Let’s Admit It: Everyone Secretly Hates Marriage of Bill De Blasio and Chirlane McCray

I’ll come right out with it; I have a weird enthusiasm for celebrity divorces. I’m not proud of this enthusiasm, nor do I engage in schadenfreude. Well, maybe a touch of schadenfreude.

But babe, if you boast online and set yourself up with photo ops for the diamond, the dress, or the destination wedding, and when you speak in terms that do not hint at the multitude of never-ending compromises that is marriage, you’re putting yourself out there. And so, if a PR release for the divorce comes, there may be a bit of smirking.

The thing is, there’s a solid and science-backed reason we talk about celebrities. The politicians, models, athletes, influencers, musicians, porn stars, web cammers, and famous writers (all 136)? Homo sapiens were constructed to work together; we’re herd beasts. For that reason, among others, we have built-in brain structures devoted to social signals.

And to live and function tribally, we need to chisel out a moral code. And a method to share this code. Thus, one of the story’s glorious functions is communication.

Back when we lived in tribes, small towns, villages, and neighborhoods, most people never ventured further than miles outside their doorstep.

We gossiped about the neighbors. Who had a miracle baby by divine conception? Whose water turned into wine? Which herder made the sheep nervous? And it was good. It’s how we formed the strictures and structure of our community.

Fables impart and fine-tune our evolving cultural systems. They are entertainment and information coiled together.

What are Letters from a Stoic, The Tao Te Ching, The Bhagavad Gita, the Old and New Testament, and The Art of War but tales that inform about the human condition, including going forth and multiplying and proving the adage that all’s fair in love and war?

What are The Code of Hammurabi; the Wujing (Five Classics) from the Confucian tradition; the tales of the ancestors from Africa; the stories of gods and goddesses on Mt. Olypus but a combo of soap opera, cautionary tales, and instruction manuals on interacting with others?

And so we come to the marriage of Bill de Blasio and Chirlane McCray, who are most definitely not getting divorced. Most certainly, they are not. They are simply separating while continuing to live in the same house and availing themselves of the opportunities to date other people.

My own true soul mate (known henceforth as SO) — my other half, the one who completes me, the individual who is “my person” — the term of art of the moment — wasted no time in emailing me a link to the Post story.

(An aside: I love catchy and soon-to-be-obsolete catchphrases, such as “my person,” that I start using too late and continue with too long almost as much as I love celebrity divorces!)

At that moment, my finger could have been tapping the link to Matt Flegenheimer’s thoughtful “Bill de Blasio and Chirlane McCray Are Separating” for The New York Times. Our links may have passed one another on some star-crossed satellite from across the cosmos!

Of course, gentle reader, I went straight to the comments in the story. I bet you did, too. Straight. To. The only thing more poignant than billionaires at the bottom of the briny deep — without being mentioned in the will — is the dissolution of the sacred bonds of matrimony.

However, it should be noted that in the case of Chirlane McCray and Bill de Blasio, this isn’t divorce; this isn’t marriage; this is not polyamory because it lacks the commitment to the other — the very thing they’re dissolving. It’s a separation that will continue for the foreseeable future or forever, whichever comes first.

According to the great grey lady, The Times, they’ll continue sharing the Park Slope townhouse “for the time being.”

What interests me is the poised, almost blase, announcement — during the three-hour-long Times interview. It’s fresh — no pronouncements about remaining best friends. No thanking one another for an amazing journey. No requesting privacy at a press conference.

McCray asked the Times’ reporter if the story could include their phone numbers. De Blasio queried about posting workout gear pics. That’s the spirit! Carpe Diem.

However, one commentator noted that married people can’t be legally forced to testify against one another in a court of law. Say, for instance, in a case of monies that may have been momentarily misplaced.

Reading this snide comment, my hot take was akin to Damn, I wish I’d said that!

People can be so suspicious! Haven’t you ever found a twenty in your coat pocket or a credit card in an old shoe? Billions behind the sofa cushions? Things happen. And if we knew where it was, then it wouldn’t be lost in the first place.

The SO’s analysis was that when two people love one another, they find a way to be together forever. The SO is such a nice person.

They say that opposites attract.

Yes, opposites do often, ahem, come together. And then debate. Argue. Construct critiques and criticism. One example, one out of a possible, incalculable plentitude: what to put in the fruit bowl and where to place the bloody fruit bowl.

A conversation that inspired the SO — apropos of nothing — to Google “stupid arguments.” Yes, it’s a thing; it has its own YouTube channel.

My, but we’re an inventive species. (If you were curious, the fruit bowl lives on the dining room table for the moment.)

But before we leave our digression, it should be noted that the aforementioned fruit bowl debate inspired the meta-discussion of whether it was of “sufficient entertainment value” to be worthy of the Couple’s Having Stupid Arguments Fight Club YouTube channel. All parties concluded that it was not.

Warning: the competition for YouTube Argument Video viewer- engagement is fierce!

And speaking of brutal, weren’t we all just stunned by the vitriol expressed in the comments regarding de Blasio’s stint as NYC’s Mayor? There was also some ill wind blowing about monies perhaps misplaced during McCray’s civic projects. Some mumbling about misappropriated finances.

And while it pains me to relate, it must be noted that there has been some ageist attitudes and homophobic slurs regarding mature lesbians and joviality aimed at gym-jonesing ex-mayors who wonder if posting workout photos would be a good idea? But only if it added to the integrity of the piece.

What we’re not hearing much, and I feel that we should, is: What a brilliant idea! Because it is.

In the interest of full disclosure: The ol’ SO and I have not formally tied any knots because I believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Marriage is — arguably — an archaic system based upon subjection, property ownership, and dynasty. Absolutely, it should be an option for those who want it, but not necessarily a living arrangement that’s legally and monetarily privileged through laws and financial incentives—beyond being one of a range of options for living together.

Why aren’t people turning to their spouses and saying, “Honey, lookee here! Whaddya think?”

Why not keep — and share with other living arrangements — the advantages of marriage, which is admittedly a prime institution for raising children, and see if we can modify, adapt, or individualize some of the parts?

It’s the pull between connection and autonomy, singularity and plurality, solitude and freedom, and the responsibility for it all, or the compromises necessary for coupledom, even if it means stifling parts of your personality.

All marriages, separations, polyamory, hook-ups, liaisons, affairs, and divorces are equal. It’s just that some are more equal than others.

Some of my favorite celebrity interactions regarding marriage and divorce include:

• Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin’s “conscious uncoupling” in 2014.
• Bruce Springsteen and Patti Scialfa. Scialfa, who contributed vocals, tambourine, and guitar to the E Street Band since 1984, witnessed Bruce’s marriage (1985) and divorce (1988) to model/actor Julianne Phillips. Springsteen and Scialfa wed in 1991 and now share three grown children. NOW that’s a flick keen to parade across the big screen, IMAO.
• Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith’s open marriage; feel the love.
• Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. With detours, divorces, and substantial back tattoos. Kids. Rehab. Bennifer: A love story for our times.

Topic: How to consider the health insurance, housing, friend groups, and extended family that relationships constructed around traditional matrimony entail.

Now, let’s look at the legalization of gay marriage, one of society’s shining accomplishments of late. We see the beauty and the grace of people living the life they choose with a life partner, in match-step, in a legally sanctioned union.

And yet — perhaps this was a missed opportunity to look at the institution of marriage and what it could be. I mean beyond a vestige of feudal times when marriages secured land rights.

The sanctity of union might include groups of friends, configurations of family members such as parents and grown children/grandchildren, siblings, and cousins. It could include romantic triads, foursomes, and other emotional and mathematical equations.

Speaking of the sanctity of marriage, have you noticed that the mainstream entertainment media is filling a need for a narrative around love, romance, dating, and marriage? Ratings would indicate that you have — but it’s okay, no worries.

Offerings of the Romance/Marriage genre include, but are not limited to:

• Too Hot to Handle
• Temptation Island
• Love is Blind
• Married at First Sight
• MILF Manor
• Cosmic Love
• Wife Swap
• 90 Day Fiancé
• The Bachelorette
• Farmer Wants a Wife (my favorite entertainment concept)
• Love on the Spectrum
• Naked and Afraid of Love
• Ex on the Beach

You can’t make this stuff up. Wait, come to think of it; someone did make this stuff up. Then elevator pitched it. Someone else green-lighted the concept and lined up the financing, producers, director, and behind-screen talent. And then we watch it—mea culpa.

As for McCray and de Blasio, this current state of affairs started with one question: “Why aren’t you lovey-dovey anymore?” Evolving into a conversation focused on what they wanted and weren’t getting. “You can’t fake it,” Ms. McCray said.

“You can feel when things are off,” Mr. de Blasio said, “and you don’t want to live that way.”’ He said, “And I think one of the things I should have said more is: ‘Are you happy? What will make you happy? What’s missing in your life?’”

As the Times interview drew to a close, de Blasio played “Mango” on his phone, saying it expressed their feelings. Mr. de Blasio hummed as Ms. McCray danced behind him. “Isn’t that beautiful?” he said.