Why Not Gay Marriage?

The foremost political theory lecture series in not just Washington, D.C. but in the country  presents a civil, thought-provoking, and above all honest debate over gay marriage—between two openly gay men.

Libertarian Justin Raimondo rejects gay marriage, arguing that heterosexual  marriage is an oppressive norm that gay men should reject. Marriage is not just about two people but requires an official/clergy, a government license, and witnesses. He would bypass all this and allow erotic relations to flourish. Jonathan Rauch, a leading conservative public policy scholar, would strengthen marriage by extending that essential institution to gays. This refounded notion of marriage would make both gays and heterosexuals more aware of their mutual responsibilities. He vehemently rejects Raimondo’s characterization of gay men. Thoughtful questions from philosophy professor Richard Hassing, writer Lauren Weiner, and constitutional scholar Walter Berns force the speakers to refine their arguments.

The many vital questions these debaters don’t deal with stem from their overly spiritual or gnostic view of marriage. I have heard Rauch oppose civil unions on the grounds that they promote promiscuity. Perhaps he also opposes no-fault divorce. Consider in this context the argument that easy divorce, given the “two-income trap” that bedevils couples today, leads to staggering numbers of bankruptcies among women (and might well for the “partner b”). After all, “Having a child is now the single best predictor that a woman [viz. ‘partner b’] will end up in financial collapse.” Of course unregulated banking, instead of the “stern-looking banker” of yesteryear, is the culprit, in “The Brave New (Unregulated) World”—but author  (now Senator) Elizabeth Warren is the “stern-looking” public servant to deal with this, as “the Madame Defarge  of our shining city on the Potomac; the  preeminent tricoteuse of our regulatory state.” But I digress in this recollection of the common enemy.

If it does nothing else—and it surely performs a great service—the debate between Raimondo and Rauch crushes the conventional wisdom of typical defenders of gay marriage, who let romantic love obscure the ultimate purpose of marriage. The exchange will surely illuminate many listeners, whatever their viewpoint. My own view of marriage is closer to that of Ryan Anderson in this podcast on our website.


Ken Masugi

Ken Masugi is a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute. He teaches in graduate programs in political science for Johns Hopkins University and for the Ashbrook Center of Ashland University. He has edited Interpreting Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, co-edited The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, and co-authored and co-edited several other books on American politics and political thought. In addition, he has worked ten years in the federal government as a speechwriter and on policy issues, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he was a special assistant to Chairman Clarence Thomas, and the Departments of Justice and Labor.

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts


  1. Ken MasugiKen Masugi says

    Today’s (Saturday) Wall Street Journal had this “The Numbers Guy’ piece on gay divorce rates, “For Gays, Breaking Up Is Hard to Do—or Measure.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309604578431152673092608.html?KEYWORDS=for+gays+breaking+up Using Elizabeth Warren’s work, I brought up the issue of divorce and subsequent disposition of property and children. Will the same laws of divorce that govern husband-wife marriages govern same-sex marriages?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>