What do you think?
Rate this book
Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America
In May 2004, gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, but it remains a divisive and contentious issue across America. As liberals and conservatives mobilize around this issue, no one has come forward with a more compelling, comprehensive, and readable case for gay marriage than Jonathan Rauch. In this book, he puts forward a clear and honest manifesto explaining why gay marriage is important—even crucial—to the health of marriage in America today, grounding his argument in commonsense, mainstream values and confronting social conservatives on their own turf. Marriage, he observes, is more than a bond between individuals; it also links them to the community at large. Excluding some people from the prospect of marriage not only is harmful to them but also is corrosive of the institution itself.
Gay marriage, he shows, is a "win-win-win" for strengthening the bonds that tie us together and for remaining true to our national heritage of fairness and humaneness toward all.
Gay marriage, he shows, is a "win-win-win" for strengthening the bonds that tie us together and for remaining true to our national heritage of fairness and humaneness toward all.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
7 people are currently reading
194 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
June 11, 2012
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?
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?
December 17, 2013
Gay Marriages: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America is written by Jonathan Rauch. In this book Mr.Rauch states the different view points of all types of sexuality. He expresses through out the book clear and honest explanation on why gay marriage is important, maybe even crucial to the well being of marriage in America today. I really enjoyed this book because he goes into deep detail about commonsense of individuals and confronts social organizations on their view points of same-sex marriage. Throughout the book he indicates that marriage is more than a bond between two individuals, but its also what links them together as a community. This would be a great book for anyone who is very involved or interested on the topic of gay marriage. I think it would also be a great book for those who think gay marriage should be illegal because it will give them a view point on what a lot of other people think on it and not just theirs alone. This book is no means at all trying to change you feelings on it, its just giving you more detail and opinion on the things that aren't taken into consideration. Over all, I loved this book it was great to read so many different view points on this topic. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.:)
August 8, 2010
READ THIS BOOK, especially if you are opposed to Gay Marriage, but are open to actually ask yourself why.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR EVERYONE. There is a conservative case for Gay Marriage, even a religious one, and Rauch lays it out plainly and convincingly.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR EVERYONE. There is a conservative case for Gay Marriage, even a religious one, and Rauch lays it out plainly and convincingly.
October 28, 2014
Read this for school. Excellent presentation of an excellent argument. My personal stance has not changed, but I appreciate the clarity of this book and a better understanding of what people are pushing for.
Want to read
October 3, 2014I have an autographed copy!
March 10, 2024
Can gays get married? Should they? Will they? A look back in time to 2004.
A no-nonsense book that tackles political questions.
---
My favorite passages:
Getting married is the normal thing for adults to do. More than any other action, institution, or designation, it separates the grown-ups from the kids. Divorce is not forbidden and never should be; but it is sad.
That is why it is entirely appropriate that married people enjoy special social standing. They are doing something which is difficult, and they are doing it not only for their own sake and their children’s, but for the good of the community. The community owes them a debt.
-you give the courts jurisdiction over your personal affairs. That piece of paper from the government turns out not to be just a piece of paper at all. Rather, it signifies that the state now views you in an entirely different way.
The power of the marriage license comes not from its instructions ( if bears none ) but from its entanglements and entitlements. Above all, people take the license seriously because of the weight that other people give it.
Sex was tolerable, up to a point. It had to be secret, or you had to be well connected to get away with it… They pretended to be heterosexual, and, if they were lucky, heterosexuals pretended to believe them. Love, by contrast, was a more serious offense. The need for the touch and affection of another of the same sex, not just hornyness but emotional need, made you one of THEM, a perv, a fruit, a queer…
If marriage is to work, it cannot be merely a “lifestyle option.” It must be privileged.
A no-nonsense book that tackles political questions.
---
My favorite passages:
Getting married is the normal thing for adults to do. More than any other action, institution, or designation, it separates the grown-ups from the kids. Divorce is not forbidden and never should be; but it is sad.
That is why it is entirely appropriate that married people enjoy special social standing. They are doing something which is difficult, and they are doing it not only for their own sake and their children’s, but for the good of the community. The community owes them a debt.
-you give the courts jurisdiction over your personal affairs. That piece of paper from the government turns out not to be just a piece of paper at all. Rather, it signifies that the state now views you in an entirely different way.
The power of the marriage license comes not from its instructions ( if bears none ) but from its entanglements and entitlements. Above all, people take the license seriously because of the weight that other people give it.
Sex was tolerable, up to a point. It had to be secret, or you had to be well connected to get away with it… They pretended to be heterosexual, and, if they were lucky, heterosexuals pretended to believe them. Love, by contrast, was a more serious offense. The need for the touch and affection of another of the same sex, not just hornyness but emotional need, made you one of THEM, a perv, a fruit, a queer…
If marriage is to work, it cannot be merely a “lifestyle option.” It must be privileged.
May 23, 2018
this book is more than 10 years old and outdated
April 1, 2008
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!
December 11, 2011
Same-sex marriage is a long process that in the end will be legalized.
I'm straight, but support same-sex marriage because I have not right to say who can marriage or not. We all are human.
homo or hetero really there is not difference. Marriage is the union of two individuals, and should not matter, man, man, and woman, woman.
I'm straight, but support same-sex marriage because I have not right to say who can marriage or not. We all are human.
homo or hetero really there is not difference. Marriage is the union of two individuals, and should not matter, man, man, and woman, woman.
March 1, 2008
I loved this book! It was very well written and offers a view from both prospectives. A great read!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews