Wherever one stands on the issue of same-sex marriage, having the president of the United States endorse the concept is a major achievement for the gay rights movement. And it didn’t happen by accident.
The shift in the public’s attitudes toward gay marriage, and the subsequent alteration of the political landscape, is arguably the most significant we’ve seen in the last quarter-century. And among the people who are most responsible for this moment is Jonathan Rauch, a former columnist for National Journal and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.
I first met Jonathan in 1994, at a lunch with William Bennett. We wanted to meet Rauch because of his book Demosclerosis: The Silent Killer of American Government. The three of us talked about that book – but Rauch also made the case for why homosexuality is no threat to family or conservatism. A short time later he published a Wall Street Journal op-ed on that matter – and he later wrote articles (see here), books (see here), and op-eds (see here and here) making the case for same-sex marriage.
There are three elements to Rauch’s work worth highlighting. The first is the ingenuity of the argument. His great insight, which he shared with Andrew Sullivan (another extremely significant figure in the fight for gay marriage), was to recast the goals of the gay rights movement away from sexual libertinism toward conservatism, from radicalism toward traditionalism. Same-sex marriage, this argument goes, would bond gays into committed, stable relationships and promote monogamy. The gay rights agenda went from being an assault on the institution to an effort to become part of it.
The second thing to note in Rauch’s work is the rigor of his arguments. Anyone who has read Rauch knows he takes the case against same-sex marriage and examines the premises and empirical statements with tremendous care. His goal is to use reason to show why gay marriage will preserve and protect society’s most essential institution. Beyond that, though, Rauch habitually describes the views of those with whom he disagrees in honest, fair-minded terms.
The third thing about Rauch is his tone, which is consistently measured, civil, and respectful. In a debate in which ugly things have been said on all sides, Rauch has never in my experience attacked the motivations of his opponents. He gives the benefit of the doubt even to his critics. That is not only an impressive human quality; it’s also extremely helpful when you start out with a position in which you need to persuade large number of people who disagree with you.
I should add that I’m not in full agreement with Jonathan on gay marriage, even though his arguments have shifted my thinking in important respects. And he and I had our policy differences during the Bush years. But every time we discussed them, either in person or via e-mail, I was struck by his integrity and open-mindedness. That I’ve come to admire him is no secret. Which is why, on a day that was extremely meaningful to gay Americans, I couldn’t help but think about Rauch’s crucial role in all that has unfolded in the last few years.
While it's true that both Mr. Rauch and Mr. Sullivan has been enormously influential in promoting this change it's important to note that they have a different view as to why this change would be beneficial. n nAs correctly noted, Rauch argues for a "Burkean" defense of same sex marriage. In this view marriage is what Edmund Burke called a "little platoon" (e.g., family, church, guild) that will restrain and direct gay sexual behavior into more stable relationships. n nSullivan argues (like the more radical proponent Dan Savage) from a more "libertine" view. He believes that the adoption of gay marriage will help change that institution, will allow for more "open" marriages and will, in his view, make it a more "healthy" institution. He hopes that the adoption of same sex marriage will change marriage at least as much if not more than marriage will change gay men and women. Those familiar with Mr. Savage know he goes even further. n nOpponents of gay marriage fear, I think, the latter; that by re-defining marriage we won't be changing gay men and women but will, instead, be altering the idea behind marriage. And changing it for the worse.
I agree that Savage's views on marriage — or, more precisely, on monogamy — are fairly out there, but I've been reading Sullivan for a long time and think that he's far closer to Rauch than to Savage. Wherever he may fit in our current political discourse (what day is it today?) Sullivan is clearly a conservative by temperament. What I have seen from him is that he does believe marriage will change gays more than gays will change marriage. In fact, he has been attacked by the gay left for precisely that reason.
"…having the president of the United States endorse the concept is a major achievement for the gay rights movement." n nThat would assume that one could believe anything that came out of the insipid usurper's pie hole. A patently absurd notion to put it kindly. As he will find out in November, no one can govern against the will of a free people for very long. The days of coddling America's miscreants are coming to an end. Order will be restored at the voting booth.
So Jonathan Rauch – a man who most Americans never heard of, who never led a march of thousands of gays to Washington and give his version of the "I Have a Dream" speech – is the gay "marriage" movement's Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr? Who'd a thunk it?
Sounds more like the Saul Alinsky of gay marriage-find ways to steadily undermine the moral argument from within, and in the process try to get social conservatives marginalized to the area of harmless old fossils as opposed to how the militants just try to depict them as evil monsters. n n n
Jonathan Rauch is the bloke who tongue in check wrote in 2003 in an Atlantic essay on introverts and extrovers that, quoting Sartre: "Hell is other people at breakfast." Thing is, Sartre never said that, but thanks to JR's "joke" in the Atlantic, which he did not signal very clearly to readers, the faux quote has now gone viral over the past ten years and taken on a real life of its own. It even appeared on the front page of the intl NYTimes Weekly in 35 nations overseas, as if it was a real Sartre quote. Sigh. What Sartre said, as JR knows, was ''Hell is other people…'' and he has still not notified Atlantic readers that he was kidding, kidding. Do corrections ever arise? Jon? I emailed him 256 times and he still does not answer. o life. oh hell . o other people.
Jonathan Rauch is the bloke who tongue in check wrote in 2003 in an Atlantic essay on introverts and extrovers that, quoting Sartre: "Hell is other people at breakfast." Thing is, Sartre never said that, but thanks to JR's "joke" in the Atlantic, which he did not signal very clearly to readers, the faux quote has now gone viral over the past ten years and taken on a real life of its own.
The gay marriage "movement" is not "conservative" but founded on the hypocrisy of militant homosexuals, the credulity of heterosexual liberals and the fatigue of the "give them what they want so they'll shut up" crowd. n nDespite the "ingenious" polemic of gay marriage advocates, this movement is about nothing more than the desire of a particular shrill, hysterical and militant part of the homosexual population to fulfill their infantile fantasies for having weddings, feathering nests, domestic roll playing, etc. There is absolutely no compelling reason for gays to co-opt the institution of marriage, since all rights granted by marriage can be and are granted to same-sex partners without marriage. There is no human rights or civil rights question involved here. Marriage is something these particular gays simply covet, cloaking their movement in the mantle of civil rights as part of their con. And this includes the likes of Andrew Sullivan, whose entire polemic amounts to no more than special pleading. He's conservative except when it comes to his personal fancies. n nThe gay marriage movement has adopted the strategy of reframing the debate, of redefining marriage, just as feminists redefined abortion as "choice" and "reproductive freedom," rather than the facilitator of licentiousness that elective abortion typically is. And like the abortion crowd, the gay marriage crowd has been signally successful with the strategy. n nWell, to a certain degree. Over half the states have passed laws that define marriage. This, of course, has provoked vicious calumnies from the screechers. n nIn another Contention, Jonathan Tobin decries the false front of media objectivity. The gay marriage debate is a prime example. In the guise of news, MSM is gay marriage's biggest cheerleader. The New York Times trumpets: "Same-Sex Marriage Support Shows Pace of Social Change Accelerating". Oh, really? But that's another dismal issue.
@Danny Bloom n nI think he probably assumed that any reasonably-educated person (like, say, an Atlantic reader) would be aware of the real quote and accordingly see the joke. From your comment I can only assume you'd prefer to be addressed like a child. n n@lbjack n nSo, wanting to have a family life and participate in the institution of marriage is an "infantile fantasy"? I don't know how people like you have the nerve to call yourselves "pro-family".
@portraitinflesh n nWe can't all have what we want. If you're adult you just move on. But since you're infantile, you throw a tantrum, redefine it to suit yourself and call it a civil right. Talk about nerve! You can have a "family". You don't need marriage for that. "Family" is just a buzzword people like you devise to disarm the opposition. n nI know you very, very well. Lawrence v Texas should have been enough, but you didn't want to leave the stage. So this is your next show. Not getting to have weddings will mean a "gay holocaust," I've heard you say. Well, after all, you can't live without drama, and you know how to use it.