In his 2004 article “How Straights Will Benefit” Jonathan Rauch defends the necessity to allow gay marriages. Unlike the more commonly used arguments, the ones used by Rauch are considering the benefits that the legalization of same-sex marriages offers to the society, rather than to the gay couples. The three central arguments for the same-sex marriages state that they will stabilize the relationships and will help gay households raise children in social and financial security and healthy environment, they will make sure that gay people have a chance to establish households and have caregivers in times of need (qtd. in Satris, 226). Making sure the aforesaid needs of gay people are met will help bring more stability and security to the whole society as one of the main functions of the institution of marriage in general.
In his first argument, Rauch claims that despite the low percentage of gay couples in the country, 28 percent of them have children in the household, and the number of children is estimated to be from 166,000 to 3 million people (qtd. in Satris, 224). The society has long been preoccupied with ensuring that children are raised in marriage of a loving couple, as it provides them a necessary stability and sense of security needed for healthy development. For this reason, given that hundreds of thousands to kids already live in gay households, their needs need to be addressed by the government too.
In his second argument, the author states that the remarriage of a straight person is viewed as a positive action by the society, as it provides social security and can potentially prevent loneliness and lack of care by family when the person becomes increasingly dependable on other people. Gay people are more vulnerable because of the possibility to be rejected by own family and lack of social security benefits that usually derive from marriage. For this reason, gay people may often require care at an old age, and it will be a task of the society to provide it, which is why it will be beneficial for the society to give gay people an opportunity to create stable family units.
The third argument by Rauch analyzes how marriage in general can make a person settle down and become more domestic and stable. While the common argument against gay marriages refers to possible increase in polygamy that was very frequent in 1960s, in fact there was no current evidence as of the date of the article that gay people cannot commit to one partner and for this reason should not marry. Actually, the AIDS crisis showed that gay people can commit and take care of their partners, and getting married will only add stability to such care and commitment (qtd. in Satris, 227).
Rauch also lists the possible counterarguments against same-sex marriage, including that it will lead to the spread of homosexuality, that it will not make the couple more committed to each other and that gay people will not use the opportunity and marry anyway (qtd. in Satris, 228). Nonetheless, there is no evidence that gay marriage will deteriorate the society as there is no evidence of unstable gay marriages. Moreover, the number of gay people is too small to affect the society.
Finally, Rauch admits that there is no way to determine if the legalization of gay marriages will be of any use if homosexuals opt out of using the opportunity when given one (qtd. in Satris, 230). But any big change requires much time, sometimes even generations, to happen, and the same applies to the institution of gay marriage. Gay people, who are not used to getting married, might disregard the option at first, but when gotten accustomed to it, they might as well choose marriage as a traditional way of sealing the relationship with a beloved one.
Works Cited
Satris, Stephen. Taking Sides - Clashing Views on Moral Issues. 10th ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 2006. Print.
