Is there anything about marriage, conceived of as the commitment to be there for one another, which somehow excludes homosexual couples? Are gays in any way incapable or unlikely to make such commitments? Is there something about gay couples that would prevent either the law or the community from promoting the commitment of marriage?
No — and that’s the heart of Rauch’s argument. Marriage, properly understood, is not something that must be limited to just straight couples. There is nothing about the love and commitment of straight couples that is better or socially preferable than that of gay couples. Thus, if marriage exists to encourage and promote such personal commitments, then it should exist just as much for gays as it does for straights.
On the other hand, the social and personal stability which marriage creates generally should also create stability in the gay community. If marriage is good for society, it should be good for gays — and greater stability in the gay community can only be good for society generally, even if only a minority of gays choose to avail themselves of the option. Civil unions, however, might weaken marriage generally by providing an option whereby people can get the benefits of marriage without having to make the same commitment.
As Rauch explains, civil unions and domestic partnerships — along with many other examples of marriage-lite — attempt to rectify injustice by providing gay couples with the sorts of benefits and rights that they so desperately need. In so doing, however, they actually undermine the whole point of marriage itself — an ironic situation, given how some of the defenders of these arrangements are opponents of gay marriage because they fear that gay marriage will itself undermine marriage.
Thus the desire for things like civil unions is understandable and their progress is only natural; in the long run, though, it’s possible that they will do more harm than good. What we need is not marriage-lite because we are uncomfortable with the prospect of gay relationships that are as meaningful as straight ones; instead, we need to recognize gay relationships as marriages. Rauch expects that it would be better if this happened state-by-state, but that would extend and justify injustice in a manner that most would find unacceptable. Rauch’s arguments here make sense from a purely pragmatic standpoint, but it can be hard to tell people to bear the burden of injustice merely for the sake of political pragmatism.
Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, by Jonathan Rauch
Despite this, Rauch’s book is an important contribution to the debates over gay marriage. By outlining what marriage is and how we can best understand it, he helps us focus in on what matters most, and in so doing helps make it clear exactly why gay marriage should be every bit as legal as any other marriage.
« Back...
