathan Rauch raised questions that most people haven't even thought of in the marriage debate. And while he takes the most inoffensive route when describing "same-sex marriage opponents" I almost wish he would say "religious right-wing nutjobs." For the life of me I cannot figure out why people who proclaim that they want to "protect" marriage would try to keep people FROM marrying. If you're going to defend marriage shouldn't you protect it from divorce? Anyway, this book is rather good although a little too assimilationist for me.
Rating:
Summary: Belongs in every public library
Review: Every public library must have a copy of this book to provide researchers, especially students, with the best data and information to do a thorough study of the subject. As a librarian, I can highly recommend this title as an excellent choice for libraries without a lot of money to spend providing books on every topic. This one is essential for all collections.
Rating:
Summary: Narrow View
Review: I am a gay man but I have a problem with the view of this book that marriage is the end all of a relationship, that it must be the final step for a complete relationship. What decade is this, the 1950's? If marriage is so great, how come so many are divorced? Marriage is good for some, not needed for others. Mr. Rauch's view that you must be married to be part of the social fabric of this society is an insult to all single people, gay or straight, or those in a relationship who are not interested in getting the government involved in their lives. Believe it or not, there are plenty of happy people that are single and loving it.
Rating:
Summary: Narrow View
Review: I am a gay man but I have a problem with the view of this book that marriage is the end all of a relationship, that it must be the final step for a complete relationship. What decade is this, the 1950's? If marriage is so great, how come so many are divorced? Marriage is good for some, not needed for others. Mr. Rauch's view that you must be married to be part of the social fabric of this society is an insult to all single people, gay or straight, or those in a relationship who are not interested in getting the government involved in their lives. Believe it or not, there are plenty of happy people that are single and loving it.
Rating:
Summary: Humanist Opinions Dissected
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: thoughtful, rational, sensible
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Limited engagement of the issue
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Best argument I've seen thus far...
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: The book was great, but I'm not going to talk about it. First of all, just to get things "straight", gay marriage is not a "moral issue" (who, after all, is the one defining what is moral and what is not? The people in power, of course). Gay marriage is a human rights issue. Straight people want to control gay people. That's what preventing gay marriage boils down to. This is like a class struggle for gay people. We need to rise up against straights in the same way feminists rise up against men; blacks rise up against whites; and the poor rise up against the rich capitalists. But, on a more subtle note: Although I support gay marriage, the thought has crossed my mind that the institution of marriage itself is nothing more than a huge violation of the separation of church and state. Think about that one!
|
