The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

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

[GovernmentShrinker]

One of the duties of the state is to maintain the peace.

Yeah, that's what the Chinese government says when it arrests political dissidents and locks them up in labor camps. The sort of marriages that depend on government regulation and licensing to hold together aren't the ones that strengthen and stabilize a free society.

[gogeo]

Sorry, Ted...but no.

Still sorry about Barbara, BTW...hope you are well.

[rmlew]

Conservative like calling your opponents sexist troglydites, setting them up for a show trial on Youtube, and subpenaing the emails and correspondance of political organizations with which you disagree? Who new, Stalin was a Conservative!

Thank heavens this thug never made it to the Supreme Court. And too bad his wife isn't around to smack in the head for this lunacy.

[Agamemnon]

So it looks like a gay sex advocate drops this thread duece like this on the forum and just walks way. How telling.

60+ posts and not even an opening comment from him. Looks like he's an advocate of Olson's gay advocacy thinking - trying to get his own gay philosophy some airplay, no doubt. Figures an evo-troll like stevie-b-b would post an article about trying to make a "conservative" case for gay marriage.

Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed.

OOOPS. Stevie-b-b must thought he was posting a science thread! Typical evo-moron.

[RandomStranger]

Just curious and wanted some opinions: What if, in the eyes of the government, EVERYONE (straights and gays) had the right to a civil union? Abolish “marriage” from the law books and leave it to the churches. That way, everyone has equal rights and we can keep marriage religious, sacred and between members of the opposite sex.

[Truthsearcher]

When “conservatives” are as bothered by divorces as they are by gay marriages, I’ll know they are serious about defending the family and the institution of marriage.

Until then they talk a good game but it’s all talk. With or without gay marriage, marriage as an institution is on its last legs in western society. Yes the supposed defenders of marriage and family are wasting their time on a side issue.

It’s a classic case of looking at the speck of sawdust in a brother’s eye and paying no attention to the plank in one’s own.

[steve-b]

"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.

Yes, the Hillary Clinton Fan Club here is large and noisy....

[BenKenobi]

“Chinese government says when it arrests political dissidents and locks them up in labor camps.”

There’s a difference between enforcing a ban, and between legal recognition. How does the legal recognition of marriage have anything to do with locking people in jail? The state isn’t locking people away for not getting married.

It’s all in Reynolds. Federal government has a duty to maintain a consistant standard of marriage. Given what we’ve seen since the 50’s, it’s clear that the state should protect marriage.

This hasn’t got anything to do with ‘keeping people together’ but everything to do with providing a model and a guide for behaviour, a set of oughts by which society functions much better than all the alternatives.

[BenKenobi]

“When “conservatives” are as bothered by divorces as they are by gay marriages, I’ll know they are serious about defending the family and the institution of marriage.”

I’m bothered about contraception. :) When conservatives are bothered about the bond between husband and wife, then we can start on divorces. By all means, but this is the battle in the hear and now. We need to go back to what works.

[Truthsearcher]

But it’s such a minor issue, it’s like trying to fix the leak on your roof when there a fire raging in your kitchen.

Look at the illegitimacy rate, look at the divorce rate, look at the birth rate. The family as an institution is all but dead in western society. Gay marriage is minor distraction that fools conservatives into believing they’re doing something when they’re not.

[tjd1454]

I did my doctoral dissertation on the Bible and homosexuality,and worked for many years in public policy in Washington DC defending traditional marriage. I believe that Olson’s opinion piece makes just about the strongest case possible for the legal acceptance of gay marriage. I say “possible” because I believe that, contra Olson, that reason, history, human sexuality properly understood, and biblical faith argue convincingly against the societal acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

It is much too late to attempt to launch into a detailed response to Olson. I would, however, like to briefly mention what I believe are the most essential points arguing against Olson’s position.

First history: Olson fails to consider why no developed society has ever sanctioned homosexual marriage. A rare few, such as the Greeks and some remote pre-literate tribal cultures, tolerated homosexuality within certain well-defined limits, and primarily as a developmental stage for some young men between the onset of puberty and marriage. In no wise did the Greeks permit homosexuals to “marry”: for the Greeks, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. Olson would do well to consider why is the collective wisdom of human history has limited marriage to between men and women (the existence of polygamy and polyandry does not negate this truth).

Second, it is incontrovertible that biblical faith is unalterably opposed to homosexual behavior, a fact admitted to by homosexual advocates, who are reduced to attempting to minimize the force of the biblical testimony. For Olson to treat the biblical teachings so dismissively reveals a not-so-subtle contempt for the moral underpinnings of our society. I suspect Olson would not dare apply the facile argument the “we can’t force our morality on others” to the rest of the 10 commandments (homosexual behavior is considered part of the prohibition of adultery), which as he well knows has formed the basis of the Western legal tradition for two millennia.

Third, while seemingly accepting every caricature of the conservative/biblical position, Olson turns around and embraces a wholly naive and superficial picture of the homosexual lifestyle. Repeatedly he refers to homosexual couples in the most glowing of terms regarding their mutual commitment to each other and their children. The reality, as he must know, is very different. I have written extensively on the degradation of the homosexual lifestyle, and the almost complete absence of the values that are assumed between married couples. Someone in this thread has rightly pointed out that, indeed, few wives would tolerate the demand for “Thursday nights off.” Yet the research indicates that “open” relationships is virtually the norm even with so-called “committed” homosexual couples. One study found that, among those homosexual couples who managed to endure five years (a monumental achievement for gay relationships), NONE were monogamous. Compare this to studies that show that between 75-80% or more of married couples are monogamous. If Olson does not realize that homosexuals conceive of their “commitments” in terms that would leave married people aghast, he has not done his homework, and willfully chooses to believe a lie.

Homosexual activists have admitted that their goal is not merely to be allowed to marry - only a small percentage choose to enter into such an “outmoded” and “restrictive” legal relationship (even with their redefinition of “monogamy”). Rather, their stated goal is none other than the overturning of marriage as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and reflected in most other religions and cultures, to be replaced by a pan-sexuality that knows few if any restrictions upon sexual activity. Homosexual activism is best understood as dagger at the heart of Judeo-Christian morality. If they are successful, and our society embraces - yea “celebrates” - homosexuality and homosexual marriage, God help us all. This, for example, is the real danger behind “hate crimes” legislation, which many observers fear could lead to opposition to homosexuality becoming a federal crime punishable by imprisonment. Olson apparently has no idea of the beast he is determined to help unleash.

[zerosix]

"The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage?"

I suppose Mr. Olson can also find "Conservative Cases for: Abortion; Child Abuse; Polygamy,.....," well you get the idea.

The fact that Olson & Boise can tag team to overturn the unanimous vote of "The People," is not surprising.

What is surprising, however, is that, "We The People" ever find a reason to place our faith in the liberal "Men (and women) in Black" who pass themselves off as defenders of that Constitution. They use that lofty position to appeal those laws to other "Men (and women) in Black" to overrule the explicit will of the people.

[Rastus]

Bull Shannon. Who knew?

[kaehurowing]

All the same arguments can be made in favor of polygamy.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Legal recognition of marriage is very often the basis for government handing over your hard-earned assets to someone other than who YOU want to have them (and in the case of the “marriage tax”, that someone is the federal government). Legal recognition of marriage was also the sole reason that the creepy Michael Schiavo was able to get his wife’s feeding tube removed against the wishes of her parents and siblings.

Free citizens don’t expect their government to provide them with “a model and a guide for behavior.” Again, that’s what communist governments do — they decide what values the people ought to live by, and then use government power to make life more difficult for those who don’t comply. The degree of difficulty varies widely, from execution to lack of favors granted to correct-living citizens, but the warped and freedom-destroying principle is always the same: that government has a right to tell people how to live their lives.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I agree with you on one point... This is a welfare program for the fascists in the legal profession.

That said, Ted Olson has gone over to the other side of the enemy, he is a traitor.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

“When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.”

(Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 1651)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

“At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership.”

The Marxists always argue economics, Ayn Rand pointed this out.

The fascists in the legal profession only care about their love of money. This is a welfare program for the pervert lawyers who think they will make big bank on faggot divorces.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Olson apparently has no idea of the beast he is determined to help unleash.

He's perfectly aware. He is a fascist traitor.

[EDINVA]

“Betcha the author also wants legal heroin, right?”

“The author” was Asst AG under Reagan and Solicitor General under GWB. He won the Gore v. Bush case at the Supreme Court in 2000. His late wife, Barbara, was killed in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

It seems unusual he’s taken this position, and I don’t agree with it, but his opinions deserve a respectful reading without the kneejerk reactions and assumption that this position automatically meaning he favors legalization of heroin.