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 ...
He is a fool.
He is accepting the falicy of “born that way”
There is no conservative case for homosexual based marriage.
homosexuality does not contribute ANYTHING to societies future.
Notice he is not going after anyone else to persuade. The effort of his persuation is based on the assumption THE MAJORITY OF THE USA IS CONSERVATIVE.
He shames BKO’s memory. I wonder how Ted feels about the mosque. I guess it doesn’t matter. If you pay him enough he’ll defend it I’m sure.
Why stop at two, Ted? Aren't polygamists also entitled to "create a loving household and a social and economic partnership"? Are you a bigot, Ted?
Does he mean like this?
Caution as it's graphic and children were present for this depravity.
I didn't realize that it was official. Now, I'm really going to be sick.
I even wonder about this argument given nofault divorces and commonization of divorces and legalization of adultery. I certainly see no benefit from giving same sex couples the social stamp of approval from the government that would come from legal marriage, nor the financial benefits that they would get that we would have to pay for.
I saw Ted Olsen on FNSunday (Chris Wallas) and he made all the liberal constitutional arguments for his case, He said that the US constitution demands that states marry same sex couples( he didnt phrase it that way naturally) because a prior court ruled marriage a human right. Then he made the case that the 14th amendment was about same sex marriage. Wallas asked him about judicial activism and Olsen acted like there was no such thing.
“I wonder how Ted feels about the mosque.”
He came out in favor of Hamosque yesterday. I am not joking:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2573117/posts
Reposted for truth!
Has anyone ever stopped to ask:
1. why the government needs to define marriage?
2. when / where the people ever GAVE the government the power to define it?
that is a Homo-con
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.
One of the definitions of the word “conservative” is “reluctant to consider new ideas or accept change.”
The word and concept of “marriage” has had a definition for thousands of years.
Seems to me from a purely literal standpoint, the conservative view is inarguable
What a smug fool.
Marriage out of human society is the real goal of the left and their ideological “father”.
Newsweak seems to be “big brothering” the comment section.
buffoons like the author assume all opposition is mere religion. Religion is entirely unnecessary for oppsition to homosexual based marriage. (Just as it is not needed to oppose human/animal sex.)
Graphic doesn’t begin to describe it. It’s horrifying.
And yesterday Ted Olson came out in favor of the mosque at Ground Zero.
His young arm candy wife must be wearing the pants in the family.
Barbara was his third wife, so it's clear that his attitudes about marriage and family are far different than those of many people who have traditional, conservative views about marriage and family.
This jack@ss served as an advisor to Rudy Giuliani's failed 2008 presidential campaign, folks. Nothing more needs to be said.
Olson must have had too many DC homosexuals influencing him.
This is not a persuation to the majority of the USA, it is damage control to his reputation. Then again the RINOs are probably worshiping him for this.
OK...who has the goat pics on Ted Olsen? He’s backing this for a reason other than “it’s the conservative thing to do.”
And why are they in this business in the first place? Whose interest is served in "inheritance" rights?
No government in marriage then you can never inherit anything since lineage can never be legally established via legitimacy.
If each individual where allowed to disposs of his/her property as they deemed proper (and not adversly affecting the public good) - the government would need only be involved insomuch as contract law is needed.
We used to have a non-government system. it was full of fraud and abandonment. Who needs divorce and child support payments, just leave and abandon and you have no fear of consequence.
In the case of child support, it is easily establishable whether a particular person is the mother/father of a child. In the case of divorce - if the government need be involved, it should be based on a contract which both parties agree to - not some nebulous set of ever changing rules. Furthermore - this would be and argument FOR homosexual unions!
Government out of marriage is the goal of the left and a specific goal of the homosexuals.
More like a goal of people interested in LIMITED government ...
In the long run, that's the only solution to the underlying problem.
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.