In defense of Brooks

David Brooks' NYT op-ed, which began as a rant against the evils of promiscuity and ended as a plea for gay marriage, was more clever than just about anything (other than some especially good episodes of Seinfeld, which are clever in a totally different way). Many bloggers, Sullivan included, were taken aback by Brooks' intro--why on earth sould a conservative argument for gay marriage have to be so damn conservative?

Think about it, he began by writing something that would absolutely disgust any good Times reader (but would cause any social conservatives reading the article to nod vigorously) and ended with something most of the readership (but not social conservatives) would agree with: that all Americans should be allowed to legally marry their spouses. Brooks' point was essentially that even the most socially conservative person (i.e. someone who believes promiscuity is "spiritual suicide") ought to support gay marriage. This is an incredibly strong point, much more so than suggesting that, say, moderate Republicans ought to support gay marriage. No, Brooks, by laying out his argument as he does, insists that every last American must favor gay marriage, since almost everyone other than the socially-conservative audience he speaks for at the beginning of the article already supports it.

While Brooks himself may be morally against promiscuity, but it doesn't really matter; by welcoming social conservatives with open arms, he is able to make the most pro-marriage-rights argument possible, and does so beautifully.