Until yesterday, no society had seen marriage as anything other than a conjugal partnership: a male-female union. What Is Marriage? identifies and defends the reasons for this historic consensus and shows why redefining civil marriage is unnecessary, unreasonable, and contrary to the common good.
Originally published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, this book’s core argument quickly became the year’s most widely read essay on the most prominent scholarly network in the social sciences. Since then, it has been cited and debated by scholars and activists throughout the world as the most formidable defense of the tradition ever written. Now revamped, expanded, and vastly improved, What Is Marriage? stands poised to meet its moment as few books of this generation have.
Rhodes Scholar Sherif Girgis, Heritage Foundation Fellow Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George offer a devastating critique of the idea that equality requires redefining marriage. They show why both sides must first answer the question of what marriage really is. They defend the principle that marriage, as a comprehensive union of mind and body ordered to family life, unites a man and a woman as husband and wife, and they document the social value of applying this principle in law.
Most compellingly, they show that those who embrace same-sex civil marriage leave no firm groundnonefor not recognizing every relationship describable in polite English, including polyamorous sexual unions, and that enshrining their view would further erode the norms of marriage, and hence the common good.
Finally, What Is Marriage? decisively answers common objections: that the historic view is rooted in bigotry, like laws forbidding interracial marriage; that it is callous to people’s needs; that it can’t show the harm of recognizing same-sex couplings, or the point of recognizing infertile ones; and that it treats a mere “social construct” as if it were natural, or an unreasoned religious view as if it were rational.
If the marriage debate in America is decided soon, it will be with this book’s help or despite its powerful arguments.
|Product dimensions:||6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x (d)|
About the Author
Sherif Girgis is a Ph.D. student in philosophy at Princeton University and a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School. After graduating Phi Beta Kappa and summa cum laude from Princeton, where he had won prizes for best senior thesis in ethics and best thesis in philosophy, as well as the Dante Society of America’s national Dante Prize, he obtained a B.Phil. in moral, political, and legal philosophy from the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.
Robert P. George is a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, and previously served on the President's Council on Bioethics and as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award. He is a recipient of the United States Presidential Citizens Medal and the Honorific Medal for the Defense of Human Rights of the Republic of Poland.
Ryan T. Anderson is William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and the editor of Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute. A Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University, he is a doctoral candidate in political philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He has worked as assistant editor of First Things and was a Journalism Fellow of the Phillips Foundation. His writings have appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, First Things, the Weekly Standard, National Review, the New Atlantis, and the Claremont Review of Books.
Read an Excerpt
Chapter One: Comprehensive Union
For all the difficulty and ambiguity of making value judgments, the broadest outlines of the good life are plain to most of us. One man has a healthy body and a happy family, an enriching complement of hobbies and a keen sense for Bob Dylan. By day he teaches high-school seniors to savor the rhythm and wit of Chaucer’s poetry; by night friends help him savor red Bordeaux. A second man is debilitated, depressed, desensitized and detached. It doesn’t take a poet or a saint to see who is better off.
It is equally clear that there is nothing special about Dylan, Chaucer, or Bordeaux that gives the first man his advantage. There is no single good life, but a range of good lives: countless ways of blending the basic ingredients of human thriving. But the ingredients themselvesthe most foundational ways in which we can thrive, what we call “basic human goods”are more limited. They include only those conditions or activities that make us better off in themselves, whether or not they bring us other goods. It makes sense for us to want these for their own sake. Health, knowledge, play and aesthetic delight are a few examples, and another is friendship.
Yet another basic human good, we think, is marriage. A critical point here is that marriage and ordinary friendship do not simply offer different degrees of the same type of human good, like two checks written in different amounts. Nor are they simply varieties of the same good, like the enjoyment of a Matisse and the enjoyment of a Van Gogh. Each is its own kind of good, a way of thriving that is different in kind from the other. Hence, while spouses should be friends, what it takes to be a good friend is not just the same as what it takes to be a good spouse.
What, then, is distinctive about marriage? All sorts of practices are grafted onto marriage by law and custom, but what kind of relationship must any two people have to enjoy the specific good of marriage? This framing of the question, though unusual, should not seem mysterious; we could ask it just as well of other basic human goods.
Table of Contents
A Note on Authorship ix
From Epithalamion, by Edmund Spenser xiii
Two Views of Marriage 1
Why This Book Now 4
What We Will Show 6
What Our Argument Is Not 10
1 Challenges to Revisionists 13
The State Has an Interest in Regulating Some Relationships? 15
Only If They Are Sexual? 16
Only If They Are Monogamous? 18
2 Comprehensive Union 23
Comprehensive Unifying Acts: Mind and Body 24
Comprehensive Unifying Goods: Procreation and Domestic Life 28
Comprehensive Commitment: A Rational Basis for Norms of Permanence and Exclusivity 32
3 The State and Marriage 37
Why Civil Marriage? 38
Is Marriage Endlessly Malleable? 46
4 What's the Harm? 53
Weakening Marriage: Making It Harder to Realize 54
Weakening Marriage and Expanding Government: Eroding Marital Norms 56
Making Mother or Father Superfluous 58
Threatening Moral and Religious Freedom 62
Undermining Friendship 65
The "Conservative" Objection 66
5 Justice and Equality 73
The Case of Infertility 73
The Injustice of Bans on Interracial Marriage 77
6 A Cruel Bargain? 83
Practical Needs 84
Dignitary Harm 85
Personal Fulfillment, Public Recognition 88
7 Conclusion 95
Appendix: Further Reflections on Bodily Union 99
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
A very informative book! I thought that the only people who opposed gay marriage were people who thought that homosexuality was wrong. However, What is Marriage does not argues in defense of traditional marriage, not about homosexuality. This is book is filled with rational arguments and logic that support traditional marriage instead of saying that gay people are immoral, or any other nonsense. Thanks to this book, I now support traditional marriage.
An incredibly informative book that contains rational and logical arguments in support of traditional marriage.
Very informative and filled with rational arguments and logic.
If you want to be informed about the current Marriage debate, then you need to know of “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George. Some consider it to be “the most formidable defense of the tradition ever written”. “What is Marriage?” identifies the two rival views of Marriage, the conjugal view and the revisionist view. The conjugal view holds that Marriage is lifelong bond between a man and woman which involves the raising of a family. On the other hand, the revisionist view holds that Marriage is an emotional bond between partners who are committed to each other. The key point that distinguishes the two views is something the authors call “bodily union”. Bodily union involves the sexual union of a man and woman’s bodies in marriage. In sexual relations, a man and woman’s bodies unite and coordinate toward a common goal, reproduction. Bodily union is only possible in the conjugal view, not the revisionist view. The book’s strength is its explanation of the logical consequences of holding the revisionist view. If you hold the revisionist view, then you should not oppose the substantial number of activists pushing for Marriage between more than two people known as multi-partner sexual relationships, polyamorous relationships, and marriage units. The book’s potential weakness is its high level; it includes some rather close philosophical reasoning in a number of places. So, the book is not an easy read, full of stories and anecdotes; although it is full of examples. Despite this, I recommend it for those who want to deepen their understanding of the current Marriage debate.
I like this book because it avoid the typical arguments of religion and gets to the social reasons why same sex marriage should cannot exist. The book also discusses why the government should not be able to regulate relationships. Excellent read
God ordained marriage between one man and one woman.He gave man a penis and woman a vigina because they fit together and this makes perfect since to any normal person.They can become one and share a deep love and passion for one another.The rectum was made as a one way exit for waste and passage of gas..To use the rectum for any other means is a sin against man and God.These people are like animals in heat and lust..If God had wanted two men or two women to mate he would have allowed them to have a baby together.God's way is the only right way and all other is sin and of Satan.They know this is the truth.
A friend gave me this book and admittedly I didn't finish it, their ENTIRE premise that marriage has always been a conjugal man/woman relationship is simply a lie. It ignores the many, many society throughout the world and throughout history that have defined marriage otherwise. Even the Bible itself tells stories about societies that have defined marriage otherwise. It is the very definition of a backwards argument, they picked a conclusion and then data-mined evidence to support it. I gave up on about chapter 3.