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

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.

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.

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, o

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