Tuesday, April 02, 2013

brooks loses one

it's been a long time since i ranted about a david brooks column, but seriously, is he fucking serious? having the government recognize same-sex marriage is not a "loss of freedom." even if the two supreme court cases both come out 100% in favor of gay marriage, that doesn't mean that homosexuals won't have the freedom to not enter into a long term committed relationship if they don't want to.

first, as i've been saying for a long time, the same sex marriage issue isn't about "allowing gays to marry." this is about whether gay marriages that already exist will be recognized by the state, with all the benefits that come with governmental recognition. gays have been getting married for decades. plenty of gay people i know had a ceremony and consider themselves to be married even though they live in a jurisdiction that doesn't attach any legal significance to their marriage. gay marriage have happened and will continue to happen no matter how the supreme court rules, or what the various state legislatures do. the issue is official recognition of something that already exists, not whether that thing exists in the first place.

second, why the fuck do so many conservatives have such difficulty with the concept of consent? government recognition of gay marriages does not mean that gay people will suddenly all be shackled with the responsibilities of married life. the idea is letting gays have the option of marriage (with all its benefits), not making everyone get married. even in a world with universally recognized SSM, some gay people will still be single, and others will be in a relationship that isn't marriage. it will be up to them to choose whether to get married or not. (you know, just like straight people right now!) how is that a loss for freedom?