SHOULD MARRIAGE BE A SOCIAL NORM?: Rob Hunter

Tuesday at the Union, authors Jonathan Rauch and Maggie Gallagher squared off in an exchange that mirrored what will likely be one of the defining national debates of our time.

Rauch, a journalist, prominent free-speech advocate and proponent of gay marriage, is the author of books ("Kindly Inquisitors" and "Gay Marriage") on both topics and is an opinion writer for the National Journal. In supporting gay marriage he has not been shy about his belief that "same-sex marriage [would] work for gay and straight Americans alike."

Gallagher, the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and co-author of "The Case for Marriage," is a leading opponent of gay marriage and maintains the Web site www.marriagedebate.com.

The debate was surprisingly cordial, informed and cogent. Both debaters acquitted themselves admirably in front of a packed house, particularly Gallagher, who faced a largely unsympathetic audience. Nevertheless, both of them were wrong, which is particularly unfortunate given that their impassioned but reasoned exchange was probably the best serious discussion of marriage policy we'll hear in Madison for some time. ...

Both speakers did agree on one main area, though: Rauch stated that states should be allowed to take their own stands on gay marriage where they see fit, whereas Gallagher stressed resisting what she characterized as a concerted effort by "legal elites" (the federal courts) to foist gay marriage upon America -- but in essence, they both agreed that marriage is a social norm that should be reinforced through acts of legislation.

And this is where both of them got it wrong. To suggest that marriage is a social norm that should send "messages" to couples about desirable behavior implies that Americans as lovers and families are unable to make family decisions on their own. The central question in the gay-marriage debate is not how government should determine the nature of committed relationships but whether the government will extend the same liberties, responsibilities and privileges to one class of citizens that another already receives. It is in the spirit of civil rights (and responsibilities) that we should extend the right to marry to same-sex couples, and not in the spirit of incremental change proposed by Rauch, in which states adopt same-sex marriage in order to strengthen a norm.

We should recognize the commitment of same-sex couples by celebrating their freedom to choose that commitment, rather than adopt same-sex marriage through the logic of social coercion. True advancement for the cause of gay marriage should come about through a broad consensus for the recognition of the rights of same-sex couples, and not the piecemeal implementation of norm-strengthening legislation.

more
posted by Eve at 2:06 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home