Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Sorry. The stated ultimate purpose of the United States Constitution is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity.
Government has a vested interest in the preservation and protection of one man, one woman marriage.
Oh, say there...
your buddy johnnycap is no longer with us...
I see that you’re an expat, but are you a Republican? Just curious.
ah ... I see. I contend that powers not granted to the government are not granted and, in most cases should not be granted and that makes me ignorant, okay!
Or, the most likely scenario you are nothing but a pro-gay, pro-gay marriage and pro-homosexual agenda supporter.
Oh, right - I've been a sleeper agent all these years - just waiting to pounce on this thread to advocate for gays!
;-)
Ah - pretty!
Agreed.
Government has a vested interest in the preservation and protection of one man, one woman marriage.
Why is government concerned about a religious institution? I would think the preservation and protection of marriage is a job of the church, not the state.
But we might be discovering the catacombs again.
You know it's odd because in the past two thousand years there have been circumstances every fifty years ago that prompted Christians to think that End Times were imminent.
For the record I think western Europe in the mid to late 14th and early 15th centuries still probably had the best reason to believe that the Apocalypse would happen at any moment. The Hundred Years War raged between France and England. This lead to heavy taxation, peasant revolts and famines in England and widespread destruction in France. In the mid 14th century the Black Death swept through Europe killing a huge portion of the population (and the Black Death would return every decade or so for centuries, though it took less lives each time). The Great Schism took place where there were popes and anti-popes in Avignon and Rome and each had various allies among different European kings. Basically, people of this period had plenty to be afraid of.
I had always believed that I could personally overlook world events as just a temporary phase; however, I'm no longer so sure.
World War II was probably the modern world's greatest struggle between good and evil, but the truth was that seventy years ago there WAS good to combat evil. Today, I am no longer certain that the forces of good are strong enough to combat evil. I'm starting to understand the mindset of past generations when they started to believe that the end could actually occur in their lifetimes. I never thought the day would come when I was talking to people who were actually contemplating leaving the United States because they no longer wanted to be here, but that is happening more and more.
Basically, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we soon had our own catacombs.
Because the preservation of the society and the civilization is not just a religious issue, but a secular one as well.
Olsen is dead wrong and so was the activist judge. No matter how you try to frame this, civil law can never prevail over natural law. When it does, it becomes perverted and deviates from truth and justice.
Natural Law
Marriage = one man and one woman = family (proto society) without which true society ceases to exist.
“gay” marriage is an antitype. One does not place an instrument of life into an oraface of death and decay and and expect the same results as a true marriage.
It isn’t just a religious institution. It’s also a civil institution. Always has been in this country, for very good reasons.
Understand. My Bonafides may or may not convince, but here ya go ...
I posses a picture of myself (age ~5) with a Goldwater Sash.
I have a invitation letter from the Nixon Administration to his inaugeration (from my parents of course!)
I manned telephone banks in Maryland in the late 70's in support of Gerald Ford.
I proudly served in the US Army under Reagan.
I have remained a fierce supporter of GWB over here all through the 00's -
I am registered as Republican.
But - I am NOT a GOP Republican - I am a conservative that believes in VERY limited government and that the constitution means exactly what it says, needs no interpretation or searches for "original intent".
Hope that clarifies ... Fregards!
Expat wants to eliminate marriage altogether, except in churches which he has no use for anyway.
I wonder why he wants this.
There is only one problem with that argument - define "secular" marriage - there are too many!
Very clever. I think the difference is that thieves can help their behavior. Some here think that gays should be celibate and stop their behavior too, but pairing up for love is wired into us and we all do it.
I am not a proponent of gay marriage, but I would rather see gays living in conservative couples than in the wild, liberal boystowns in every major city in the nation. Remember all the innocents who died of AIDS due to tainted transfusions?
That part of Olson’s argument I agree with. I’d like to encourage gays to be conservatives, vote with us, live with dignity, and be able to pursue happiness like we do.
I do not espouse the destruction of marriage. I do not believe it should confer any special privelege by law.
Hmm, those two sentences are not in agreement.
As longtermmemory said:
Government is in the recording inheritance and property rights business.
No government in marriage then you can never inherit anything since lineage can never be legally established via legitimacy.
We used to have a non-government system. it was full of fraud and abandonment. Who needs divorce and childsupport payments, just leave and abandon and you have no fear of consequence.
Government out of marriage is the goal of the left and a specific goal of the homosexuals.
Marriage was established by common law going back millenia. This is why normal marriage has broad protection.
Civil unions are a legislative construct and thus can be ignored in other states or your state.
The legal effort is to go into the “right” area to mooch onto the common law proction of the law.
The voters of california did define it, I think their will should stand. Do you disagree?
I seem to have entered into a debate which is going far beyond what I originally intended.
If it is your, or Jim’s opinion that I am crossing a line I will desist and refrain from posting anything further on this issue.
I would appreciate a review of what I have posted in this thread, to date and a PM or other signal if these are deemed inappropriate.
Those that have changed their behavior give the lie to those who claim it's not possible.
I’d like to encourage gays to be conservatives, vote with us, live with dignity, and be able to pursue happiness like we do.
No one is stopping them. Instead they push the homosexual agenda. They want to force acceptance that their lifestyle is normal. It's not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.