David Bernstein, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy blogsite, lays waste to columnist Maggie Gallagher's confused arguments against gay marriage. Well worth reading. Excerpt:
[Gallagher] emphasizes that heterosexual marriage is deeply rooted in Christian and Jewish "not to mention" Muslim tradition. Well, polygamous marriage is deeply-rooted in Muslim tradition, and, for that matter, Mizrahi (Eastern, non-Ashkenazic) Jews practiced polygamy from Mosaic times until the middle of the twentieth century.... Then there's the oddity of both citing Islam as a source of eternal wisdom for its views on heterosexual marriage and as an existential moral danger for its views on polygamy in the same piece.
He concludes: "If the anti-gay marriage forces are going to win the day, they are going to have to do better than such incoherent claptrap." Yes, indeed.
What Year Is This?
Here's a story from the L.A. Times that shows why marriage recognition is so important. Ron Fanelle, a Camarillo middle school teacher, is in trouble. He's become the focus of protests from anti-gay parents, angry that, when asked, Fanelle told students he was just married and his spouse's name is Randy. To the anti-gay mind, not lying about your marital status is somehow equivalent to providing a detailed description of sexual activity, it seems. The school board has launched an investigation of the "charges," and Fenelle has had to hire a lawyer to defend himself.
Read Rauch.
IGF's co-managing editor, Jonathan Rauch, who is also writer in residence at the Brookings Institution, has a new book: Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. Available at Amazon.com and better bookstores everywhere. Judging from the Publishers Weekly review on the Amazon site, lefties are already taking aim at Jon's argument that full gay marriage equality is needed to forestall the spread of "marriage lite" arrangements. The PW reviewer, for instance, is miffed by the way Jon praises the importance of marriage. From the review:
Allowing gays to participate in "the great civilizing institution" would inevitably ennoble gay relationships; providing access to marriage would give them access to "a better kind of love." Such sallies will leave some readers wondering whether "better," for Rauch, really means "straight."
Addendum: A correspondent writes to say that
the libertarians at Reason
Online have kinder words about Jon's efforts, calling the book
"a great case for gay marriage, from just about every conceivable
angle."