David Brooks has a good [column](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/opinion/brooks-freedom-loses-one.html?hp) today. Here’s the money quote.
> 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.
Brooks is rightly cutting through the current political rhetoric about rights and equality, both of which are important, to point out that flourishing (he called it the good life) requires limits to choice and commensurate responsibilities. The idea that unlimited choice is equivalent to liberty is absurd on the face as long as two human beings exist close enough to interact in any way. Social existence, the form of life we are born into, is always a balance of selfishness and care for others in the form of accepting limits to how my actions encroach upon your space.
The whole idea of rights, it seems to me, is a consequence of our failure to care for others. When we do care as a fundamental behavioral pattern, this legislative way of constraining behavior becomes unnecessary. If we start with a premise that human beings are fundamentally selfish, then we will construct, as we have, our institutions around rules that limit action.
But when we construct institutions, such as marriage, based on love as the mutual acceptance of the other, few rules need to be imposed. Flourishing or the good life, as Brooks writes, is found in the satisfaction that comes when all those others (humans and non-humans) that enter one’s life are being cared for. I would hesitate as Brooks writes, to call these acts of care: obligations. That word sounds too much like “shoulds” or “musts” imposed from the outside. Care, as I write, always refers to actions internally and authentically generated.
I do agree that a win for same-sex marriage is a victory of sorts for flourishing, but only for those who choose to live authentically within whatever constraints they determine for themselves. It is almost laughable to see it as a victory for a society that could not be farther away from a culture based on love and care. Even this issue is being largely argued, as Brooks says, on the grounds of equality or equity, and the legal construct of non-discrimination.
Perhaps this win if or when it happens will come to be seen as a step towards sustainability-as-flourishing, but we will have to start looking at it through a different lens, one of love and care. If we do do that, then maybe we will start to redesign our institutional rules from the level of the Constitution to those we use to set our children’s allowances to reflect the natural limits that govern relationships in loving contexts. I have a profound belief that human beings are at heart loving creatures, in spite of our selfish and bloody behavior over a few millennia. But this short article I quote today illustrates the difficulty of re-discovering that in a world where love and care are commoditized just like almost everything else of real value, and where unlimited choice is equated with the good life. People who believe that is true should read Barry Schwartz’s excellent [book](http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/0060005696/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364956249&sr=1-2&keywords=tyranny+of+choice), *The Paradox of Choice.*