David Brooks, "Freedom Loses One": A Victory for the Good Life! Ask the IRS!

Yes, there are benefits to being married, and if you don't believe me ("Yes, dear. Coming in a moment, dear"), ask your friendly Internal Revenue Service agent. He or she will immediately turn your attention to the first page of your Form 1040, where you can tick off (or do I mean "check") your spouse and list your dependents (those persons roaming around the house who begin each sentence with "Can I have . . ."), and then multiply the total on line 42 of the second page by $3,800 and use the amount as a credit. And lo and behold, your humble and long suffering servant has been creditworthy all these many years.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Freedom Loses One" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/opinion/brooks-freedom-loses-one.html?_r=0), David Brooks observes that an imbalance has arisen between freedom and restraint, giving rise to:

• "A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate."
• "Decline in marriage."
• "More children raised in unsteady homes."
• "Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings."

My cravings have given rise to higher debt levels, which are destroying our social fabric? Oh my goodness! I'm returning my Panasonic 55", which I am paying for in 24 equal installments, tomorrow . . . not.

Brooks continues:

"Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention."

Now, I don't know too much about religion, but marriage and military service constraining my time, money and attention? I think I can darned well vouch for David on that point.

Brooks immediately goes on to say:

"Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law."

"Whether they understood it or not"? Hmm. ("What's that you said, dear? Every word that comes out of my mouth annoys you, dear?")

Brooks's conclusion:

"The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations."

Ah, yes, "a victory for the good life"! Celebrating my triumph and roaring with laughter, I just spilled half a cup of steaming coffee over my underwear. As the philosopher Hegel (not that moron, Chuck Hagel) would tell you, pleasure cannot exist without pain.

Bottom line: I have always favored same-sex marriage, but not because marriage "narrows your choices" and compels you to "embrace your obligations." Rather, it's a simple matter of equality.

Moreover, if Bill and Hillary Clinton can maintain their farce of a marriage - the architects are already busy planning Bill's semi-detached "Monica Wing" of the White House should Hillary win in 2016), why shouldn't anyone be entitled to engage in this folly.

"Just kidding, dear."