The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Newsweek ^ | 1/9/10 | Theodore B. Olson

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Barbara is rolling over in her grave!

[A_Former_Democrat]

Ted:

It’s an official “stamp of approval”

And besides, it won’t stop there

[runninglips]

I would vote against changing marriage laws to fit gays, but this sort of argument is much more persuasive than the forcing of new laws that give extra rights by radicals.

[magellan]

Marriage is not, and never has been, a "right". Marriage has always been licensed and regulated by the states.

Any argument in favor that marriage is a right, and therefore not subject to restriction by the state, opens up all alternative forms of marriage (such as plural marriage and first cousin marriage) to not being restricted by the state.

There is no historical precedence for homosexual marriage, however there is significant historical precedence for plural marriage and first cousin marriage.

Despite such precedence, states have restricted marriage for centuries.

[Jeff Chandler]

+

!=

[Fractal Trader]

I have always been opposed to gay marriage because it discriminates against bisexuals who want to have one of each.

[aimhigh]

But all the condemnation of temple prostitution involves pagan practices or worship of false gods. The objectionable thing is the idolatry, not the physical act itself.

For forget to enter /sarc/. The bible verses dealing with homosexuals have nothing to do with temple worship. That's a liberal interpretation created to justify sin. The physical act is condemned and clearly so.

[webboy45]

Gay “marriage” subverts and denigrates real marriage, and anyone who doesn’t understand this is an idiot.

[kingu]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, homosexual shacking up is domestic unions or whatever name they’re using this week. There is no ‘gay marriage’ as it is contrary to the standard definition.

I see no reason to change from the choice of dictionary writers for centuries, nor the basic laws of every state marriage legislation, and the only reason why this case is in federal court was because the people of California, when their judges refused to follow the people’s wishes, reiterated a basic dictionary definition into the state constitution, since apparently homosexual shacking up advocates couldn’t bother to read the dictionary.

In no way is this an issue of freedom, nor is this an issue of conservative values - in no way are traditional families helped by homosexual shacking up becoming equal, in the eyes of the law, to marriage. In fact, it’s already had the opposite effect, where a birth mother is ordered to give up her daughter to a former shackee, simply for refusing to let that former shackee near her daughter.

I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand. Every gay in America can go out and get married tomorrow, no one is stopping them. Just bring a partner of an opposite sex. How hard is that to understand?

[Tribune7]

This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize.

Sure, like anal sex /s.

[Ditto]

Gays are already allowed to marry in every state of the Union, just like the rest of us ---- to someone from the opposite sex.

As to how they choose to exercise their sexual inclinations, I don't really give a damn. That does not necessarily have anything to do with marriage.

If the state chooses to bestow some tax benefits to people of the same sex who choose sign a contract of community property, great for them. It's less money for the government machine.

But don't call it marriage because it isn't, and will never be. It's just playing house.

[GovernmentShrinker]

There’s a much better conservative case to be made for getting government completely out of the business of defining/regulating/recognizing/licensing ANY kind of marriage. Let free citizens enter into whatever sort of contracts they wish, and have government’s role limited to contract enforcement, just as with any other type of contract. The history (and in some communist countries, such as China, the present) of government-regulated marriage is ugly. Miscegenation laws were one of the most egregious government infringements on personal freedom in our nation’s history.

And I don’t want to hear any wailing about the chillllll-drun. Marriage has not been a factor in custody or child support decisions for a long time now, nor should it be — a child doesn’t give a crap whether or not mommy and daddy ever had a license from the government saying they were “married”. Back before DNA testing, the common law saddled men with financial responsibility for any and all children born to their wives, no matter how obvious it was that the child had been sired by someone else.

[fr_freak]

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Is this one of those "Shortest Books in the World" things?

The so-called "values" that this closet queer claims support gay marriage are the natural result of the romanticized, Disneyfication of marriage that has occurred blatantly over the last 100 years or so. Marriage originally had a purpose. It was every bit a contract as well as, if not more so than, a result of falling in love. There are a great number of cultures which still view marriage this way (asians, for example) and they do not have problems with falling birth rates (Chicoms don't count), nor do they have the same problems with divorce.

Sure, all of the old poets wrote about romantic love and the affairs of the heart, but even in their time, people did not marry merely to satiate some fleeting emotional whim. They married with a purpose: to raise a family, to keep the farm/business/lineage going, and to honor societal and religious requirements. The idea of marriage as a product of some fairytale romance with children and household as an afterthought is a modern one, and has left many people with false expectations of marriage (we'll be madly in love forever!) and a false sense of marriage's purpose. Once you have changed the fundamental view of marriage in that regard and view it only as another means to achieve pleasure, then all of the current pathologies become inevitable: rampant divorce and alternative marriages between loving partners, whether they be two men, a man and an animal, a man and a shoe, or whatever.

This ridiculously childish view of marriage as a vehicle for romance then becomes viewed as some sort of a human right, and some moron like Olsen, who fancies himself a conservative but wouldn't know conservatism if it were rolled into a tube and jammed up his lower egress, then thinks that it is wrong to limit marriage to only those who can procreate.

Modern man has been living in a Disney fantasy land for far too long. You'll notice that third-worlders don't tend to have these types of delusions because they live a wee bit closer to savage reality. When our societal collapse comes from our reckless abandonment of natural laws, such obvious knowledge will reassert itself in a hurry. Until then, prepare for hell.

[behzinlea]

And I don’t want to hear any wailing about the chillllll-drun.

If you don't care about the chilllllllldrun, then you're just as lost as Olson.

There is no common ground. If we are destined to war over this issue, let's get it on.

[BenKenobi]

“There’s a much better conservative case to be made for getting government completely out of the business of defining/regulating/recognizing/licensing ANY kind of marriage.”

Years ago I might have agreed with you. Then I read Reynolds. One of the duties of the state is to maintain the peace. It’s one of the benefits of marriage and marriage laws is that they help keep the peace. Deviations from this cause grave disorder for society in general not just the chilluns. Disagree? Look at where things have changed since the 50’s.

[packrat35]

Ever since his wife was murdered on 9/11, this man has lost more and more sense.

[Secret Agent Man]

No offense, but Ted opened up his mouth and proved he’s an idiot.

He knows nothing about the homosexual lifestyle. It is totally opposed to monogamy. It is all about casual sex encounters with strangers and multiple partners sometimes in the same night. Even the gays who are “committed” have “Thursday Nights Off” policies.

And if you think that’s normal, try asking your wife for Thursday Nights off and see where that gets you.

Ted, you’re a moron. There’s nothing fair about equating sexual perverts to normal people. It’s not a fairness issue, it’s recognizing marriage as the institution it’s always been and not just changing it for ever-changing, usually for the worse, fluidic societal mores.

[the_daug]

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isa 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

[KC_Conspirator]

Ted Olson is out to freaking lunch on this. This is the bellweather issue of the day.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Did you notice that you just equated opposing government control over marriage with “not caring about the children”? “It’s for the children” has been the left’s favorite justification for never-ending expansion of government control over people’s lives and finances. It’s a lie. Government control of families is not a benefit to children, it’s a benefit to government.