Brookings scholar
says U.S. ready
to test gay marriage
The single most
pressing family and child issue today,
says Jonathan Rauch
By: David Campbell ,
princetonpacket.com from the Web, November 18, 2005
Princeton, NJ -- The United
States' federal system of government is uniquely suited to test — in one or two
states willing to do so — whether gay marriage is a benefit or a harm to
society, said writer and activist Jonathan Rauch in a lecture Tuesday at
Princeton University.
Mr. Rauch is a writer in residence at The Brookings Institution and author of
"Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for
America."
He lectured on the subject Tuesday at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs. Also speaking was Assemblyman Reed
Gusciora (D-Princeton Borough), who talked about gay-marriage initiatives in New
Jersey's courts and Legislature.
Mr. Rauch said that family and the institution of marriage are the core of
American culture, and asserted that gay marriage is the single-most pressing
family and child issue today. He said neither side of the debate is
risk-free, and said that to do nothing is not an option.
"There is no safe harbor, there is no non-risk option in this debate," he said.
"Doing nothing is not a safe answer. We have to consider it, and we have
to consider the effects."
Mr. Rauch said it is his opinion that same-sex marriage can have positive — not
negative or neutral — effects on the larger society. He said heterosexual
America has been "backpedaling away from marriage at an alarming rate," and that
society has an interest in preserving marriage over non-marriage, gay or
straight.
He argued that marriage brings stability and structure to society, as well as
financial benefits, such as shared health care. "Marriage is for
everybody," he said. "Same-sex marriage is part of the solution."
There are risks associated with not legalizing gay marriage, Mr. Rauch
continued.
The roughly 700,000 children now being raised by same-sex parents, he argued,
would continue to be raised out of wedlock and without the stability that a
marriage brings. A ban could also give rise to a whole host of
alternatives to marriage, which he said would erode the special status that
marriage now enjoys.
Further, he said, to not permit gay marriage amounts to discrimination, and he
said a ban could result in marriage itself being branded a discriminatory
institution.
"There is a very real risk that if we brand marriage as discriminatory in the
minds of Americans, we will damage the institution significantly," he said.
However, Mr. Rauch said that whatever one's opinion, what is lacking in the
debate is hard data on what effects, if any, same-sex marriage would have.
He said it is "exceptionally important" for same-sex marriage to be legislated
at the state rather than federal level of government, arguing that it shouldn't
be forced on states by federal mandate or an activist judiciary.
Rather, Mr. Rauch argued that gay marriage should be tested and data gathered in
one or two states — such as Massachusetts, the first and only state in the
nation to allow same-sex marriages.
"Gay marriage will work if we plant the seed in fertile soil," he said.
Assemblyman Gusciora said two tracks — judicial and legislative — are being
pursued in New Jersey on same-sex marriage.
One is a pending state Supreme Court case of seven gay couples who want to be
married. The other is the state's Domestic Partnership Act, signed into
law by Gov. James E. McGreevey in January 2004.
|
