Replies

Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia, last summer. "It's a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry," she said. "But I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist."

I guess everything looks like a "no-brainer" when you have no brain.

Seriously, that's one of those conversation or argument stoppers that should probably be avoided even if it weren't stale and flat by now.

And I have to wonder about Masha's logic. If it's obvious that marriage should not exist, how is it also obvious that she should be allowed to participate in the institution?

And vice versa (or mutatis mutandis, ceterus paribus, or whatever), if it's so intuitively obvious that she and her partner should have the right to marry, doesn't that imply that the institution she wants into should continue to exist?

The banner of "marriage equality" is frayed and torn asunder, with bits blowing in the wind, strips jagged and littering streets. Marriage, however, lives and breathes. As do those who salute her.

Ick! That's the kind of "beautiful writing" commentators should avoid. Also, it's the kind of fake, flip, smug, dismissive conclusion they should forgo. And it doesn't fit the rest of the article, which certainly gives conservatives or Christians plenty of reason to worry about the future of marriage.