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.
Hahaha, amazing. I see what you did there.
Also, why would I even have to worry about supporting something that should be none of the courts business anyway? Separation of church and state! Remember that? MARRIAGE is a religious thing, not a legal one, if they want to be legally hitched, that’s fine, but they had better stay out of the church. Also, I think this should apply to people who are not religious, don’t marry using a bible and a church if you don’t believe in the entities behind them. Civil partnerships for anyone who has no religious connections.
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.
Shades of G.K. Chesterton in your satire.
Compare this quote from The Man Who Was Thursday:
"We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fulness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's."