This morning, I read New York Times columnist Ross Douthat’s meandering and incoherent op-ed, “The Marriage Ideal”. It may have been the worst column written in the history of newspaper, and maybe dating back to stone tablets.
Douthat begins by pretending to be fair. He deftly debunks the baseless arguments used by opponents of marriage equality. He points out that “traditional marriage” is not universal across societies worldwide and that monogamy may be the exception, rather than the rule.
Next, Douthat writes that heterosexuals have generally screwed up the institution of monogamous, life-long marriage by participating in “less idealistic” no fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy.
Having said that, Douthat gives condescending lip service that feigns respect for gay relationships, but concludes that separate-but-equal treatment is the only way to preserve the heterosexual marriage “ideal”.
If this newer order completely vanquishes the older marital ideal, then gay marriage will become not only acceptable but morally necessary. The lifelong commitment of a gay couple is more impressive than the serial monogamy of straights. And a culture in which weddings are optional celebrations of romantic love, only tangentially connected to procreation, has no business discriminating against the love of homosexuals.
But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit.
But based on Judge Walker’s logic — which suggests that any such distinction is bigoted and un-American — I don’t think a society that declares gay marriage to be a fundamental right will be capable of even entertaining this idea.
What a bizarre conclusion.
I call this the “Jesus Christ argument” to prohibit marriage equality. Douthat is basically saying that the constitutional rights and personal dreams of gay couples, although noble, must sacrificed at the altar to repent for heterosexual sins against the institution of marriage.
If society just stops marriage equality, all the heterosexuals who carelessly trample over marriage will miraculously change their ways over time. Thanks to the sacrifice of the good ole gays, there will be a resurgence of the marriage “ideal”.
Give me a break.
What bothers me is that Douthat printed this drivel without looking at real life examples of places that already have marriage equality. There is the District of Columbia and five states — Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut — where LGBT couples can already marry. All of these places are within a short drive from New York City, so Douthat could have jumped in the car and seen for himself that the affect on heterosexual marriage is nil. Instead, Douthat makes erroneous assumptions without a shred of evidence to support his conclusion.
The truth is, a gay couple marrying does nothing to influence or impact what happens to the heterosexual couple next door. Douthat’s absurd column was nothing more than a slippery attempt to assert heterosexual supremacy. But, it was written in a milquetoast and pseudo-intellectual way so he wouldn’t be scorned as a bigot by gays and enlightened heterosexuals at fancy New York cocktail parties.
What a sad, transparent attempt to justify discrimination. Who does he think he’s fooling?
Aside from the flimsy reasoning, inherent prejudice, and lack of fact in Douthat’s OP-ED piece, he’s a bad writer. “Potential fruit?” Who lets that kind of crap get published? It’s on the level of the Arizona Republic. I think what’s really in danger is not the institution of marriage but that of journalism!
Did Douthat even read Judge Walker’s ruling? I would bet money he did not. The judge rightly stated that moral disapproval is insufficient grounds for denying equal protection to LGBT couples. You’re right in saying that Douthat’s OP-ED is intellectually vacuous, lacking in fact, logically flawed, and fundamentally dishonest.
The federal ruling found that gay marriage presents no harm to society, children, or opposite sex couples. The kind of b******t “ideal” that Douthat refers to is the same kind of “ideal” that in the past kept women from voting, blacks from being freed from slavery, and children from indentured servitude. g*****n! Is Fox News taking over the entire island of Manhattan including the New York Times now?
Bizarre. Civil marriage is failing to achieve the lofty ideals set for it by some religious folks. Of course, government isn’t tasked with enforcing lofty ideals anyway, just administering the rights and responsibilities of marriage equitably. But that doesn’t matter to Douthat, the lofty ideals still justify discrimination.
If he reads his own paper, he learned recently that his esteemed institution can be and is used for convoluted, non-idealized purposes (NYTimes: The Un-Divorced). Warren Buffet was legally married yet primarily bonded to his girlfriend for decades. Jann and Jane Wenner remain married despite his post-coming-out life with his mail partner. Others keep non-marital marriages going for purely financial, insurance, or social standing reaons. In each case, it is none of the state’s business how people live out their marital life as long as they are married to only one person at a time.
This absurd sophistry is more the caliber of the National Review than the NYT. I hope they print another editorial soon by someone refuting it; or as palin (the same intellectual prowess as Douthat) would say, *refutiating* it.
OH, I’m so glad you hit this, Wayne. I just got back to the computer and I saw that Douthat piece and I was like OMG OMG OMG Stupidest Thing Ever Written, and I headed to write on it, and oh look, you have already done it.
EVERYone on the NO side of same-sex marriage avoids looking at the results of same-sex marriage allowed in other countries and the few states in America that allow it because there is NO aftermath that has occured to back their claims. None. Nada. Zilch. Nary a one.
This is why it’s important that America be held up a gods “chosen” nation with a moral standard “supposedly” set HIGHER than any other in the world.
It’s pure hubris and conceit.
See, god doesn’t care if OTHER countries allow same-sec marriage. They’re not important enough to open the earth in, or drop an asteroid on, or sic with a plague, or crash their economy, or sweep clean with a tornado or, or, or BUT… the US of A on the other hand is teetering on the brink, walking the knife’s edge, dancing on the lip of the abyss, close to buying the farm, kicking the bucket, and descending en mass straight into hell.
People, open your eyes and ears. There’s a WHOLE wide world out there that’s been percolating along without the earth careening out of orbit and plunging headlong into the sun.
Anti-same-sex people NEED to be reminded constantly that the rest of us are doing just fine with same-sex marriage in place AND gays and lesbians serving openly in our militias. Twits.
Yet another idiot blaming heterosexual failures on gay people.
I read this today and had to read it twice it was so confusing. Most of the piece sounds like a defense of gay marriage and then in the last few paragraphs he pulls an argument against gay marriage out of his butt. It made no sense whatsoever.
Evan – I’m glad we had the same reaction. I kind of like my bigots to be up front. I don’t like to be patronized and for people to pretend they have the right to lord over us and dole out our rights.
The piece was, really, an abomination and abortion rolled up into one.
OH, and Ross Douthat doesn’t like abortions, so he would be alarmed to know that he had one in the pages of the Times today!
I always read his name as “Doubt that”, like, “I doubt that guy has two functioning brain cells.”
Andrew Sullivan had to respond to it also with quite a long post, calling Douthat out on is ‘illogic’; it seemed that even Andrew was a little confused with what Douthat said; i don’t don’t feel as bad now that i was confused too…
you can read Andrew here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/the-unique-quality-of-lifelong-heterosexual-monogamy.html
Heh, no surprise here, but the World’s Dumbest Homosexual thought Douthat’s column was JUST GREAT!
It thrills me that no fault divorce is slipping into these opposite-sex screeds as an equal threat to traditional marriage. I hope this point is given louder voice. Talk about a winning strategy! Regarding Ross Douthat’s column: He lost me. Well, no Frank Rich there.