In Andrew Sullivan’s continuing gay marriage cavalcade, he thinks Dan Savage did something really significant. And he’s waiting for an answer from the religious right. I think it’s presumptuous of me to speak for such a large group of people, but here goes.
Dan Savage married a woman despite the points that “Amy and I don’t live together, we don’t love each other, we don’t plan to have kids together, and we’re going to go on living and sleeping with our same-sex partners after we get married.” Dan then reflects “I don’t know what a guy has to do around here to get the marriage license. But I guess it’s some consolation that I can get a meaningless one anytime I like, just so long as I bring along a woman I don’t love and my $54.”
And that proves what, exactly? I don’t get it.
Does this mean Andrew supports the government doing a rigorous vetting process on prospective married couples? Yeah, right.
Let’s posit that this is a real problem with marriage as it currently exists. Now let’s add gay marriage. Now what do we have? We’re in exactly the same boat as before as anybody can marry anybody they don’t love as long as they have the fee, only we’ve made it more possible because now you can marry anybody you don’t love, not just members of the opposite sex. Whoo hoo! Thats a big help.
If this is supposed to show the pointlessness of marriage, or state licensing, then what’s the big deal about not giving same sex couples marriage licenses? It’s meaningless, after all.
It seems to me that the thrust of Andrew’s continuing posts on the subject is that since marriage has been debased over the years so much, why not let gays get married?
