Auriell Frederick, 09/01/2010 English 1311 Argumentative Writing

In Class Summary Essay for Argumentative Writing Essay, Same-Sex Marriage Is Risky. But Banning It Is
Riskier
In the essay Same-Sex Marriage Is Risky. But Banning It Is Riskier, in American Journals 2004 issue
authored by Jonathan Rouche, Rouche explains why gay marriage poses a great risk to society, but that the greater
risk is for society is not to try gay marriage. Rouche examines the institution of marriage and both the pros and
cons of societys current and future definition the institution of marriage. Rouche focuses on how legalizing samesex marriage will benefit and protect the institution of marriage for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike by
promoting stability among families, reducing cohabitation among non-married individuals, and promoting health
and security for married individuals. He iterates how the institution of marriage is at risk of becoming destroyed by
discrimination and further becoming obsolete for both parties. He offers a realistic solution, advising that a
starting place for a trial run for same sex marriage should be performed in the gay-friendly state of Massachusetts,
giving the final say to voters.
Rouche opens with a small excerpt of The Pink Panther Strikes Again, written by Peter Sellers to catch
the readers attention, comparing the current institution of marriage to Sellers character, Inspector Closeau
blunderingly demolishing a grand piano, much to an onlookers horror. The onlooker exclaims Thats a priceless
Steinway, and Closeau responds with simply, Not anymore.
Rouche goes to explain the definition of the current institution of marriage, that marriage is currently
defined as between two heterosexuals and his analogy of Closeaus piano smashing was to state not anymore it
isnt. In this point he points out that many individuals in society possess goodwill towards gay individuals but in
reality have quite an issue with the idea of society redefining marriage.
Next Rouche explains both proponents and antagonists of gay marriage have a point and that indeed, Gay
marriage is risky, but not to try it is riskier.
At this point, Rouche illustrates that same-sex marriage has been a civil rights issue, stating that all
individuals are entitled to it, but the major issue of gay marriage opponents is really a moral issue, especially that of
a familial perspective. Rouche acknowledges that marriage is currently being defined by society and this paragraph
serves as a segue to prove that the risk of marriage is just as important, rather relevant as is the issue of morality
and right and wrong.
Then Rouche supports that this is a familial issue by pointing out the benefits of marriage for family and
children. To further validate his point he sates how inhibiting family and children from the benefits of marriage can
inflict a very real harm, as people in married populations are happier, healthier, more prosperous, and more
secure. Furthermore he explains how gay-marriage would benefit children of homosexual parents, by not leaving
them without marriage parents.
In contrast, Rouche shares that opponents of same-sex marriage insist that it will bring
catastrophic externalities that will hurt millions of American families, but does not offer further explanation as to
why this is because he feels that same-sex marriage will have little impact on straight families. He supports this
idea by stating that same-sex marriage would only make a small percentage of people eligible for marriage.
At this point Rouche explores another externality, pointing out that the marriages problem is not that
homosexuals wish to get married, but that it is heterosexuals who dont wish to get marriage or stay married.
Banning gay marriage promotes risks to straight marriage and Rouche advises that the risks are not small. By
banning gay marriage society will respond with making provisions for gay marriage alternatives therefore
resulting in a myriad of lifestyle alternatives which will diminish the institution of marriage.

Auriell Frederick, 09/01/2010 English 1311 Argumentative Writing

Moreover, Rouche explains another risk of banning gay marriage would result in anti- discrimination
practices, illustrating that the younger citizens (18-29) favor same-sex marriage and are particularly adverse to
discrimination. Some individuals are already protesting gay-marriage by boycotting marriage altogether and by
banning gay marriage individuals would further practice this boycott. Also, Rouche adds that Benton County,
Oregon has terminated issuing marriage licenses, not wanting to partake in discriminatory action.
Rouche concludes that there are risks from both arguments but that it would be more irresponsible to not
try gay marriage. To strengthen this argument he also adds that this is irresponsible if even protecting marriage is
the goal. Rouche disputes conservatives opposition to marriage, explaining that banning gay marriage risks making
marriage culturally irrelevant.
Consequently, Rouche offers a solution to gay-marriage. He states that gay marriage should be tried in the
state of Massachusetts, as it is a gay friendly state that will leave the issue to voters discretion and would be the
ideal environment for this experimental procedure.
Finally Rouche acknowledges that there will be no uniform consensus on same-sex marriage in the near
future. Also, the issue will not be squashed with constitutional amendments, though both parties of the argument
unrealistically hope for such an easy resolution.
In conclusion, Rouche states this division of discord amongst society fundamentally comes down to two
major perspectives, younger individuals view same-sex marriage as anti-discrimination and older individuals view
marriage as a contradiction and the only way to reconcile the issue is to start by taking action. With this he states,
Massachusetts is a good as a starting place as the country could have hoped for.