Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

MY BACKGROUND First, I should say a bit about my own background. I graduated from Princeton University in June 2012. During my senior year at Princeton, I took both of Professor Robert George's (one of the book's co-authors) courses, "Constitutional Interpretation" and "Civil Liberties." Before I took these classes, I was a pro-life libertarian, similar to Ron Paul. I was definitely in favor of gay marriage: I actually wrote my "Christian Ethics" midterm paper on how the Bible's stance on homosexuality had been widely misinterpreted. But during my senior fall, I was assigned the article version of "What is Marriage?" and I found its arguments quite convincing. Over the course of the next few months, I became a traditional marriage advocate and eventually became a social conservative. Second, I thought I would offer a little perspective on how Professor George is seen by his fellow faculty and by his students. As you might imagine, the average student and the average professor at Princeton is quite liberal (the school newspaper published a survey in 2008 that showed that 80% of the student body and 95% of the faculty had voted for Obama). However, Professor George is widely respected on campus, even by those who vehemently disagree with him, because he takes care to have a strong rational principles for his beliefs, because he takes care to address the criticisms of the other side, and because of his personal warmth. This balanced and rigorous approach to the material was borne out in our course readings, where Professor George always assigned the best arguments on both sides of the issue--he told us to let him know if we thought a particular position wasn't well-defended and that he would replace the reading with one we thought was better. A typical online course review says something like "I disagree with 2/3 of what he says, but you can't leave Princeton without taking his courses." His courses are very popular. I say all this because many criticisms of this book will inevitably boil down to "The authors of this book are fundamentalist bigots who hate gay people, and who give bad reasons for traditional marriage that would only convince readers who already agreed with them." And I can say from personal experience at least two things. First, this book will convince many who aren't already "part of the choir"--my own political conversion is a testament to that. Second, Professor George is widely respected even by intelligent liberals because he gives good reasons for his beliefs and does not attack straw men of the opposite position. I have less personal experience with the other 2 authors, but my positive experience of the book leads me to believe that they must share the same principles. MY REVIEW Now for the book itself. As most readers may know, this is an expanded version of a 50-page article that appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy about 2 years ago. The book's basic argument is the same as the article's, but the authors have used the extra 100 pages to give a fuller treatment of the argument and to answer additional objections that have arisen. The book's prose is clear, easy to read, and well-organized ("First, we will address A and show X..."). The end result is quite comprehensive. I've read a good bit on this topic and I haven't encountered any objection that isn't addressed in the text. In fact, the end result is, if anything, a bit TOO comprehensive. The authors give such a full account of what marriage is, why it can't be what their opponents say that it is, what the available social science says, etc. that the basic logic of the argument is sometimes momentarily obscured by all the talk of "ends" and "inherent goods". Some of what they address, like how the child outcomes of married couples are better than those of single parents, seems like it would be common sense to any reasonable person. However, I suppose that different readers are convinced by different arguments, and what might seem unnecessary to me could be crucial for another reader. In any case, the book remains a tight read, at only about 150 pages. For readers who are curious, here's a short version of the authors' basic argument: 1. Marriage is a comprehensive union of persons, not a consent-based contract. 2. Persons consist of both body and mind. 3. Therefore, a comprehensive union of persons (aka marriage) must include both bodily union (heterosexual sex, as it organically connects the individually incomplete reproductive systems of a man and a woman into a larger whole) and mental union (consent). They critique the conception of marriage as a consent-based contract primarily on the grounds that there is nothing about the nature of consent that limits it to 2 people, and thus to include gay couples but exclude a group of 3 men and 5 women from marrying is arbitrary discrimination (they also critique it on other grounds). Marriage so conceived quickly becomes incoherent. They defend the marriages of infertile heterosexual couples on the grounds that it is the bodily union that matters, and infertile couples are still capable of bodily union even if they aren't capable of producing children from that union. The issue of whether or not infertile heterosexual couples can truly experience bodily union is the point that critics most frequently attack. Andrew Koppelman is the most notable of these critics, and he writes, "a sterile person's genitals are no more suitable for generation than an unloaded gun is suitable for shooting. If someone points a gun at me and pulls the trigger, he exhibits the behavior which, as behavior, is suitable for shooting, but it still matters a lot whether the gun is loaded and whether he knows it." On this issue, I would concede the point that yes, there is a big difference between an unloaded gun and a loaded gun. But they are both still GUNS. Similarly, there is a big difference between a blind eye and an eye that can see, but they are both still EYES. Similarly, there is a big difference between a sterile bodily union and a fertile bodily union, but both are still BODILY UNIONS. The inability of a thing to achieve its intended end does not make it cease to be what it is. For a thing to cease to be what it is, its structure must change. An unloaded gun is still a gun, but a collection of parts is not. A blind eye is still an eye, but an eye dissected and separated into parts is no longer an eye. A sterile act of heterosexual sex retains its unitive structure (like the gun, all the parts still fit together), and thus it is accurately described as a genuine case of bodily union. As a genuine case of bodily union, a sterile act of heterosexual sex fulfills the criteria for marriage, a comprehensive (body + mind) union of persons. It is only the unitive aspect that is crucial for marriage. For the purposes of marriage, the reproductive system's other features (producing children, pleasure, etc.) are secondary. This focus on the unitive aspect, rather than the reproductive aspect, of the sexual act is hardly a gerrymandered standard invented to exclude gay couples. The traditional conception of marriage has never only considered a couple truly married once they had conceived their first child. However, historical societies have often only considered a marriage truly valid once it has been consummated, since without bodily union a marriage is necessarily incomplete. This requirement of consummation is still the law in many countries today. This is a consistent application of the bodily union standard. SUMMARY If you are a traditional marriage advocate, you need to buy this book so that you can defend this important position. If you are a gay marriage advocate, you also need to buy this book so that you can understand the arguments of your opponents. In reading it, you might just find yourself persuaded, like I was. I wish my readers all the best in their search for the truth.