The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Newsweek ^ | January 09, 2010 | Ted Olsen

[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.

[xzins]

I agree.

They deceived these people of America in 2008. They’ll try it again in 2011....and I’ll not be surprised if they succeed. Last time Americans believed a Chicago street organizer was the messiah. The media will wrap him in a cape and convince America he’s superman.

I’m convinced he is a muslim or a muslim sympathizer.

[trisham]

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.

*******************************

1. Everyone can help their behaviour. We are all responsible for our actions.

2. Homosexual males do not usually behave conservatively. They do not usually believe in monogamy.

3. Marriage is not their goal. Destroying marriage is their goal.

4. You say you don't believe in "gay" marriage, but with the above post, you are promoting homosexual "marriage".

[Brytani]

See #297

Not even worth the bandwidth to argue with.

[little jeremiah]

What was/is his other screen name?

[An.American.Expatriate]

It isn’t just a religious institution. It’s also a civil institution. Always has been in this country, for very good reasons.

"Marriage" should never have been anything other than a religious intstitution. The Civil Institution was only to protect the parties concerned (spouse, children, etc ....) as a part of a de facto contract - not the protection of the religious institution!

It is my contention that government need only be involved as far as contractual obligations are entered into bewteen parties. I would go farther to state that these contracts, unlike the nebulous agreements of today, need to by concrete and, during thier lifetime, unalterable! IOW - if I make a contract today - the government can not come back in 20 years and change the rules of - who gets my money when I die - what my wife gets if she divorces me, etc ... - how much, if any of my pension she may be entitiled to, etc ....

There is no need for the government to define marriage - instead it must decide who can enter into a contract and whether the act of entering said contract is something the government needs to grant a special status.

[little jeremiah]

Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a Natural Law verity.

Religions just recognize that truth.

You just want to destroy marriage.

You don’t even state your own position clearly, so you a drag to discourse with.

[little jeremiah]

You are correct. I’m too busy to mess with deceitful duplicitous idiots any more today!

[Darksheare]

Gays have teh same rights as you and I.
What they want is government enforced privileges and elevated protected status for their behavior.
Say, you haven’t been IN the Folsom Street Fair, have you?

[EternalVigilance]

There is no need for the government to define marriage

Then, whether you will admit it or not, you are advocating for the destruction of the foundations of our civilization.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Then, whether you will admit it or not, you are advocating for the destruction of the foundations of our civilization.

I would really like to know how that would occur! Seriously! I am not one who is unwilling to listen to another side of an argument and change my opinion.

[Mr. Silverback]

Even though you rode the lightning, I would like to respond to your foolish conflation of a state stamp on perversion with liberating blacks from slavery and Jim Crow.

I disagree. Another person who disagrees is Crystal Dixon, a black woman who not only scoffs at the idea that gays suffer anything remotely like the civil rights violations perpetrated against blacks, but also said that the comparison is absurd because thousands of people have left the gay lifestyle but no one can stop being black.

And, in a wonderful example of what Mr. Olson calls “the values conservatives prize,” Ms. Dixon was fired from her job for daring to express her opinion on this issue. You see, the university that employs her didn’t feel anyone needed to hear from a black woman on what it’s like to be a black woman.

Here are some links:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355238,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355507,00.html
http://newsbusters.org/people/crystal-dixon

Every time the gay lobby gets the laws they want (gay marriage, sexual orientation “human rights laws” or both), every other person in that jurisdiction becomes a second-class citizen whose rights are gone if a gay person is offended by their activities. I’ll post a full list for you in the next post. An informed conservative who has seen what happened in countries, provinces and states that went down this road would not support this crap any more than they would support bringing back whites-only lunch counters.

You’re responsible for the information you’ve received. Go forth and stop acting like a tool of the left.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a Natural Law verity.

What in the "Natural Law" provides this truth?

Religions just recognize that truth.

Not all religions share your opinion of this - some, very old ones provide for polygamy ...

[Mr. Silverback]

Here’s your list. Ask these people about how the gay rights agenda is all about freedom. Ask yourself if “good christian men and women” are the sort to support this stuff, or if this stuff is more like Jim Crow than the laws we have now.

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS INFORMATION NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU.

Leo Childs
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005774.html

Scott Brockie
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/04041604.html

Ake Green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ake_Green

Scott Savage
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49761

Crystal Dixon
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355238,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355507,00.html
http://newsbusters.org/people/crystal-dixon

Ene Kiildi
http://people.maine.com/paula/pph/pph-2.9b.98.html

The Mennonites of Roxton Falls, Quebec
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081701.html

Christian (and Mormon, Jewish and Muslim) business owners in Colorado
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68060

Guy Earle
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7096c4b6-e48c-46ea-9aeb-7a075a3766e2

Christian youth in Australia
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062406.html

Christian civil servants
http://www.10news.com/news/16663610/detail.html

The Philadelphia 11
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41705

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association
Yeshiva University
California Lutheran High School
A psychologist at North Mississippi Health Services
A Vermont civil servant
Elane Photography
A Christian doctor
A private adoption agency
The Boy Scouts
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

eHarmony
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27821393/

The Mormon Church
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_11070812?source=rss

[EternalVigilance]

The natural family is the basis of all the important components of our civilization, and the incubator of the future.

It’s also the foundation of real economics. In fact the very etymology of the word economics involves the family unit and the village.

Destroy the family and you destroy the community and the society.

Destroy the foundation of a building, and the whole edifice will fall down. It’s a certainty.

[Darksheare]

Not letting homosexuals marry is NOT oppression.
I don’t know of any groups of homosexuals that were picking cotton in southern cotton fields, or forced to build pyramids, or forced to stomp mud into bricks.
Homosexuality is not a civil right.

[Darksheare]

Yes you are.

[Mr. Silverback]

With all due respect for Mr. Olson, who is usually a smart, standup guy, this list shows why the “conservative case for gay marriage” makes about as much sense as a conservative case for whites-only lunch counters:

Leo Childs
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005774.html

Scott Brockie
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/04041604.html

Ake Green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ake_Green

Scott Savage
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49761

Crystal Dixon
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355238,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355507,00.html
http://newsbusters.org/people/crystal-dixon

Ene Kiildi
http://people.maine.com/paula/pph/pph-2.9b.98.html

The Mennonites of Roxton Falls, Quebec
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081701.html

Christian (and Mormon, Jewish and Muslim) business owners in Colorado
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68060

Guy Earle
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7096c4b6-e48c-46ea-9aeb-7a075a3766e2

Christian youth in Australia
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062406.html

Christian civil servants
http://www.10news.com/news/16663610/detail.html

The Philadelphia 11
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41705

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association
Yeshiva University
California Lutheran High School
A psychologist at North Mississippi Health Services
A Vermont civil servant
Elane Photography
A Christian doctor
A private adoption agency
The Boy Scouts
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

eHarmony
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27821393/

The Mormon Church
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_11070812?source=rss

This is certainly not an exhaustive list.

Since when does firing people for thought crimes, shutting people up and forcing them to do things against their religion have anything to do with “the values conservatives prize?” That’s the result wherever the gay lobby gets its way.

[An.American.Expatriate]

I agree with everything you just wrote.

I fail to see though how this has anything to do with whether (or how) government defines marriage or not.

There are societies that exist that are more village oriented - i.e., the role of husband / wife plays a lesser role and these are, as far a family and morals are concerned, at least equal to our judeo-christian traditions.

Our relgious beliefs govern whether we, as individuals, enter into a union before god that can not be broken, or whether we enter into a union before man, which we can desolve “at will” (which is what “marriage” is today!)

I think it would be difficult to argue that the current state of secular marriage in any way supports the family unit or “the village”. Any economic interests served are those of the state and / or lawyers.

[HamiltonJay]

There is no case for COURTS creating law, period.

Marriage in the secular sense is a legislative issue, and for any court to say a legislature can or cannot deem the requirements for a marriage under the law, is fundamentally insane.

No homosexual has had any “right” violated by a legislature refusing to pass a law stating they can marry a member of the same sex, in fact they are being treated absolutely equal under the law.. The law says any 2 people can marry as long as they of different gender... So, any gay man can marry any woman they want, and vice versa. They can marry legally, they choose not to... to say the legislature does not have authority to determine this is treason.

Now from a religious standpoint, the state has no say in marriage at all, if the state abolished its recognition of marriage tommorrow, I would be no less married to my wife than I am today.

From that perspect, 2 homosexuals can find some libertine pastor to wed them in some ceremony anytime, regardless of the secular recognition. They don’t generally do that though... Why? because its not about being “married” its about politics, nothing more. Attempting to force the majority to accept what they find generally abhorant behavior as “normal”.. not tolerate it, no but accept it as normal.. and that’s what this is about.

[EternalVigilance]

The fact that our current crop of compromised political and legal elites are either passively abrogating their duty to protect the natural family, or actively helping to destroy it, is not a legitimate pretext for taking a jackhammer to what’s left of our civilization’s foundational organizational entity.

And what primitive societies do has little to do with the subject at hand: the survival of America’s “advanced” society.

Although, I must say, those “primitive” villages probably wouldn’t sit still for one second for men “marrying” men or women “marrying” women. They know intrinsically that it is wrong, that such a thing is a gross violation of how Nature’s God made this world.