Philosophy: Race, sex, and gender

Despite our country’s youth, the United States has continued time and time again to erase the boundaries of social inequality so that we may progress forward in hopes of establishing the more perfect union our preamble suggests. Although not always the popular modus, Americans push and fight for the general welfare of those who fall subject to prejudice and hate; many times, we have succeeded while some injustices continue to be fought. What was once a country that enslaved and tormented the African race is now a country that opens its homes and schools to members of all cultures. What was once a patriarchal hierarchy that subjugated the voice of women is now a country that appoints females to the high offices of government and business. What were once few colonies that segregated immigrants into separate provinces is now a giant fifty-state melting pot of patriotism, diversity, and opportunity. If history continues to follow this cyclical pattern, it seems promising, then, that the national acceptance of marriage equality is on the horizon. However, we exist in a day and age (as many Americans have before us) where such a promise is not possible, at least not yet. In Jonathan Rauch’s “For Better or Worse,” he attempts to persuade his readers to favor gay marriage by reevaluating and tearing apart the controversial notions from which it’s oppressors build their foundation. Notwithstanding the position Rauch takes a stance for, his criteria and opinionated basis for the concept of marriage fails to deliver any hope in persuading a reader in becoming more favorable for gay marriage.
The first point Rauch attempts to refute centers on the traditional sanctity of marriage. Many conservatives contend that marriage always has been and will continue to be a union between one male and one female. They then proceed to provide a number of reasons for this claim ranging from biblical beliefs to political and social restrictions. Rauch compares this mentality to the Hayekian argument, named after the libertarian economist F.A. Hayek. Hayek’s argument states, “societies evolve rich and complicated webs of non-legal rules in the form of customs, traditions and institutions… customs cannot be torn apart and reordered because once it is violated it will fall apart,” (Rauch, 19). In their eyes, why fix something that isn’t broken? Hayek and conservatives alike assume the worst possible outcome to any ideas that tangent from their traditional course. They fear that their original concept will become nonexistent and turned into a salacious version of what once was. Rauch criticizes this theory by getting technical and illustrating an extreme, implying that, “no social reform should ever be undertaken,” (Rauch, 19). That would erase the premise for the Civil War and overturn our constitution’s nineteenth amendment. Change would halt and we’d come to live in a society that ceases to progress forward. Allowing two men to wed each other, or two women to wed each other, violates the Hayek/Conservative mentality. A legal union between same sex couples disrupts tradition and is thus not accepted within conservative America. They fear that a change to grant a same sex union unlocks a gateway to reconstructing other traditional views.
Rauch spends the latter half of his article dividing his argument into two segments. He discovers, first, faults in the common belief that procreating naturally to raise healthy children is the primary purpose of starting a marriage then offers what he feels are stronger principals for beginning a marriage. After Rauch criticizes the way the conservative child-centered view favors children who are raised with their birth parents over adopted children, it’s learned that the view relies more so on the “anatomical possibility” of procreation to constitute a marriage, a possibility that same sex couples cannot achieve, (Rauch, 22). While he agrees with the fact that having children is a common and justifiable reason for starting a marriage, Rauch feels there are greater reasons for uniting a couple. “It seems to me that the two strongest candidates are these: domesticating men and providing reliable caregivers,” (Rauch, 21). He argues that it is within men’s inherent nature to run wild and when men run wild together, damage and violence ensues. The solution to humanizing this natural rage is to settle down with a partner who becomes the sounding board when the rage turns too loud. A soundboard to domesticate rage is beneficial and works in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships while ultimately providing a comfort before starting a union. The other rationale for which Rauch argues is the responsibility married couples have that make them reliable for the other in times of dire need. When one spouse becomes severely injured during the day, doctors and medics look for the other spouse so that not only is someone notified of the condition of the injured, but also that the injured have someone to look out for them. These two reasons alone, Rauch feels, are enough to start any marriage whether the couple be gay, straight, fertile or unfertile. Rauch pushes his opinions on the reader but remains unclear in his destination. It is clear that Rauch fights for gay marriage however he fails to provide concrete examples proving that “domesticating men” and “providing a reliable caregiver” is enough to start a marriage other than the notion that these reasons apply to everyone. In an effort to find a better foundation for marriage than his opponents, Rauch fails.
While the idea to domesticate men, provide a healthy living environment for children and ensuring that a committed partner is always available are great moral stances for beginning a marriage, they are certainly not the best form of the argument. To find the most successful reason to start a marriage we must look into what marriage really is: a legal agreement. Many can attest that marriage is a union between themselves and God, however, religious toleration does not uphold in the court of law and, unfortunately, it isn’t until a license is signed by two consenting parties does a marriage become officially recognized by society. Rauch’s arguments, along with conservatives, fail to acknowledge the legal reasons behind marriage. Along with a marriage license comes an entitlement to a spouse’s insurance benefits and taxes, along with any income made by both parties. Some argue that if an entitlement to those benefits is all that should define marriage, then the concept of love and procreation vanishes. However, even if those entitlements are ones that should not define marriage, they are the only benefits guaranteed to couples when the marriage license is signed. As history has shown us, and as Rauch points out, the reasons for marriage have changed since its inception. Monarchs in early kingdoms arranged their children into marriage in hopes of uniting two countries. Other marriages were based on business deals and it wasn’t until the last century where interracial unions became legal. Perhaps love, as a sole purpose of marriage, is just another blip in our history. Whatever the case, if over time Americans see that a marriage between a same sex couples is beneficial to society, they will make the decision to legalize it in order to push our country forward. America has overturned controversial injustices before and its likely America will do it again.