Is Garth Brooks Gay? - Gus what all people say about

Contents:

• DAVID BROOKS’S GAY-MARRIAGE DELN
• IS GARTH BROOKS GAY?

DAVID BROOKS’S GAY-MARRIAGE DELN

Is David Brooks Gay? So om all that, we n nfirm that David Brooks is not gay; he is a straight man. The 'New York Tim' lumnist go on a weird, bter rant agast gay rights.

Ostensibly, the lumn purports to make a sgle ironic pot, which is that by petng the Supreme Court for the right to marry, gays and lbians were not expandg their eedoms – and th ntug, as Brooks impli, a long and perhaps-regrettable wng streak for people’s right to “follow their sir” that dat back to those hated Sixti – but rather nstrag them. A reprentative of lns of gays and lbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the urt to help put lims on their own eedom of choice.

Brooks here apparently expects his gay and lbian rears to scratch their heads here and thk, “Gosh, what do he mean by that? Boy, those gays and lbians are sure gog to be for a shock when they fd out that beg a mted relatnship volv nstrats on behavr.

IS GARTH BROOKS GAY?

First of all, gays and lbians are not askg to be forced to marriage – they’re actually mpaigng for a new legal choice they didn’t have before. Once Amerins acknowledged gay people exist, then, of urse, they wanted them enmhed webs of obligatn. Translated to human English, this passage would read somethg like this: “The reason same-sex marriage enjoys such explibly broad support now is bee middle Ameri wants to throw a over gay culture, now that ’s been let out of s ge.

It’s more like this: Once Ameri accepted that gay people exist, givg them full and equal rights beme a foregone ncln for all cent people. None of what he’s talkg about is wh a hundred of anythg relevant to the gay marriage qutn. The whole world seems rapidly to be g to an unrstandg that this discrimatn agast gays and lbians has to end, and the fact that this change is g is a betiful thg.

There have been all manner of nservative rpons to the growg acceptance of same-sex marriage, om John Roberts’s sulkg about gay power to Ross Douthat’s lgh-if-you-will-but-marriage-is-llapsg le to startled acceptance of gay children—or, the se of Senator Mark Kirk, who announced his support Tuday, the credg of a near-ath experience—to bter rejectnism (somethg Gee Packer wr about over at Daily Comment).

And then there is David Brooks, who exam the suatn and is pleased to disver that gays and lbians have que misunrstood what they are dog—which is, short, to prove that David Brooks is right about the world, and that they, until now, have been wrong. And th “a reprentative of lns of gays and lbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the urt to help put lims on their own eedom of choice.

Brooks treats gays and lbians, en masse, like hedonistic teen-agers who he’s lighted to see have jt grown up. Perhaps one should be grateful to Brooks for showg nservativ a way to support same-sex marriage while holdg on to their smugns—that they drop might be too much to ask—and jt be glad that he do so whout rortg to the phrase “the old ball and cha, ” turng, stead, to the random Edmund Burke quote generator he’s got rigged up first, ’s worth challengg Brooks’s central, bld assertn: that marriage equaly reprents a move om a state which gays and lbians lived eely to one which they are nstraed—om an absence of state supervisn to life unr society’s reful watch.

Brooks se the bathho as if there were never raids on them, or as if gays and lbians had all chosen anonymo settgs over the optn of holdg hands while walkg on the street jt bee they liked dark rooms better. The disvery that even the most opprsive of circumstanc one n create spac where love surviv do say a great al about the domable search for eedom, but to ll eedom’s apotheosis is jt eedom “los one” when gays and lbians get to marry—and remember, ’s still only legal ne stat—one wonrs what sort of velopments would mer a Brooks lumn entled “FREEDOM WINS ONE. 8, California’s gay-marriage ban?