Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Newsweek ^ | January 09, 2010 | Ted Olsen

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: boies; homosexualagenda; nosuchthing; olsen; omg; prop8; tedolson; victorkilo; vk; zot; zuluoscartango
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-447 next last
Maybe this is a re-post. If it is, I apologize. I wasn't aware of this. I heard Boies on Imus this morning talking about this. I think it's good to know who your enemies are. The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
1 posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:06 AM PDT by throwback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: throwback

Government needs to get out of the marrying business.


2 posted on 08/19/2010 6:19:28 AM PDT by ronnyquest (There's a communist living in the White House! Now, what are you going to do about it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

Where is the barf alert?


3 posted on 08/19/2010 6:20:52 AM PDT by 84rules ( Ooh-Rah! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

Turncoat Ted Olson wants to don the mantle of conservative after what he’s done?


4 posted on 08/19/2010 6:21:44 AM PDT by relictele (Me lumen vos umbra regit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback
Well... after reading this, I felt like I was watching the scene of the movie "Undercover Brother" in which "the General," (a Colin Powell-type character portrayed by Billy Dee Williams) being expected to announce his candidacy for the Presidency, instead introduces his line of fried chicken restaurants. Essentially, he behaves in a manner completely inconsistent with his past, and the main reason for it is that he was brainwashed.
5 posted on 08/19/2010 6:23:16 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

Homosexual(gay) marriage = oxymoron


6 posted on 08/19/2010 6:23:38 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

He likes the victory Homosque too.


7 posted on 08/19/2010 6:24:08 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

Looking forward to reading part 2 of the article; “The Conservative Case in support of Polygamy”. If “love” is the only criteria for marriage, then polygamy is the next step.


8 posted on 08/19/2010 6:24:08 AM PDT by Adams (Fight on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary Bernard Madoff, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate the long-approved against the theft of property.

My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican challenge the "traditional" definition of private property ownership 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 theft. This does not make sense, because the thief's newfound property promotes the values conservatives prize. Property ownership is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between an individual and society which creates a social and economic partnership between citizens. We encourage people to own property because the commitments they make to improving and profiting from their possessions provides benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Property ownership requires thinking beyond one's own immediate needs and providing for the future. It transforms a citizen from a non-stakeholder into an involved citizen who shares aspirations with his peers, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be thieves want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

9 posted on 08/19/2010 6:25:31 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback
How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage

Ummm, dunno. Because he's got a new girlfriend and her friends think it's cool? That's usually the reason. Buh-bye, Ted. Hope your late wife is prayin' for ya from Heaven. You're in a bad "place," and the devil likes it like that.

10 posted on 08/19/2010 6:25:44 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

Now that tolerant Ted has come out in favor of the Victory Mosque, maybe his next article should be “The Muslim Case for Gay Marriage.”

Go luck with that one, Ted!


11 posted on 08/19/2010 6:26:58 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback
because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize.

Conservatives do not "prize" deviancy.

12 posted on 08/19/2010 6:26:58 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

“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?”

Because like any other filthy RINO, you are more interested in being liked by the gang, then doing what is right.

I am sick of these phony plastic banana jerks.


13 posted on 08/19/2010 6:27:22 AM PDT by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

HORSEFEATHERS!


14 posted on 08/19/2010 6:27:28 AM PDT by Pilgrim's Progress (http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/BYTOPICS/tabid/335/Default.aspx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

At least Ted makes the case why it’s good for society to change the ages old definition of marriage. I don’t buy a word of it but at least it’s better than the usual “I want it because I want it and it’s fair”.


15 posted on 08/19/2010 6:28:34 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

So, what’s the “conservative case” for square circles?


16 posted on 08/19/2010 6:29:25 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Adams

A liberal cesspool of a dying magazine isn’t even qualified to know what conservative is?


17 posted on 08/19/2010 6:29:56 AM PDT by SanFranDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: throwback

This is absolutely disgusting. Ted Olson has sold his soul or lost his mind or both!


18 posted on 08/19/2010 6:31:24 AM PDT by pgkdan (When the same man...holds the sword and the purse, there is an end of liberty: George Mason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest
Government needs to get out of the marrying business.

Agreed.

Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church.

Government should stay out of it altogether. Otherwise...


19 posted on 08/19/2010 6:32:55 AM PDT by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality Now: Islamo-Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: throwback
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage is in itself an oxymoron. No successful civilization in the history of the world has endorsed homosexuality. Now liberal lawmakers and judges have made homosexuals a “protected class” with special legal rights and protections unavailable to most Americans.

Homosexuality is sinful behavior. In the bible it is described as an abomination. Homosexuals undermine society and erode moral values. It is a lifestyle that is both physically and spiritually unhealthy.

20 posted on 08/19/2010 6:35:16 AM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


21 posted on 08/19/2010 6:35:51 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

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.


22 posted on 08/19/2010 6:35:57 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback
it is a stable bond between two individuals

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?

23 posted on 08/19/2010 6:36:06 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback
because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize.

Does he mean like this?

Caution as it's graphic and children were present for this depravity.

Folsom Street Fair

24 posted on 08/19/2010 6:36:57 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevao
Now that tolerant Ted has come out in favor of the Victory Mosque

I didn't realize that it was official. Now, I'm really going to be sick.

25 posted on 08/19/2010 6:37:51 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: throwback; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; FromLori; Gilbo_3; NFHale; ...
RE :”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.

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.

26 posted on 08/19/2010 6:38:10 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

“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


27 posted on 08/19/2010 6:38:28 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest
Government needs to get out of the marrying business.

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?

28 posted on 08/19/2010 6:39:56 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest

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.


29 posted on 08/19/2010 6:40:00 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: throwback

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


30 posted on 08/19/2010 6:40:15 AM PDT by wilco200 (11/4/08 - The Day America Jumped the Shark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwback

What a smug fool.


31 posted on 08/19/2010 6:41:02 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Marriage out of human society is the real goal of the left and their ideological “father”.


32 posted on 08/19/2010 6:41:16 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: All

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.)


33 posted on 08/19/2010 6:43:02 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Graphic doesn’t begin to describe it. It’s horrifying.


34 posted on 08/19/2010 6:43:52 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: throwback

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.


35 posted on 08/19/2010 6:44:14 AM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: relictele
If Ted Olson hadn't garnered so much goodwill and sympathy after Barbara Olson lost her life on 9/11, I think a lot of conservatives would have had no hesitation about exposing him as a complete fraud years ago.

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.

36 posted on 08/19/2010 6:47:40 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DManA

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.


37 posted on 08/19/2010 6:47:54 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: throwback

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.”


38 posted on 08/19/2010 6:50:53 AM PDT by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Government is in the recording inheritance and property rights business.

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 ...

39 posted on 08/19/2010 6:51:03 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest
Government needs to get out of the marrying business.

In the long run, that's the only solution to the underlying problem.

40 posted on 08/19/2010 6:51:45 AM PDT by TrueRightWing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: throwback

Government needs to get out of marriage and leave it to those in churches who understand it.


41 posted on 08/19/2010 6:51:45 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (I don't look for leaders. I follow my own path, my way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carley

makes you wonder the kind of marriage he had with his late wife who died on 9/11

He seems to be weak minded.


42 posted on 08/19/2010 6:51:53 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: throwback
Mr. Olsen, the word marriage is far older than you and your imagery of what you can make it to mean. See now ‘marriage’ is a Heavenly sanctioned and created union but you high-minded moderate elitist go ahead and make wrong right and right wrong... Every last one of us are destined to have our individual one on one meet and greet with the Creator and maybe by then you can divine up an excuse where you imagined you have the power, authority, and gravitas to dabble with what HE set in motion.
43 posted on 08/19/2010 6:54:44 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Government is in the recording inheritance and property rights business.

None of which has anything specifically to do with marriage. You can make a will and leave your stuff to your spouse, or somebody else, or your cat, or whatever. The government's only role is to register the documentation, adjudicate disputes (Is it genuine? What does this clause mean exactly?), and enforce the results.

44 posted on 08/19/2010 6:59:10 AM PDT by TrueRightWing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: trisham

The term “graphic” does pale in comparison to the pictures.


45 posted on 08/19/2010 7:00:16 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TrueRightWing

it is all part and parcel of marriage benefits society not the individual.

the homo-con is any “love” is marriagable.

There is no love test in marriage.

There is only the primary function of marriage offspring.

Society rewards the institution not the individual.

Your argument is a pathetic “no its not” which is contradicted by a few millenia of practical experience.

We have no need for the empty future you advocate.


46 posted on 08/19/2010 7:04:42 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
dabble with what HE set in motion.

ding, ding, ding...'potato vs poatoe' for human beings to try to 'define' an institution created to serve HIM...

what God has joined, let no man separate thingy applies...

47 posted on 08/19/2010 7:04:45 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: All

be on the lookout for trolls folks.


48 posted on 08/19/2010 7:05:31 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
No government in marriage then you can never inherit anything since lineage can never be legally established via legitimacy.

It doesn't effect inheritance. I'm not married. I can leave my estate to my girlfriend if I want to. I can leave it to anybody. All it takes is a will. Intestate inheritance is archaic and rarely used anymore.

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.

Abandonment occurs today (not to mention murder to avoid payments). So do bitter divorces that some people never recover from. Some people don't get legally married because of the divorce system.

I'm Catholic. When I get married, it'll be in the church, in front of God and family. That's something I'll be taking very seriously. Government out of marriage is the goal of the left and a specific goal of the homosexuals.

Homos wants government in marriage. It's about governmental sanction and more importantly, money. They want their gay lovers to get all the benefits, including social security, etc.

49 posted on 08/19/2010 7:06:30 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (I don't look for leaders. I follow my own path, my way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

now just make the same argument without religion.


50 posted on 08/19/2010 7:06:58 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-447 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson