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

May 27, 2012 Alex rated it liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, queer-studies

I never thought I would see a book in favor of same-sex marriage that I disagreed with, but Jonathan Rauch managed it.

His basic premise is that marriage is the fundamental institution of society; it provides the main mechanism for harnessing the recklessness of young males, provides the most stable environment for raising children, and is the gold standard of commitment in a relationship. In the process, he puts forth an argument which is racist, classist, sexist and profoundly homophobic, all i I never thought I would see a book in favor of same-sex marriage that I disagreed with, but Jonathan Rauch managed it.

His basic premise is that marriage is the fundamental institution of society; it provides the main mechanism for harnessing the recklessness of young males, provides the most stable environment for raising children, and is the gold standard of commitment in a relationship. In the process, he puts forth an argument which is racist, classist, sexist and profoundly homophobic, all in the pursuit of homosexual “equality”.

He asserts that it is marriage, or the promise of marriage, that allows young men to “settle down” and temper their impulses towards aggression and promiscuity. He points towards the gay male culture of the 60s and 70s, and the advent of AIDS, as an example of the consequences of denying gay people the right to marry. Not only is this homophobic (sounds a lot like what Jerry Falwell was saying back in the 1980s), but it’s deeply sexist. Are we to believe that men are so inherently flawed that, without an entrenched social institution to hold them in check, they’ll fight and sex themselves to death? I’ve heard that argument before, too-- from Andrea Dworkin.

Marriage is the most stable environment for raising children-- because social institutions systematically punish women who have children outside of marriage. Saying unmarried families are unstable is like saying homosexuals are liars: the oppressed group is blamed for the effects of their own oppression. It’s one of the most pernicious forms of bias, and it’s beneath the dignity of any serious social scientist. If you think marriage is the most stable environment for raising children, then find out *why*, and try to bring those advantages to children being raised by unmarried parents.

He states that marriage is the gold standard of commitment in relationships, again mistaking effects for causes. Yes, married people are less likely to break up, because divorce is harder than just moving out. But simply remaining married doesn’t mean you’re still committed to one another. Plenty of on-paper-married couples live separate lives, have separate lovers, and have no real “relationship” anymore. The gold standard of commitment is commitment. Marriage isn’t a shortcut to the real thing.

In all of these arguments, he largely ignores the case of lesbians-- who have been settling down, raising children, and maintaining long-term relationships without the benefit of marriage for at least 100 years now. Gay women need marriage for the same reasons all women need marriage-- to provide a safety net against lower lifetime earnings, especially if they devote some of their efforts to maintaining the home. In pushing the benefits of same sex marriage for men, he dismisses all the women in the marriage equality movement.

And marriage has always been a class privilege-- the barriers to marrying, staying married *or* divorcing to pursue a happier marriage with another partner, have always been substantial for people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. The benefits of marriage to happiness and health are most accessible to the rich. By maintaining the primacy of marriage in the social order, Rauch maintains the class inequality that marriage supports.

Reading this book left me hungering for real equality. The kind of equality that doesn’t care if you’re married or not, how many people you have sex with or what gender they are, whether you have children and with whom. The kind of equality that this sort of marriage “equality” only puts further away. I actually felt kind of ashamed to have married my wife, and supported such an unequal institution, which is defended by people with whom I disagree so profoundly.

I’m glad I read the book-- it was well reasoned and well written, and it was a spin on things I hadn’t seen much of. But since I disagreed with pretty much everything it said, I don’t feel like I can give it 4 or 5 stars.

All I can say is, with friends like this, who needs enemies? ...more

3 likes · Like · see review

Mar 31, 2008 Georgia rated it it was amazing

I have referred back to this book again and again...I have quoted this in several papers I have done on gay marriage, and I truly enjoyed reading it! There are many books on this topic that are a bit dry or that try too hard...this is quite often a humorous and common sense way of looking at this topic...I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Like · see review