Dire straights: why outlawing marriage for gays will undermine marriage for all.

• Author: Rauch, Jonathan

In 1995, not even nine years ago, my father advised me to stop writing about gay marriage. Whatever its merits, he said, the idea was so farfetched, so out there, that I would look foolish harping on it. "Ain't gonna happen," he said, I wouldn't, at that time, have bet against him. But in the past nine months, the world has turned on its axis. First, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state bans on sodomy, in terms that ringingly affirmed the dignity of gay couples. Then the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court ordered that, effective in May, same-sex marriage will be legal in that state. San Francisco, in apparent defiance of state law, began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Several other cities, at least briefly, did the same. President Bush called for the U.S. Constitution to be amended to ban gay marriage. Around the country, on every side of the argument, necks ached from cultural whiplash. I know mine did.

**********

Through it all, seekers favoring calm and compromise have held to what they see as a middle way. Why insist on gay marriage, with all the religious and cultural baggage that the word "marriage" carries? Instead, give gay people some of the legal benefits of marriage, maybe eventually all of the benefits, but under separate statutes. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, spoke for much of the country when he said he opposed gay marriage but favored civil unions. Here, surely, was a way out ... Right?

Alas, no. The proponents of civil unions deserve all praise for their effort to accommodate the very real legal needs of committed same-sex couples; and certainly, from a gay point of-dew, partner programs are much better than nothing. But think for a moment about the photos streaming back from San Francisco, photos showing the unbridled joy gay couples took in getting married--not civilly united, but married. No similar euphoria or outrage greeted Vermont's landmark approval of civil unions in 2000. The newlyweds in San Francisco and their family and friends, and the San Francisco drivers who honked in support or yelled in derision as couples emerged from city hall, and, for that matter, everyone who saw the in, ages on TV--all felt instinctively and powerfully that there is something special, something unique, about marriage.

Their feeling was correct. There is no substitute for marriage, and trying to concoct one is a hazardous business. Civil unions and other forms of non-marital partnership cannot give gay. couples the essential social benefits of marriage, even if the legal benefits are comprehensive. Conservatives may argue that allowing gay marriage endangers matrimony for straights; in fact, creating alternatives to marriage, inch as civil unions, is far more likely to undermine the institution of marriage. Both for gays and for society, only marriage will really do. Only marriage is marriage.

Brooklyn Bridge of social engineering

For most people, marrying, especially for the first time, is a very big decision. Not for everyone: Some people exchange vows in Las Vegas as a lark. But for most, getting married is a life-changing event,'one which demarcates the boundary between two major phases of life. Why should marrying be such a big deal? Partly because the promise being made is extraordinary. That answer, however, begs the question. Why do people take this promise so seriously? The law has made it ever easier for two people to marry, no questions asked, no parental approval needed, no money down. Divorcing is easier, too. Under today's laws, young people could casually marry and divorce every six months as a way of shopping around, but they don't. Most people can expect that marriage will result in parenthood, and parenthood is certainly a momentous thing. Yet even people who, for whatever reason, do not want or cannot have children take marriage seriously. So the questions remain. Why do we see marrying as one of life's epochal decisions? What gives the institution such mystique, such force?

I believe the answer is, in two words, social expectations.

When two people approach the altar or the bench to marry, they approach not only the presiding official, but all of society. They enter into a compact not just with each other but also with the world, and that compact says: "We, the two of us, pledge to make a home together, care for one another, and, perhaps, raise children together. In exchange for the caregiving commitment we are making, yon, our community will recognize us not only as individuals but also as a bonded pair, a family; granting us a special autonomy and a special status which only marriage conveys...