Same-Sex Marriage Makes David Brooks Crazy (and wishes he had Gay sex freedom)
Same-Sex Marriage Makes David Brooks Crazy
POSTED: APRIL 2, 11:02 AM ET
This morning’s David Brooks column on same-sex marriage was one of the weirdest, most mean-spirited things I’ve ever seen in The New York Times.
Entitled “Freedom Loses One,” the article is a sarcastic broadside against … well, against something, though it’s not clear exactly which of the many post-Sixties permissive-society hobgoblins Brooks hates is the real target here.
Ostensibly, the column purports to make a single ironic point, which is that by petitioning the Supreme Court for the right to marry, gays and lesbians were not expanding their freedoms – and thus continuing, as Brooks implies, a long and perhaps-regrettable winning streak for people’s right to “follow their desires” that dates back to those hated Sixties – but rather constraining them. Brooks puts it this way:
But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage.
Brooks here apparently expects his gay and lesbian readers to scratch their heads here and think, “Gosh, what does he mean by that? I thought we were seeking new freedoms with this campaign?”
What does he mean? Well, the self-appointed hetero-in-chief is here to enlighten us as to what marriage is – and he’s here to tell you, it’s no bowl of freedom-cherries!
Marriage is one of those institutions – along with religion and military service – that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.
Gee – really? Boy, those gays and lesbians are sure going to be in for a shock when they find out that being in a committed relationship involves constraints on behavior. That’ll be some unpleasant new ground they’ll be breaking there.
What an asshole!
The condescension is bad, but the argument is even worse. Brooks is trying to make a “point” here – he takes something like 800 words to make it, but it boils down to a single snarky observation: “Isn’t it ironic that these same people who’ve been fighting for the right to personal indulgence for all these decades since the Sixties are now fighting for the right to be legally restrained?”
This is absurd on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start.
Pretty much Brooks entire argument here is based on his conception of gays being hedonists with the non married freedom to have frequent anonymous gay sex. Something he wished he could indulge in if not for his freedom destroying burden of a wife……
Republican party thinking ladies and gents……..