An Admirable Same-Sex Marriage Argument
- 04.21.2009 - 3:59 PMJonathan Rauch, a senior writer and columnist at National Journal and a correspondent with the Atlantic, has published an essay, “Not Whether But How: Gay Marriage and the Revival of Burkean Conservatism.”
I have differed with Rauch on several issues over the years, but I always admire the quality and rigor of his arguments. This essay is no different. Unlike other advocates of same-sex marriage, who routinely brand those with whom they disagree as bigots and worse, Rauch presents his arguments in a careful, measured, and analytically rigorous way.
Indeed, what is most impressive to me is that Rauch presents something close to a model of what public discourse should be. For example, according to Rauch, “for Burkean conservatives same-sex marriage is a particular conundrum because it presents so many competing narratives and so many uncertainties.” Rauch then lays out two competing narratives — what he calls the “Jonathan Rauch narrative” and the “Maggie Gallagher narrative.” He does a splendid job of encapsulating both views in a single paragraph each; and having done so, he asks, “Confronted with these two starkly opposed narratives, what’s a Burkean to do?” He proceeds to offer his views in the remainder of the essay.
It isn’t as if Rauch doesn’t have a point of view; he does, and it is a deeply held one. That makes his mode of argumentation all the more impressive. It takes work and integrity to capture, in an intellectually honest way, the views of those with whom you disagree.
Serious arguments, made intelligently and in a fair-minded fashion, are a pleasure to read, even if one disagrees with the conclusion. This is doubly so in the Internet age, when sloppy arguments and ad hominem attacks are more common than one might wish. It’s worth reading Rauch’s essay even, and maybe especially, if you disagree with it.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
