[This book] is essential reading for anyone who has an interest in the complicated legal, philosophical, and historical issues that are behind our contemporary debates about marriage and the family. Unfortunately, the way these debates are often conducted online, in public, and at universities and colleges—usually accompanied by rhetorical excesses and personal recriminations—they rarely reveal that the plausibility of each side’s case depends on deeper principles that are far from uncontroversial. In this regard, American Constitutionalism, Marriage, and the Family is a breath of fresh air.

Interpretation

The volume adds voices that manage to add something to a crowded conversation. Informed by a subtle and gentle skepticism toward the legal trajectory leading to Obergefell, they have something to offer both friends and foes of the stunning social and legal changes of the past half century.

American Political Thought

Most citizens regard the Supreme Court’s decisions in Windsor and Obergefell as an unqualified victory for an expanded view of marriage and the family. However, the essays in this book raise very thoughtful and provocative questions about the merits of the Court’s reasoning and the consequences that the decision entails for the future. Most importantly, these essays reflect on a wide range of philosophical, political, and cultural implications for the Court’s understanding of social institutions in general and the philosophical question of the family’s compatibility with liberalism. Regardless of one’s views regarding the proper constitution of marriage and the family, the reader will gain an enormous insight into this subject from the intellectual probity of this collection.

J. David Alvis, Wofford College

The contemporary debate over marriage often begins and ends with the assumption that marriage is a matter of individual right or choice. The authors of this volume agree that this theory has long and distinguished pedigree in American law, but in a thoughtful and nuanced way they go on to show that this is much too simplistic view of our history. The law recognizes marriage not merely to affirm individual choices, but also because the institution of marriage serves important public purposes. By recovering this tradition, the authors encourage us to take a fresh and more sophisticated look at the role of marriage in contemporary society. We owe a great debt to these authors who have enriched both the public and the academic debate on this important issue.

David Clinton, Baylor University