I think we’ve found some common ground on marriage. And I take nothing for granted, so it’s worth highlighting that I’m getting a lot of e-mails like this one in response to my post on yesterday’s incredible “Vows” column in the New York Times:
K-Lo: I am a hard-core liberal. I disagree with much of what I read on the Corner (yet, I read it almost every day), and especially with your posts on socio-religious issues. However, I cannot but agree with you on the NYT story. When I read it this morning, well, my first reaction was that this should be posted under the title “shame”. From the article, it doesn’t seem like either of them were having any problems with their marriages. So I presume that everything was fine – and that they both simply found “someone better” – and decided to take (re-take?) the plunge….
and this one:
NYT public editor Arthur Brisbane will get a mailbox full of outrage about those unjustly glamorized betrayers, it’s a sure bet. Mine was sent before I read your timely, sensible post. As a former journalist (Detroit News), I understand the goal of diversifying a column that sounds like an echo chamber at times — but featuring two home-wreckers choosing a marriage do-over shouldn’t be the way to go. BTW, I’m more of a Daily Dish loyalist than a NRO reader . . . but this one transcends ideology. We may not always define ”family values” the same way, but “vows” mean commitment.
It’s entirely possible, of course, that the New York Times isn’t telling us the whole story. But the way they tell it, it’s a real shame. And it really doesn’t have to be “how [life] goes.” And that, mercifully, may be near-universally appreciated.