Rating: 
Summary: logica defense of Gay Marriage
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, compelling, passionate, philosophically thorough
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, Thoughtful Analysis
Review: This book was very well written and well argued. Rather than relying on "knee-jerk" arguments, he carefully discusses every argument in detail. There are some very thought provoking ideas that are well argued:
(1) The effect of living in a "marriageless" community
(2) Why banning gay marriage actually weakens the institution because this will cause profileration of "marriage lite" alternatives to marriage
(3) Why allowing gays to marry does not lead to a "slippery slope"
(4) Why the matter should be left to state legislatures, rather than judges or the national legislature
I also appreciate that he relies on sound statistical practice, rather than using data from non-random samples, which is often done in the social sciences. However, there are a few times statistics are given without a source (e.g., "20% adultery rate"), and I thought it would be nice to have a bibliography (the sources of the quotations are given in the text). Overall, I strongly recommend this book for anyone who truly wants to consider this issue.
Rating:
Summary: BEWARE!
Review: This book will only be read by those who favor gay marriage; because you will either start with that opinion or, by the time you finish the book, you will have converted to that opinion. With grace, good humor, intelligence, and clarity Rauch looks at every aspect of this issue. And if you're already married and straight this book will delight and refresh your relationship because, in the end, this topic is all about the most healthy and joyful way for humans to celebrate and nurture love between two committed people.
Rating: 
Summary: Ride It For All It's Worth!
Review: This book, along with HUNDREDS of others, are basically beating a "dead horse". Everyone has pretty much made up their mind on where they stand on the same sex marriage issue. Books like this one are intended for nothing else than for a select few to make a buck. (aurthor, publisher, etc) It will pander to gays if they seem like likely marks to make a purchase. Most people will buy things if it pertains to them, much like poeple who sale all the silly over-priced souveniers at sports events. People will spend money to show their support. The people selling the items probably do not even care WHAT they are selling, just that people buy. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals do have one thing in common...they will BOTH be manipulated into buying books like this one. This books says the same thing everyone else is saying on various talk shows and what have you. Save your money.
Rating:
Summary: Faulty argumentation and selective evidence
Review: This is the most compelling book so far to make the case for same-sex marriage (SSM). However, as a defense of gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage suffers from a number of flaws. For example, Rauch says equality before the law demands that there be no exception as to who can marry. He illustrates his point by saying that in the US, "homosexuals cannot legally marry anyone they love. There is no heterosexual in this position." This of course is just blatantly false. As a married male, I cannot marry another woman. I cannot marry my son. I cannot marry a group of people. It is of course fully possible for me to deeply love another woman, my son, and a select group of people, perhaps even at the same time. But that love does not mean I can marry the object of my love. This is one of the fundamental flaws in Rauch's book. The very same arguments he uses for SSM can be used for the legal recognition and celebration of any number of loving sexual relationships, be it incest, polygamy, and so on. The same arguments apply. Of course Rauch deals with these objections, but dismisses them as lacking in merit. He says such "anything goes" arguments are easily dealt with. The promotion of incest or group sex are not in the same league as the case for SSM he says, and argues that they can be opposed on other grounds. He concludes by saying that "when heterosexuals get the right to marry two other people or a sibling or a dog or a Volkswagon, homosexuals should get that right also. Until then, there is no reason to discuss it." But there is. When de facto or cohabiting relationships first received equal recognition under law, making them equal with marriage (at least here in Australia), conservative voices warned that this would be the thin edge of the wedge. People in other types of relationships would soon be demanding the same benefits of marriage. We were of course scoffed at and derided for suggesting such way-out possibilities. Well, those possibilities have now become realities, and there is plenty of discussion on the Web, in gay newspapers, in academia, and elsewhere, for these other sorts of relationships to be formally and publicly recognised as well. True, such voices may now be in the very small minority. But so were advocates of SSM thirty years ago. Indeed, Rauch does admit later that "legalization of same-sex marriage might lessen resistance to other forms of change." Moreover, no homosexual is denied the right to marry, if he should so choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course Rauch dismisses such an argument, and says homosexuals cannot help it, they have no choice in the matter, and nature has made them that way. This is another major flaw in his book. Not only is there no clear scientific evidence available for any sort of genetic basis to homosexuality, but some of the more honest gay activists have admitted that there is a real element of choice in the gay lifestyle. Rauch simply dismisses talk of therapy for gays, the reality of ex-gays, and so on. But to dismiss something because you don't want to acknowledge it is no argument at all. The truth is, there are hundreds of centers around the world devoted to helping gays who want to go straight. And there are many thousands of ex-homosexuals who have given up on their lifestyle. Some have gone on to heterosexual marriage and have had children. But for Rauch they simply do not exist. Rauch believes that most gay men will eventually embrace marriage. But there is a huge debate in the gay community about this issue, with many gays opposed to the idea altogether, and many quite happy to settle for types of civil unions, and so on. And even those who do favor marriage, like Andrew Sullivan, admit that their version of marriage is quite different from the traditional understanding. Sullivan for example speaks of the need for "extra-marital outlets" in his version of marriage. Rauch is asking for a revolutionary social change. He does admit that when we tinker with tradition, we never know what might happen. "A catastrophe cannot be ruled out" he concedes. Yet abounding optimism and wishful thinking characterise his argument. This hope that everything will turn out all right is found in many stages of his argument. For example, he states a number of times that gay marriage will tame the cruising gay male, domesticate him, and make him more committed in relationships. Thus SSM will be good for gays and the rest of society. But as Maggie Gallagher pointed out some years ago, it is not marriage that tames the male, but women. This is the missing ingredient in SSM. Marriage is an important part of the equation, but so too are members of both sexes. In sum, this is the best book to date to give the case for SSM. It is carefully argued and well-written. But it seems to be just so much special pleading and it seems to presume too many unproven basics. Nonetheless Rauch has done a very good job of stating his case, and he may well win over a number of converts to his cause. But the debate is not yet over, and a forceful case can still be made for the heterosexual nature of marriage.
| 
