Gay Marriage: How Jonathan Rauch Offers It as a Common Good

Gay Marriage: How Jonathan Rauch Offers it as a Common Good

The marriage-rights movement headed by gay rights activists has been a relevant issue on the American socio-political docket since 1970 following the Stonewall riots in New York City, New York in June of 1969. The riots sparked an initiative for gay people to join the movement of other marginalized groups in a quest to counteract widespread alienation to obtain the equal treatment and recognition they deserved. Today those activists joined by a whole new generation of proud homosexuals are still fighting for the right to be able to walk down an isle and commit their minds, bodies, and souls to the one they love in front of the people they love and have it be more than an impotent symbol of affection; they want their union to be recognized both socially and legally as a different but equal lifestyle choice. They want to partake in marriage, not "marriage". The most familiar argument that we hear today in the war fought by traditionalists and activists is the argument for the purpose of marriage. Traditionalists like Rick Santorum would argue along the lines that the purpose for marriage is children. Most gay activist would argue that the purpose for marriage is finding love in a lifelong companion. In Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good For Gays, Good For Straights And Good For America, Jonathan Rauch, an openly gay male, explains how gay marriage would be a universal good. Marriage has evolved over the years “nearly beyond recognition”[1] from wealthy aristocratic polygamy used to impose socially structured dominance over women, to a business merger whose main goal was financial security for women and a pool of family ties, to an institution bent on maintaining social norms and gender specialization, to our present marriage where love, an unstable chemical reaction, is on the forefront of the reasons to marry.[2] He argues that the marriage portrait is not as distinctively black and white as some would like to boast. Children are no longer their parents’ property and are therefore not 'the' purpose for marriage anymore, but are simply 'a' purpose of marriage along with partnership, kinship, legal and monetary benefits, settlement, social superiority, and that indeed love is a pivotal factor as well. According to Jonathan Rauch, same-sex marriage is not only good for gay people, but is beneficial to heterosexual people and even the institution of marriage.
Same-sex marriage offers homosexuals an invitation into the adult American privileged society where the perks are endless, the obligations are unlimited, and the love is supported. Their right to marry would mean that the economic benefits, stabilization, and social equality that heterosexual couples have innately received since the dawn of man would finally be bestowed upon the ever deserving homosexual community. Same-sex marriage is good for gays, good for heterosexuals, and the institution of marriage as a whole. In federal law (according to the General Accounting Office), civil marriage is a gateway to 1,138 benefits, rights, and obligations. States provide many more: 210 legal rights and responsibilities in the District of Columbia, for example, according to Richard Rosendall of Washington’s Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, which took the trouble to count. Kin creation is a complicated business. Without the toolbox of marriage, spousehood is a legal improvisation, and without spousehood, life itself is a kind of improvisation.[3] 1,138 benefits are withheld from an entire group of people, not because their love is any different, but because their genitals are the same. A male-male gay couple that has remained faithful and committed despite the utter disregard to their existence and or importance in its society is less deserving of the right to visit his beloved on his death bed than a couple of drunk party goers that had one too many and got hitched in a drive through ceremony with the honorable Elvis Presley presiding. The reason for this is the school of thought that justifies the exemption of gay people from the possibility of marriage displayed. The argument is that the most important part of marriage is not love but procreation, or children, which Rauch carefully points out are two different things—procreation places emphasis on biological conception of a child while “children” more closely points to the rearing or caregiving of a child. Because traditionalist thinkers do not see children and procreation as two different purposes for marriage in their eyes married people should at least have the option to reproduce or the marriage is not even worth having. There would be no issue in this thought if the idea were enforced in a way that prevented everyone that could not biologically were barred from marriage (same-sex couples, sterile men, barren women, women or men that have had hysterectomies, post-menopausal women, or couples that simply do not want children) and not just one group. “No society denies marriage to the infertile; no society requires couples to promise they will have children; no society nullifies marriage if children don't turn up; for that matter, no modern society mandates marriage if they do.”[4] The reality is that children, whether the biological child of one partner or an adopted child, are present in many same-sex households and deserve to have the same advantages awarded to them as children of heterosexual parents who have the possibility of growing up in an intact home and will therefore probably perform better later in life. Children are a major factor in the purpose of marriage for those that intend to and are able to have them, but there are many more aspects of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy that homosexual couples take for granted. Even before love was made a factor in marriage, years ago “in secular society, marriage was largely a matter of business: cementing family ties, forging social or economic alliances, providing social status for men and economic security for women, conferring dowries, and so on.”[5] At the very least there should be some way for homosexual couples to achieve the peak of economic stability that only comes from the union of two people working together for a common good, the stability and prosperity of one household. Marriage is not only a financial pool but a pool of emotional and physical obligation that society is happy to recognize. In light of a catastrophe marriage ensures the presence of someone able and eager to make sure that their loved one is taken care of in any way possible while providing policies that make it easier to do so. For instance, if one partner were to fall ill the other's healthcare could cover them and depending on the nature and severity of the illness the other's job would most likely have a policy that allows a leave to care for an ill spouse. In the event of the death of a partner, the remaining spouse would be able to take time from work to grieve and have an insurance policy and or receive any floating assets left behind. “Married” is an elite social title; “it confers status: to be married, in the eyes of society, is to be grown up”.[6] Marriage forces society to recognize the obligations one partner has to the other in a time of need. If one partner is sick and needs attending to, an employer would recognize the obligation of the other to attend the sick. If there was a death in one partners family there would automatically be an understanding that the other should be available for emotional support. Without marriage same-sex couples who feel the same obligation to the person that they love to be present physically and emotionally in times of trial and strife are forced to act without the recognition of provisions created to make fulfilling these obligations a little easier for a married heterosexual couple. Barring gay couples from marrying and therefore keeping them unattached could be more detrimental to society later on. “The burdens of contingency are likely to fall, immediately and sometimes crushingly, on people—relatives, friends, neighbors—who have enough problems of their own, and then on charities and welfare agencies.”[7] From the perspective of this book life seems to be pretty good for heterosexual couples already, but same-sex marriage would even be beneficial to heterosexuals as well because it is good for society. There has never been any study that disagrees that marriage is better for the community. Communities with large populations of married couples are usually healthier because on average married people have better physical and mental health and a better emotional well being, wealthier because of combined incomes if the wife works and if she doesn't they are still advantaged because married men make more money than single men on average, nicer because married people can afford nicer areas, are more settled, more civilized, the community members usually have a larger interest in their place of residence because they usually own homes, and because many times they are not just making a home for themselves but a home for the betterment of the lives of their children as well. More married couples means, less cohabitation, less single mothers, which means less unfortunate children, less abuse in households, better education rates for children, less crime, etc. It's also better for the community when people have someone who cares about them and can look after them in hard times. They're less likely to need assistance from Medicaid or Medicare programs or any government welfare programs, they are less likely to leave behind default bills of their homes, cars, hospital stays, or funeral costs in the event of a sudden death. Although death would not be as much of an issue if gay people were allowed to be married because according to Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher in The Case for Marriage, marriage gives people healthier longer lives. The mortality rate is 50% higher for women and 250% higher for men.[8] There are many tolerant people that think themselves to be in the middle of the gay rights debate. They don't necessarily mind gay partners being granted rights that allow for them to receive the same benefits as married heterosexuals, they just don't want same sex unions to be called marriage. The issue is that they are directly undermining the very institution that they are aiming to protect. Homosexual people are not the only single adults in America. Millions of heterosexuals are presently single, most of them aspire to marry one day while many of them have chosen that the married life isn't the one for them. The reason for their single status is insignificant, but the status itself is not so trivial. If unmarried homosexual couples are allowed the same benefits at work that married couples are afforded, what would stop an unmarried heterosexual couple from applying to be treated the same way? In order to avoid implementing another prejudicial order company policy makers would have to allow those unmarried heterosexual couples to receive the same benefits as the unmarried homosexuals. If single people, heterosexual or homosexual, cohabit and receive the same benefits as marriage without the commitment or the cost, the already suffering marriage rate would only become worse. There would no longer exist a reason for a person questioning whether or not marriage is the right lifestyle for them to even think twice about the issue. The only difference between a cohabiting heterosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple would be the elite connotation that we attribute to the title, married. For many that title would not be a strong enough tool of persuasion. As we have seen with cohabitation, the more people that participate in it, the less social stigma that comes with it. As more and more people choose the much easier route of cohabitation and take advantage of the unmarried couples' benefit plans, cohabitation will no longer be seen as a inferior choice when compared to marriage, it will simply be seen as a different choice which will more than likely attract even more people. Social expectation is the driving force behind the superiority of marriage as the elite lifestyle choice, we give marriage its statues. If that social expectation changes, so will the status that comes with the title “married”. Advocates for this school of thought would answer that not just any homosexual couple would be offered benefits, both partners would have to show proof of residence to ensure that they live together in a romantic setting. Even this solution is problematic because there is no way to authenticate a setting presented as romantic, and if the only qualification for receiving benefits at work is living together, that will only cause cohabitation rates to rise further. The only way to protect and re-endorse marriage as an institution and the best lifestyle choice is to make the boundaries clear and distinct: "if you want the benefits awarded to married people, get married!", obviously a mandate that cannot be made without including all parties in at least the possibility of marriage. Now that gay rights leaders are beginning to see progress in their movement, the mandate for marital equality will continue until the option of marriage is open for all couples looking to make the greatest commitment two people could make to one another. Gay couples are not simply looking to be able to walk down an isle, they are literally fighting for their lives. “Married people are happier, healthier, and live longer.”[9] Married people are recognized as being of a higher status in our society and are granted privileges that reflect such, privileges that every heterosexual is born knowing that they have a chance to receive and every homosexual is doomed to the fact that they will never acquire such a status or allowances. Committed gay couples assume all obligations of marriage and responsibilities of allegiance to their partners as do heterosexual couples but enjoy none of the societal perks. They are looked down upon, driven away from their families, discriminated against, and worst of all deemed illegitimate and unworthy in regard to their relationship. Gay marriage would be an unselfish gain in society as it would benefit heterosexual couples by benefiting the communities around them. Marriage indirectly decreases crime, the spread of STDs by creating more harbors for safe sex, reduces the number of unwed parents, and the use of welfare assistance while increasing the status of neighborhoods, the health of its residents, the social capital for children in the area, adding to the number of settled adults in the community, and the number of responsible caregivers. Gay marriage would even help combat marriages arch enemy, cohabitation, by reducing the number of committed couples that simply share a residence and make “an honest couple” out of them. This would reinforce marriage's elite status and preserve its social expectations. Gay marriage would be more of beneficial to all than it would be a nuisance to any. Committed gay people deserve a chance at the ultimate happiness that heterosexuals take for granted everyday, not to just be able to walk down the isle, wear a ring, and present each other as husband and husband or wife and wife, but to gain all of the perks that put into place to make the strain of commitment easier and more enjoyable for heterosexuals. “Marriage confers status: to be married, in the eyes of society, is to be grown up. Marriage creates stakes; someone depends on you. Marriage creates a safe harbor for sex. Marriage puts two heads together, pooling experience and braking impulsiveness, of all the things a young person can do to move beyond vulnerabilities of early adulthood, marriage is far and away the most fruitful. We all need domesticating, not in the veterinary sense, but in a more literal , human sense: we need a home. We are different people when we have a home; more stable more productive, more mature, less self obsessed, less impatient, less anxious. And marriage is the great domesticator.”[10]

-----------------------
[1] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good For Gays, Good For Straights And Good For America, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2011), pp. 14.
[2] Rauch, Ibid, p. 15.
[3] Rauch, Ibid, p. 58.
[4] Rauch, Ibid, p. 18.
[5] Rauch, Ibid, p. 16.
[6] Rauch, Ibid, p. 19.
[7] Rauch, Ibid, p. 21.
[8] Linda J. Waite, Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage, (New York: Broadway Books, 2000), p. 50.
[9] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good For Gays, Good For Straights And Good For America, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2011), pp. 14.
[10] Rauch, Ibid, p. 19.