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 ...
“No successful civilization in the history of the world has endorsed homosexuality.” -2010
“No successful civilization in the history of the world has endorsed the concept of a round earth.” -1491
Ever hear the story The Camel's Nose? There are already Power of Attorney, Wills etc to handle this. Giving them the perks of marriage without the name is caving in to the idea of "rights" for a perverted behavior
They are also perversions that will demand rights after having been emboldened by a win of other rights for aberrant behavior.
“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.”
That’s nonsensical. Probate and contracts courts could handle all of that just fine and probably with no staff changes at all.
Marriage was established by common law going back millenia. This is why normal marriage has broad protection.
civil unions are a legislative construct and thus can be ignored in other states or your state.
The legal effort is to go into the “right” area to mooch onto the common law proction of the law.
If you only use religion as your argument, you will lose before a liberal judge who regularly attends ABA meetings.
Rome was a Republic that fell because aberrant behavior became the norm. It thrust the world into the Dark Ages for 1000 years. Wanna do it again?
tenants by the entireties
widow/widowers share
and on and on
Not quite. Olson was dismissing the traditional marriage argument and its proponents as knee-jerk. I was simply pointing out that Olson seems to have abandoned the conservative side on this particular case which makes him, in my opinion, a turncoat. The content or length of his argument is irrelevant to that description.
If marriage is so damned sacred then how come more than half of them are trashed and burned by the very people who held them up as such a big deal on the day they got those six toasters and wore those beautiful clothes?
What a bunch of hog wash.
“I desire to marry my pet porcupine, but even my closest friends warn me it is a prickly situation....”
Very funny. However, the porcupine is not capable of true reason and therefore cannot make an informed decision. This is plainly clear because if the porcupine could, he (or she) would certainly not marry someone so obviously sophomoric.
That is due to a lack of morality. Allowing more immorality will make things better? No.
I guess Ted doesn’t understand that gay people CAN get married to any person of the opposite sex that they wish, just like everybody else. It is the definition of marriage.
For comparison let’s say we are talking about buying property and a group comes along who looks at women as “property” in their particular belief system or culture and we say NO you may not buy women. The right to purchase property and enter into legal contract to do so does not mean you can buy and sell humans. It just is not defined that way. That person is not being denied the right to buy property or being discriminated against. They are simply being denied the right to put their own definition on our cultural values and history.
PLUS even if we grant all the points he makes, it is still abhorent to have courts simply wave a magic wand and change the consensus of a society against the prevailing standards.
Olson should also write: The Conservative Case for bestiality, The Conservative Case for Socialism, The Conservative Case for Gun Control, The Conservative Case for the destruction of the home, The Conservative Case for increased taxation, The Conservative Case for massive governmental regulation................
Olson should also write: The Conservative Case for bestiality, The Conservative Case for Socialism, The Conservative Case for Gun Control, The Conservative Case for the destruction of the home, The Conservative Case for increased taxation, The Conservative Case for massive governmental regulation................
I know the gubberment is never going to get its beak out of marriage, to that institution’s detriment. It has been awful for marriage, at least in modern times.
Marriage isn’t defined by the state in my faith. It’s just a shame that the gubberment has the power to punish if you don’t agree with their bizarre definitions of marriage.
Freegards
FR is a conservative site. We do not appreciate our members fighting against us on our conservative values and issues. If you wish to support homosexual marriage or homosexuals in the military or hate crimes against us for speaking out against government promotion of homosexuality that’s your business, but you’d better do it somewhere else and not on FR. If you value your posting privileges, that is. FR is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-military, pro-traditional American conservatism and it is a privilege to post here. Those who support the godless liberal/Marxist destruction of our free society and our country are free to exercise their free speech rights elsewhere. I won’t stand in your way.
That is one of the biggest deceptive tactics that the left uses -
they use the same terms but put different definitions on them.
I don’t think a Biblical argument is neccessarily a good argument when it comes to constitutional rights. A better argument is the one Michael Medved uses which is the fact that homosexuals aren’t barred from getting married whatsoever. They may marry one person of the opposite sex who is of age, just like anyone else can. The real question is where we draw the line of regulating marriage. Homosexuals seek to draw it in a different place, problem is if we do that, where does it stop. Even their own “marriages” will become meaningless at some point.
“Ever hear the story The Camel’s Nose? There are already Power of Attorney, Wills etc to handle this. Giving them the perks of marriage without the name is caving in to the idea of “rights” for a perverted behavior.”
Then take it away from everybody (period). Use probate for your inheritence and wills and contracts. Have your little religious ceremony in your little Baptist Chapel or have your big religious ceremony in your big Catholic Cathedral but strike marriage from the governmental roster. Let it be like Confirmations or Bar Mitzvahs. But don’t use it to create your perception of a “more legitimate social class” because really what you are doing is the moral equivalent of latter day slave holders.
And to think that suposedly good christian men and women were making the same lame arguments for keeping fellow human beings in chains, just 150 years ago in your neighborhood.
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.