Late last year, the Hawaiian circuit court ruled that the state had no compelling justification for denying gay and lesbian couples the right to wed. The decision opened up what may be the social debate of the decade, and these two titles help to bring the arguments into sharper focus.

 

Same-Sex Marriage, Pro and Con begins with an historically enlightening essay by Sullivan, former New Republic editor, whose book on gays and the gay rights movement (Virtually Normal, LJ 9/15/95) shot one of the first broadsides about the same-sex marriage issue. Sullivan explains how this latest "assault" on family values is simply the latest in an ongoing evolution of the marriage institution, from ancient real estate deals to the present-day spiritual bonding of intimates. Other essayists discuss the various arguments from historic, religious, legal, and public-policy points of view. From Plato to Ann Landers, society's experts and pundits, academics and politicians present their views.

 

By contrast, Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate is authored mainly by professors and journalists, giving this title a drier, more academic tone. Oddly, the book also exhibits more polar oppositions and extremist views on the subject. The focus strays somewhat from the marriage theme and includes articles on counseling same-sex couples and even making the case for discrimination based on sexual orientation itself. For smaller collections that may need only one title on the subject, Sullivan's work is by far the better choice, given the depth and breadth of its coverage.

 

 

Marriage, when it's right (and usually when it's wrong), is a subject that stirs strong feelings. Gay marriage inspires its own set of passions, with opponents decrying it as a step that will undermine the very fabric of society while supporters posit it as an inevitable next stage in step-by-step acceptance of homosexuality by mainstream America. Appearing as the issue heats ups following President George W. Bush's call for a constitutional amendment that would block the gathering tide of gay nuptials, this polemic by Atlantic Monthly/National Journal writer Jonathan Rauch deftly walks a fine line, both personalizing the subject (Rauch is a gay man with a longtime lover and a lifelong wistful attitude about marriage) and addressing it with an intellectual poise informed by historical and philosophical perspectives. Rauch actually supports the steady-as-she-goes, state-by-state advancement of gay marriage, believing that "same sex marriage will work best when people accept and understand it, whereas a sudden national enactment, where it suddenly to happen, might spark a culture war on the order of the abortion battle." Might? It says a lot about Rauch's temperance that he doesn't forecast an inevitably fractious future for the nation while it sorts through the implications of gay weddings. There are more impassioned perspectives on the issue, but Rauch's positive approach advances the issue with a welcome cool headedness that actually suits the controversy. This is, after all, a fight over the right of traditional outsiders to engage in an inherently conservative institution.

 

 

A nationally renowned attorney and director of Freedom to Marry, Wolfson hails the movement for marriage equality as "one of the first important civil rights campaigns of the 21st century" and grounds support for it within the logic of the long-established protest traditions in U.S. history: abolition, the women's suffrage movement and the racial equality movements of the 1950s and '60s.

 

Unlike those who support gay marriage as a way to regulate what they see as the self-destructive sexual practices of homosexuals (David Brooks, Jonathan Rauch, Andrew Sullivan), Wolfson sidelines the issue of morality and discusses the right to marry as part of each citizen's inalienable claim to what the Declaration of Independence calls the "pursuit of happiness."

 

Framing his argument strictly in terms of civil rights and grounding it in conventional definitions of the public significance of marriage, Wolfson is refreshing, smart, thorough and easy to follow.

 

Most provocatively, Wolfson excises "gay marriage" from the debate entirely, writing that the term "impl[ies] that same-sex couples are asking for rights and privileges that married couples do not have, or for rights that are something lesser or different from what non-gay couples have. In fact, we don't want 'gay marriage,' we want marriage."

 

 

In this provocative legal study, Gertsmann drills deep into the gay marriage debate, beyond the well-mined rhetoric of "gay rights," to focus on the true bedrock of Americans' freedom: the Constitution. According to the author, one of the most important issues challenging the Constitution's promise of legal equality is same-sex marriage. "Marriage was one of the first fundamental rights the Court recognized," writes Gertsmann. "Far from being limited to a racial context, it has been applied to individuals whom society has every reason to punish, individuals whose fitness for marriage and parenthood could be doubted." So why has same-sex marriage remained the exception to this fundamental right to marry?

 

Early in the text, Gertsmann wisely concedes that it is not "irrational" for a society to ban same sex marriage, because legalizing these unions could be seen as an endorsement of homosexual relationships, much like legalizing heroin could be seen as a government endorsement of drug use. But while Gertsmann offers an understanding of why society is dragging its heels to the gay-marriage altar, he argues that giving gay couples marriage licenses no more endorses their homosexuality than giving them driver's licenses does.

 

"In each case, the state is simply granting certain benefits to its citizens without respect to their sexual orientation," he writes. The author's balanced, well-measured defense of same-sex marriage argues that the most personal of decisions (whom we marry) will continue to be treated as a public act and, therefore, will continue to be stymied by government interference until the courts consider the right to marry with "the same rigor and consistency" that they apply to another touchstone of the Constitution: freedom of speech.

 

 

In this gripping piece of journalistic history, Moats chronicles the battle over gay marriage in Vermont, which culminated in 2000 with the first state law allowing gay civil unions. Moats, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his editorials in the Rutland Chronicle supporting the law, brings a balanced perspective and an urgency to the judicial and legislative drama, which registers on a personal scale. His goal is to answer the following question, which he poses in the prologue: "How did such a thing happen in Vermont?"

 

The result is a local history that remains an important contribution to the history of civil rights in the United States. Vermont itself is the hero of this book, and Moats provides a deft and believable account of how this small state - the first in the union to abolish slavery - became fertile ground for a grassroots, antihomophobic political movement.

 

In perhaps the most moving section, Moats lets the citizens of Vermont speak for themselves. On January 25, 2000, the state legislature heard public testimony from their constituents, and Moats simply and elegantly presents some of the comments. One woman, who timidly announces that she is in a "committed, loving relationship" with another woman, relates an anecdote about her son: "Not long ago, my youngest, who's now eleven, would ask me when we, his parents, would be getting married.... He has now been exposed to the fear and hatred of the world around him and no longer asks this question. I want my children to have the respect they deserve, to have parents that are married and can fully provide for them." Moats's account emerges as essential reading for Americans on both sides of the partisan aisle.