While more gay couples are saying, "I do," federal and state governments are still resolutely saying, "You can't." This judicious and discerning analysis of the legal, social and ethical debate over same-sex marriage comes down squarely on the side of recognition of gay and lesbian relationships, but argues that the model of civil unions enacted by Vermont in 2000 (giving gay couples the legal rights of marriage without the name) is a more winnable fight. Eskridge, a professor of jurisprudence at Yale (and an openly gay man), carefully explicates Baehr
v. Lewin
(the Hawaiian case that nearly allowed same-sex marriage), the domestic partnership movement, same-sex marriage fights in other countries and the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress, which prohibits the federal government from acknowledging state-recognized gay marriage. Distinct from radicalism (forcing gay marriage through the law) or traditionalism (refusing to accept any change in established marriage), Eskridge argues for what he calls "equality practice," which "does not entail immediate equality," but is a "process by which gay people are working for their inclusion in state-recognized institutions of all sorts." Presenting and challenging a wide variety of views from right-wing ideologue Lynn Wardle to radical lesbian legal theorist Paula Ettelbrick, and relying on political and social theorists such as Michel Foucault and John Rawls, Eskridge opts for a middle road of slow progress to allow for mutual understanding. (Feb.)
Forecast:This book is largely a refinement of the ideas found in Eskridge's 1996
The Case for Same-Sex Marriage. It lacks most of the conservative opinions that peppered that earlier book, but its moderate position is sure to annoy progressive gay activists and conservatives alike. The lucid but dense argumentation should restrict it to those actively hashing out the issues and to larger university collections.
