(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)
Not surprisingly, Jay Nordlinger had much the same reaction as I did to David Brooks's gay marriage column. In an Impromptus that is even more worth reading than usual, Mr. Nordlinger writes:
The column, as I have read it, argues that we must favor gay marriage because we must favor fidelity commitment, loyal love. Well, let me make the obvious point that no force on earth can stop people from being faithful if they wish to be. Certainly you don't need a marriage license for that. And no force on earth can stop people from being unfaithful if they wish to be a marriage license is no barrier to that. Gay partners have been faithful to each other for millennia (presumably), without benefit of marriage. And married partners have been unfaithful to each other for millennia, with benefit of marriage. So, support gay marriage if you like, for whatever (sound) reasons you can come up with but let's not pretend that a respect for fidelity has anything to do with it.
He also notes that Brooks's reference to the Biblical Ruth and Naomi makes the daughter- and mother-in-law sound like a lesbian couple. That brings to mind the claims of some homosexualist historians that the Catholic Church once sanctioned gay marriage. As I've suggested before, such claims prove, if anything, that "homosexuality is sexualizing, and thus destroying, the ancient idea of friendship."
Posted by Justin Katz @ 06:45