Posted on 10/14/2014 5:03:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday" to discuss the Supreme Court's decision to let stand a number of judicial rulings overturning the acts of legislators and/or voters in 16 states, famed advocate Ted Olson offered the kind of reasoning that, in his former incarnation as a conservative, he would have scorned. "Over 59 percent of Americans now believe that marriage equality should be the law of the land," he proclaimed. Seconds later he seemed to contradict himself: "We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights precisely because we want protections from majority rule."
Which is it: a fundamental right that ought to be recognized without regard to majority views, or a popular view that deserves to be enshrined in the Constitution by the courts just because it's polling well? If it's true that large majorities have changed their minds on same-sex marriage, why not leave the matter to state legislatures and voters rather than undemocratically taking the question out of their hands?
When his opponent, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, asked Olson what the purpose of marriage is, Olson dodged the question and spoke instead of courts recognizing a "fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty..." Repeating the boilerplate offered by judges is nonresponsive.
Olson sprinkles his language liberally with emotionally laden expressions such as "dignity" and "respect," as if to say that those who resist same-sex marriage are opposed to those civilities.
Asked about where he would draw boundaries on who should be permitted to marry if it's "only about love," Olson changed the subject, mentioning the "tens of thousands" of children being raised in same-sex households who "deserve the right to equality and the same respect and decency that other people have that are living right next door."
"People Next Door" has become the chief talking point of the same-sex-marriage advocates. Chris Wallace asked it of Perkins (not that he was taking sides, he was fair): "You and your wife live happily in this house; there's a same-sex couple living here. What's the damage to you?"
This is the nub of the argument. As Olson claimed, "There's no heterosexual couple that is going to decide to get divorced or not to get married or not to raise children just because another couple next to them is treated equally and with respect and decency under our Constitution."
But it does affect the larger culture. If it didn't, there would be no need for debate. Homosexuals comprise a tiny fraction of the population (just over 2 percent according to the CDC). I wish them nothing but happiness and peace, but they are a side issue. Of course they deserve "dignity" and "respect," but changing marriage is not the way to get there.
Families began disintegrating and failing to form long before gay marriage became a cause celebre. But the movement for same-sex marriage pushes our culture in exactly the wrong direction because it forwards a damaging conception of marriage. Marriage, Olson says, "is about being with the person you love."
Not so. Marriage is about the welfare of children. The state confers benefits on opposite-sex couples because they conceive and raise children, and it believes that strong families are the foundation of strong polities. Libertarian claims that the state should remain aloof from family matters overlook the fact that when couples divorce or part ways, the state becomes involved in property division and custody, so it's unrealistic to keep the state out.
The problem with endorsing same-sex marriage is that it conveys to heterosexuals that mothers and fathers don't really matter. If two men who love each other or two women who love each other are equally good for children's welfare, then the argument that men and women should marry and remain faithful to the partner with whom they conceived children loses its force.
The "being with someone you love" case fits nicely on a greeting card, but it also contributes to the divorce culture, because the implicit message is that when you no longer love someone, the purpose of the marriage is over. Adults' feelings will trump all, as they too often do already.
The move for same-sex marriage was never about marriage. It was about social acceptance. We should give the social acceptance, but not undermine marriage.
Now can someone please explain to me why it's important to elect Republicans? LMAO.
I'm getting more convinced by the day that the Beltway is filled with depraved homosexuals -- Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ted Olson is so married to the proper narrative that he no longer has time for thinking. That makes it easy for him to contradict himself and refuse to acknowledge any data outside the narrative.
That’s exactly what I expect from a lawyer — especially one who has spent his career in government and practicing law inside the Beltway.
Bullsh*t.
He's wrong. Culture isn't only about "immediate reaction". It's about a culture that develops around the norms, customs, laws, etc.
Olsen is endorsing a real war on women and children, the protected class in the institution of marriage. We already see them impoverished through out-of-wedlock births.
MARRIAGE becomes irrelevant in a polygamous, homosexual (even bestial?) culture.
Culture itself is dependent on its morality, and a culture without God is a culture where no one is accountable. How do you hold a welfare check baby-daddy accountable? You're already paying for him.
So, homosexual marriage deconstructs our current 'nuclear family' culture and replaces it with a 'homosexual' culture or a 'random relationship' culture.
A true war on women and children.
“...We should give the social acceptance...”
This is where Mona Charen has joined the liberal chorus. We should not give social acceptance. It is not right to allow homosexuals to adopt children while hetero couples wait. We do not have to cast stones but we should never pretend that homosexuality is acceptable no matter how prevalent it becomes.
RIP, Barbara Olson.
Precisely
The problem with this article and so many others on same-sex marriage is simply that appeals to logic, reason, and the rule of law have zero effect on the “marriage equality” proponents. The courts have simply decided to push this through regardless of what We the People want. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before and won’t happen again. Remember abortion?
I totally agree with the concept that states and communities should have the right to set their own standards, but this battle was fought and lost long ago. Our government and leaders now do whatever they want whenever they want. I don’t even think these rulings on being able to marry who you love will immediately result in polygamy. Why? Because judges who can make up a right to “marriage equality” out of nothing can easily cobble something together that says it doesn’t apply to polygamy.
That’s the bottom line here. We conservatives aren’t even fighting the same battle. It’s apples and oranges, and the left only believes in winning. They are willing to destroy the civil society, lie, cheat, or whatever so long as they get their way. Until conservatives realize the left is playing us for fools, we have no chance. It’s like a fist fight where we’re using Marquess of Queensberry rules and they’re hitting us with whatever they want.
How does same-sex pseudo-marriage affect real marriage?
Try speaking out against it. If you’re married and own a business, your very livelihood is at stake because the REAL anti-family bigots will see to it that you can’t do business ever again (remember the photographer, the bakers, florists, etc.). Have a job? The homo-fascists demand you “celebrate diversity” or be sent to “sensitivity” (re: indoctrination) classes or lose your job. Many divorces in this country are due to finances. Imagine not being able to hold a job or keep it because you believe homosexuality is either a sin or just plain disgusting.
Your ability to take care of your family is at stake if you don’t swear allegiance to all things homo. That’s how same-sex pseudo-marriage affects real marriage.
“MARRIAGE becomes irrelevant ...”
Unfortunately, marriage has been becoming more and more irrelevant over time for a long period. People get married as an option these days, many with the idea “I’ll give this a try”. The ‘until death do us part’ thing isn’t really relevant anymore.
He’s a “compassionate conservative....”
Then turn on the TV and watch “Modern Family” where homosexual marriage and same sex child rearing are celebrated as the hip and cool thing to be doing. Along with a dysfunctional melange of illegal alien self righteousness (Sofia Vergara) and her arrogant pissant smart aleck Hispanic genius anchor baby. Vergara—a pretty woman until she opens that sewer trap of a mouth. And BTW this program has dozens of corporate sponsors. You wanna win which battle?
The poverty moms prove that marriage IS relevant.
What’s relevant is that marriage is has been bastardized.
Which is safer for women and children?
a. a nuclear family culture
b. a homosexual marriage carriage
c. a random variety of relationships culture
It clearly is “a” if one looks at the poverty moms and the security evident in the past culture for moms and kids.
Yep. She’s right. I was embarrassed for Ted Olson; he really came across as a shallow, feel-good no-nothing.
Such a shame about Ted Olson, married a liberal democrat and lost his mind.
Barbara Olson is spinning in her grave.
Friends don’t let friends marry libs.
I always thought that she was a better man than her husband.
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.