Response to "Vows," by Christopher Caldwell

*This Response does not argue against the idea of gay marriage, but against the idea that it would make homosexual couples more acceptable in today's society*

"Vows," by Christopher Caldwell, is a response to an article written by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch is a Washington journalist who mainly writes/responds to gay issues, and who happens to be gay himself. Rauch wrote an article pertaining to the sanctity of marriage. In it, he comes to the conclusion that gay marriage fits the definition and standards of regular marriage. However, Mr. Caldwell, who wrote the article that responds to Rauch's, completely disagrees with Caldwell's conclusion, and how he came to his overall reasonings. I mostly agree with Mr. Caldwell, in that legalizing gay marriage would not solve the problems that gays face in America. There are numerous logical ideas against this information, including lowering standards as opposed to meeting them and changing a law that many consider sacred (this could make quite a few people angry).

Rauch comes to the conclusion that once gay marriage is legalized, that gay citizens in America will be "seen in a new light." He argues that society does not accept homosexuals because they do not conform with society's ideals and traditions. One of these prominent traditions includes marriage. Because homosexuals cannot marry, he argues, they are seen as adulterous and threatening to the community. This idea seems to be a bit nieve. Allowing marraige does not make homosexual couples more "acceptable" in society than before. Caldwell argues that if marriage is altered to fit the desires of homosexuals, that marriage will no longer be a norm in society. The concept of marriage would lose its moral luster, and their would be no new push to accept gay couples, because gay marriage would still be a new idea. (and) New ideas are often not accepted at first, or possibly even at all. There is a method of building up to do so, and going from nothing to marriage is a large step. Quite possible there is a step inbetween no legal tie and marriage.

Also, legalizing gay marriage would create the same kind of problematic opportunity for polygamists. If made legal, not only would it fail to change the unfavorable opinion of homosexuality in America, but it would give polygamists a reason to shout for change as well. Sub-common religions like Mormonism would demand that multiple marriages to the same partner be legal. Once the definition of marriage is altered for a minority group, a majority of Americans would be upset. Also, once altered, the legalities involved with marriage would change altogether, because it only takes one (precedent) case to change the definition of marriage as it has been known for decades. Marriage would not make any difference to society's acceptance of gays (however, I'm not saying gays wouldn't enjoy the right to get married).

In conclusion, Caldwell was right in that Roush failed to realize that changing a normality in society to fit a new idea, is altering the normality as society knows it. Upon changing the idea, it is no more normal and holds less weight within the socially acceptable boundaries in America. It would make no difference to most of America (Roush's reasonings were off).