With the definition of marriage changing (evolving?) from a permanent union between a man and woman open to having children to two people who love one another very much, it was only a matter of time before writers for The New York Times would want to equate friendships with marriage. If children and sex are removed from the equation, then a platonic “best-friend marriage” becomes possible.
As Glen Stanton argues, when society goes off of the logic of “love is love” (a tautology which basically means that all loves are equal), what follows is “marriage is marriage” (where all marriages between anyone are equal). Marriage is redefined into oblivion, something traditional marriage advocates warned about when same-sex marriage became legal. Even defining marriage as “two people who love one another” seems too narrow. Rather, it seems fairer to say marriage is just “people (usually two people, but not always) who are together for the sake of being together.”
Whatever angle one takes, there doesn’t seem to be much purpose in all this. Why would a person want to bother with marrying their friend while presumably keeping themselves open to marrying someone else? What need is there to keep a friend tied down by a marital contract? And why should the government be involved or offer its blessing when it’s completely unnecessary?