Ode to Frivolity

Ode to Frivolity -The Strib's Kim Ode has a piece - inevitably headlined Oops! What does Britney's joke say about hetero marriage? - in today's edition.

The piece digs for the social "significance" of the Spears "marriage" last weekend. Unfortunately, it digs in the wrong place.

For too many, the Spears, er, "marriage" prompts a reductio ad absurdam:

"Ann DeGroot is executive director of Outfront Minnesota, the state's largest organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. She also suspects how the tables would be turned had the bride and groom been able to use the same restroom.
'I think some of those against same-sex marriage would be saying that it makes a mockery of this institution, that it's shameful that people take marriage so lightly, that we told you this would happen,' DeGroot said. 'Instead, we're getting, 'Geez, she's young, it was Vegas.' No one's taking this too seriously.'

To the extent they don't, it's because most of us - the people - don't take anything that Hollywood has to say about marriage seriously.

We'll come back to that.

Which is galling for those gay couples who take the idea of marriage as seriously as most of the population does. Yikes, maybe that's not even right, given the divorce rates. Maybe some gay people take the privilege of marriage more seriously than many do.

And again, the absurd reduction - and the hopeless one-way trip out of context.

Ironically, Ode follows the comical generalizations - that same-sex people don't treat marriage "seriously" because many of them get divorced, and because Ann DeGroot says many don't take the Spears "marriage" seriously - with this:

It's always a little dangerous to generalize, of course, although that's never stopped some.

You can't pay for comedy like that.

Yes, many straight couples marry for puerile reasons. So, it is very likely, will many gay couples, when and if they can - has anyone considered the absurdity of pointing out straight divorce rates when there are no gay divorce rates with which to compare them? Do Kim Ode and Ann DeGroot think they'll hover around zero in perpetuity?

Ode isnt' done generalizing:

DeGroot knows how the arguments against same-sex marriage sweep all gays into one irresponsible dustbin. 'It's a way of looking at the whole community in terms of their sexual relationships and not the individual,' she said. 'We keep hearing, 'Well, that's how all gay people are,' but this is, 'Well, that's just how Britney is.' '"

Let's say for a moment that all straight people are Just Like Britney - that our marriages are all jokes. Hell, I'm a divorced guy, who am I to say (although if my marriage was a joke, it was more the "funny/wierd" than "funny/ha ha" type)?

But no - "the" arguments against same-sex marriage do not all sweep blithely, and in fact the most important have nothing to do with sexual relationships at all.

It's about the religious - as opposed to legal - institution of marriage. As a conservative, I could care less if two people enter into a binding contract, whatever their genders. I do object to the co-option of the institution of marriage to carry this out. It has nothing to do with sexual relationships, nothing to do with divorces, nothing whatever to do with Britney. It's about "what is a marriage supposed to be?"

I don't think it's supposed to be a joke. I also don't think it's supposed to be a convenient legal threshold for partner benefits (a view that also treats marriage as a joke, in its own way even more cynical than Spears' marriage) - or even a way of saying "I love partner (gender irrelevant), and this is how we're going to make it official", which is both solipsistic and also dodges the real point of marriage.

So what?

Posted by Mitch at January 7, 2004 06:05 AM