Discussion for article #237959
Interesting and insightful observations, certainly important enough to spend some time thinking about. What I have read has certainly emphasized the right for equality not for just marriage, sexual differences but for everyone. It is one nation created equal, not one nation created for wealthy white males and (sigh) I suppose we have to include women too, but those âothersâ âŚnot so fast.
I donât begrudge anyone who wants to get married, and as a gay man I donât want to trivialize the importance of the courtâs decision
Funny, because those seem to encompass the entire point of this piece.
11 Likes
Itâs totally cool that youâre not jazzed about marriage! Itâs not for you, and thatâs fine. The thing is? Itâs now your choice to not partake, instead of not having a choice at all.
Marriage, and its hundreds (thousands?) of benefits, both societal and legal, is now a viable, legal and available choice for gay folks.
10 Likes
ââŚwe should question why so many believe marriage is the ultimate signifier of equalityâŚâ This is news to me. Iâve not heard nor read anywhere that anyone thinks this is the case. I think this is a bit disingenuous of the author of this piece. Marriage equality is but a part, not the whole, of liberty and justice for all, and just about everything Iâve read has suggested that, while momentum is definitely gaining, there is soooooo much more work to do.
6 Likes
The whole premise here is a giant straw manâclaiming that marriage equality isnât equality in all things.
Well, duh!
So the author dislikes the concept of marriageâBFD.
Heâs either stupid or heâs deliberately missing the point here.
6 Likes
Proof that gays have Debbie Downer SJWs in our midst.
1 Like
and the fact that the ânormalâ American two-parent household statistically doesnât exist.
Mr. Moskowitz, the embedded link in your statement refutes what you say, unless you are to quibble over ânormalâ in the same manner that President Clinton quibbled over the meaning of âisâ.
P.S. Politico has an interesting article by Frederick DeBoer about legalizing plural marriage in the wake of yesterdayâs SCOTUS decision and why it should be supported.
What a profoundly stupid article. Are we having a race now at TPM to see who can craft the most insipid and ignorant article between Peter Moskowitz and Amanda Marcotte?
3 Likes
For âan institution based on outmoded and harmful ideals about monogamy, patriarchy and property ownership,â there sure are a lot of deeply committed couples eager to sign up. Iâm hetero and on my third marriage but, for me, third timeâs the charm and I think itâs an amazing institution. My wife and I love each other deeply and have made the deepest of lifelong commitments that includes such outmoded ideas as monogamy. And you know what? I really like the idea that weâve committed to not sleeping with others because, at least for us, it goes part and parcel with our commitment to being there for each other no matter what.
When I was young and entered into an obviously wrong marriage, it was a mistake. When I was still young and screwed up my second marriage, I wasnât ready for the profundity of what marriage is. Perhaps I hadnât experienced enough of the world and I certainly didnât know myself. But that doesnât mean marriage failed. I just wasnât ready. I had to go through a bunch of relationships that, though valuable and exciting, werenât smart choices. Now, in middle age, Iâm both ready and incredibly happy to be married again. Weâve in five years now and it just gets better with each new day.
3 Likes
Personally I was moved by Justice Kennedyâs words beginning with "No union is more profound than marriage. . . " He understands what happily married couples understand, and why gay people have sought to join the rest of the country in finding the happiness that exists in a solid marriage. The writer of the article is a misanthrope who wouldnât recognize happiness if it kicked him in the teeth.
4 Likes
This guy doesnât even have a lawn (or a golf course), but he wants us to get off of it.
6 Likes
The ârealâ victory is what you make of it. This writer sees what he sees and makes out of the decision what he will. But, just being able to marry is a huge thing for many and the idea that their own government isnât discriminating against them in particular and at all is a big win, removes a stigma and basically gets the monkey off of their backs, so to speak.
I guess the explanation in this article is for the totally uninformed?
3 Likes
I mean, you can cherrypick ANY issue and/or situation to death-- The issue of marriage equality, in the broader sense, now being settled, it would seem that the author now shifts, and with a microscope, begins an examination for no other purpose but to remain relevant-- Or maybe just doesnât have anything better to do?? â I can see need in addressing some of the things mentioned within this article-- But maybe with smaller bites and after the âdust settlesâ a bit ??â
1 Like
@ottnott, Parallax, Slagathor: Yes. Overthinking equality achieved takes the joy out of the achievement. Sorry to paraphrase Rumsfeld, but you fight for marriage equality with the institution of marriage you have, not the one you wish existed.
2 Likes
Well, now that the articles in The Slice have gotten better, I guess they felt they needed somebody to take up the slack at the bottom.
3 Likes
One of these is not like the other.
Moskowitz would cross the finish line while Marcotte remained in the paddock.
The key is that gays now are able to garner all the rights, responsibilities, and advantages of marriage. However, it is also true that society bestows advantages to married people that it does not to single people. Marriage can be perceived as sacred and bonding but the same thing can be achieved without a legal marriage.