david brooks outdouches himself, which is no small feat
The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations.
He has gotten more and more convoluted over the years.
He is essentially making the argument that Ted Olsen is making; marriage equality is a conservative value.
It's the reason that down the road there will be an inevitable backlash against the repressive chains of marriage as a relic of a former age.
I know that, r4, but he is doing so using the most insanely condescending, patronizing and wrong-headed bloviating.
"Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda."
Hetero, old, moneyed, white dudes just know it all, don't they?? And no one else does: "whether they understood it or not"?
What a self-righteous prick.
He's becoming a creepy cunt
He makes some good points. I think y'all are being hypersensitive.
his good points are virtually BURIED in myopic self-indulgent CRAP.
Is he under the impression that having an option available is the same thing as being obliged to choose it?
Because really this is one of the stupider things I have read recently.
Well said R9. My feeling exactly when I read the editorial.
R7 is he your brother or something? Every fucking time someone criticizes this douchebag there is a datalounger who defends him.
He is the consummate douchebag.
Brooks has been a proponent of marriage equality for some time. Way back on November 22nd, 2003 he wrote the piece “The Power of Marriage” where he made the Conservative case for marriage equality as follows:
You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.
Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn’t be in crisis. In truth, it’s moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that ”domesticates” all people.
Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ”Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.”
The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.
When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.
Marriage is not voting. It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.
David Brooks should use his above prose on the limits of freedom or the individual choice to limit freedom to enlighten his party not only on marriage equality issues, but on gun control issues, regulations to protect us against corporations or other entities that harm for profit maximization, and for using government, “we the people”, where necessary to move us forward where private enterprise cannot or won’t.
Very few Republicans are willing to embrace marriage equality though some have and others have been waffling. Republicans should take heed to Brooks’ wise thought process on this issue. Most Americans have already.
[quote]his good points are virtually BURIED in myopic self-indulgent CRAP.
Which pretty much describes David Brooks, R8.
"He has gotten more and more convoluted over the years."
He wants to be King of Planet Earth and issue edicts.
Lots of hoo-hah in between some good points in R13 as well. Conservatives as the moral exemplars of America? Yeah, right, especially those Republican heads of "anything for a buck" corporations.
David often makes the mistake of assuming everyone who reads the New York Times is intelligent. He should stick to simple observations so he doesn't whip the simpletons into a frenzy.
[quote]When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan.
Because liberals understand that love and commitment cannot be legislated- this core part of marriage between two persons exists whether gay marriage is legal or not.