by Chris Bodenner
A reader writes:
What continues to stagger me about Douthat's (& others') argument against gay marriage is the assumption that such a small minority within the larger culture could control the direction of marriage. The numbers about gays within the larger population are notoriously suspect, but most estimates seem to find that less than 5% of the population is gay – and lesbians don't have the same relationship patterns as gay men. So how can gay men be the defining norm for our whole society? Is India's society controlled by Christians?
On the flip side, marriage has long contained within it the possibility of great flexibility: before I got married (1984), I was ambivalent about subjecting myself to that institution, but I read Nigel Nicolson's Portrait of a Marriage. That helped me to see that although marriage is an institution, it cannot enforce mandates on people who are willing to engage with it on their own terms. Since the book's subjects were raised by Victorians, I fail to see how modern permissiveness can explain their freedom.
Another writes:
This thread continues to put the focus on marriage in sexual terms. But while sex might be the, well, sexy part of marriage, especially in public debates, there is so much more to it. To be married is to be flexible – you're sharing your bed, your bathroom, your cupboards, your refrigerator, your bank account, your children … if you can't be flexible in your marriage, it means you're either headed for the divorce court or else the power dynamics of your relationship are seriously skewed.
That's what I get from what Savage is saying. His points about GGG basically boil down to a simple rule: respect each other. Every religion has its own methods of determining the direction of that respect, but deconstruct the various Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots, and we're left with a guide that tells us who is worthy of respect, who is not, and how to treat each other with respect. The marriage service is the same.
Setting aside questions of power, it is not a redefinition of marriage as an institution if readers follow Savage's advice and have a frank discussion about their needs in the bedroom and the options available. It is treating each other with respect, telling the other person, "I trust you with my needs and my deepest concerns, the things I would never tell another soul for fear or shame". If you can't understand, manage or otherwise deal with what the other person is saying, then maybe your happiness lies elsewhere.
Marriage is not about two people being miserable together. Maybe it was, a century ago, but not any longer. And if that makes you sad or despairing, then tough luck. Marriage today is a celebration of the fact that you have found the one person in the world who will stick by you through thick and thin and a birthday cake fetish.
Of course, at its worst, marriage today is also disposable reality TV fare. And straight people did that all by themselves.
The Dish 