Special Report
A Rebuttal to Theodore Olson
Newsweek cover story on conservative case for gay marriage silent on polygamy, polyamory.
There may be a more respected conservative lawyer — or lawyer period - out there, but surely former Bush Solicitor General Theodore Olson sits at or near the top of such a list.
History will remember Olson forever as the lawyer who won the Bush-Gore election at the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court. Millions of Americans quiet at the remembrance of the 9/11 drama that took the life of Olson’s wife, conservative commentator Barbara Olson, as she frantically dialed the Solicitor General in his Justice Department office while the plane on which she was a passenger was being piloted by terrorists towards its infamous mission at the Pentagon.
Time, blessedly, moves on, and Olson is in the news these days as a partner with his old adversary David Boies, his opponent in the Bush-Gore episode. Al Gore and George W. Bush’s lawyers have teamed up to make the case for gay marriage, specifically by seeking the legal undoing of California’s voter-approved Proposition 8. The ballot measure, an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, was passed by Californians in the November 2008 election.
Olson was given the cover of the liberal Newsweek magazine to make “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: Why same-sex marriage is an American value.”
Appearing in a news cycle close both to the earthquake in Haiti and the hot Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, Olson’s argument has perhaps not received the attention that it deserves. It should, if for no other reason than to be rebutted.
Daunting as it may be for a non-lawyer to take on no less than Ted Olson, (one feels an uneasy kinship to the guy on the end of that famous Clint Eastwood line — “Do ya feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?”) — it does seem a (hopefully) cogent rebuttal of sorts is required.
Let’s take the Olson case point by point.
OLSON: “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.”
ANSWER: Doubtless there is consternation. But consternation is not the point here. The fact that Olson seeks to impose the values of a handful of elite lawyers and judges on the people of California when they have made their views not only plain but constitutionally plain under the law is what concerns. Mr. Olson’s “lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics” is apparently limited to a resulting sympathy for gays. He leaves a telling omission in this article. What about polygamists? Or those who prefer group relationships? Or other marital relationships that do not currently pass muster in the eyes of the law — marrying under the age of 18, for example? Or that favorite of some, man-boy love?
OLSON: “Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage.”
ANSWER: Having been through this discussion in depth as a result of the stance of the national hierarchy of my own United Church of Christ — which supports gay marriage, a stance not adopted by all churches within the denomination, mine included — Mr. Olson is only partially correct here. For reasons biblical, in the main. But there are others who, as Mr. Olson also notes, have gays as family members and friends. I would be in that category. It is a decided mistake to label support for man-woman marriage as hostility to gays. It is not correct, and in my experience has not proved true even among many of those who believe the Bible forbids homosexuality. There is considerable support for health benefits, hospital visitation rights etc., all of which can be separated from marriage.
OLSON: “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.”
ANSWER: Mr. Olson, again, opens the legal barn door to the legalization of both polygamy and polyamory as well as the legalization other relationships. He insists that marriage is one fine institution, no holds barred. The participants think beyond their own needs. They are transformed “into a union based on shared aspirations” and establish “a formal investment in the well-being of society.” Duly noted. So is the curious limitation on the number of partners — two. More of which below.
OLSON: “Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (214) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/19/a-rebuttal-to-theodore-olson
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 1.19.10 @ 7:02AM
We the People. I do not care if one sleeps with a dog if they wish. The down side to this is, you might awake to flee's. This is a Nation of laws predicated upon biblical beliefs. Not satanic. We see today, as in the 1800's, certain people with a mixed sense of justic. Outside of the normal human experience are those who wish to impose their personal views upon others for the sake of being equal. Equal has nothing to do with this fight, morality does.
The People of Ca. have spoken through our Nations process. It is a half-assed attempt to even consider against the "will of the People" let alone argue whether or not one believes they ought to have the same status or "right" to do as they wish outside of social norms. The further a society goes against God's laws, the more perverted these laws become and less likelyhood of repentence will be acceptable to the laws of the universe, in other words, you reap what ye sow.
Alan Brooks| 1.19.10 @ 7:57AM
Sex? what does sex mean anymore. It's just like shaking hands, Mr. Robinson.
One word:
plastic. that's what sex is today. Plastic Fantastic emptiness.
Ben Smith| 1.19.10 @ 7:28AM
Is it me or does this author (Mr. Lord) have a thing for "polygamy and polyamory" .. what websites is he looking at on his time off? It seems to be every answer he has against Ted Olsens well-thought-out holdings. What is so wrong about equal rights for everyone.. that is what being a conservative is all about.
Dave M.| 1.19.10 @ 1:49PM
His point is if you can forcibly redefine marriage to include same-sex couples because it is not fair to gays, then how is it fair to require marriage to be between just two people. If being "fair" is the issue, don't we have to be fair to everyone? Is it fair not to recognize polygamists? How will polygamy hurt "gay marriages"? Don't all people have the right to marry whoever they want, and how many they want? You must just be a hateful, polygamy-phobic if you cannot understand his point.
Alan Brooks| 1.19.10 @ 5:28PM
I come to the same place as conservatives, from a 180 degree difference. Many conservatives think sex is threatening-- if only it were still! What was daring in 1965 is now old hat; yesterday's libertine is today's boring old you-know-what.
Calvin Coolidge had the right answer for everything-- no answer. If the "love" (sex) that would dare not speaketh its name would now please shut its mouth. Silence is golden, and the price of gold is going up.
Gay militants, please, shuteth thine mouths.
Eliott G| 1.20.10 @ 2:40AM
This is clearly an emotional issue for many and our life experiences/values/beliefs clearly color and filter our responses. One can only wonder what filters Mr. Brooks is dealing with if he years for sex to still be considered threatening. Actually, I don't have to wonder; it's mostly shame-based, anxiety-ridden myths his parents served up for him in childhood under the guise of what people call "religion." Did God really give people the gift of sex for it to be perceived as threatening? Sounds like Mr. Brooks is in need of a long-awaited "attitude adjustment." So with all due respect, Mr. Brooks: "Shuteth thy mouth and go getteth LAID."
Alan Brooks| 1.19.10 @ 7:59AM
"What is so wrong about equal rights for everyone.. that is what being a conservative is all about. "
No, it's not.
JP| 1.19.10 @ 8:00AM
"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."
Olson, a very intelligent man, confuses the benefits that marriage gives to society with the sacramental nature of what marriage actually is. Marriage is a Christian sacrament that mirrors the love Christ has for His Church. Of all of the changes that Christianity made to Pagan Europe, Asia Minor and North Africa, this was one of the most profound. The idea and concept of the family, with all of its rights and obligations can be traced to Christ and his life death and ressurection. This was revolutionary, as the Romans and the subjects of its empire had quite a different perspective. Christ came into this world and subjected himself to a father and mother, and conferred an eternal grace upon both. The union of a husband and wife sanctifies both, but also subjects each to the other. The fruit of this union is children. Homosexuals, polygamists and the like cannot obviously be a part of this no matter how brilliant the efforts of lawyers who argue to the contrary.
It took Christianity almost a 1000 years to get men to accept this institution. Between the Fall of Rome and the High Middle Ages, Europe was filled with women who were nothing more than chattel, and thier bastard children roamed the streets and countryside. Churches in many cases doubled as orphanages and homes for unmarried mothers. But, over time, the passions of men were eventually sublimated and redirected. The social revolution (or civilizing of men and women through Christianity) of Europe during this time had at its core the instituting of the Christian family. The difference between Christian Europe and the Islamic world during this period (and one could argue that the Islamic world was more socially advanced) was how it treated the family and women.
Today we are taking huge steps backwards. We are being re-paganized. Stripped of the social benefits of being father and husband (and mother and wife), parents are opting out. Promiscuity aside, we can see this clearly as broken homes are not just a problem with the urban and rural underclass (look at Tiger Woods). Men are returning to being sexual predators (and even women are joining in on the fun -look at our schools); illegitmate children are at record numbers, as are abortions. Marriage laws have reflected this, and one wonders why anyonre tries anymore. Even the various Christian Churches appear to be giving up. Rarely do priests or ministers warn couples of what lies at the end of thier unbridled passions (Hell). A decade ago, Pope John Paul II berated our Bishops for thier easy annulment policies. If the federal government (either through the courts or legislature) forces its hand on the states and gives homosexual marriage its imprimatur, it will just weaken an institution that already has suffered greatly. And as many have warned, the polygamists are on deck.
PJ| 1.19.10 @ 8:14AM
JP:
Excellent post & succinctly written! Historically accurate too! I think I am going to copy it & keep it for my files.
Grzmlyk| 1.19.10 @ 9:45AM
I agree - JP's post is is stellar.
Yes, a certain kind of paganism is the goal - the desire to pry Americans from a faith in anything other than government.
And that's the end game of gay marriage - like every initiative of the left, it isn't about what it says it's about (feminism isn't really about empowering women, environmentalism isn't really about saving the environment, welfare isn't really about helping the poor, and gay marriage isn't really about equal rights for gays).
While health care "reform," cap and trade and universal education are the three routes Obama has stated he will take to take to transform Americans into serfs, one institutional pillar he cannot legislate away outright is the family unit; so the left must continue to chip away at it by shifting the cultural landscape, redefining established terms and shaming the populace into razing our cultural edifices for fear of opprobrium in the left-dominated public square.
Of course true spirituality (as opposed to the hodge-podge of trendy, self-aggrandizing new-age mumbo jumbo) has long since been stripped of its institutional teeth and left the concept of family teetering.
If the left can further render it a meaningless concept, the last threads of loyalty to something other than the state may be severed. Our abiding roots, from which we draw the nutrients that allow us to stand and prosper as individuals, will be deracinated and the landscape can then be cleared for the left to pave it over with a flat statist construct.
Every totalitarian government attempts to disempower the traditional family unit; it has been the progressives' holy grail for a century.
darcy| 1.19.10 @ 4:44PM
Yes, Grzmlyk -- these are points I made yesterday when we were discussing the differences among the various liberty-denying, despotic "isms" that we must combat. The intact, traditional family remains the last bastion against the evil machinations of those who seek to make of us serfs and pagans (as JP notes).
It is truly heartbreaking to see Mr. Olson descend to the level of advocate for such an ignoble cause; what happens to the souls of certain powerful men (think Ted Kennedy, too) when God permits them to endure tragic -- and such public -- loss? It's almost as if they respond by turning away and sticking their fists in God's face. (Kennedy's supposed altruism and social justice aims and policies were merely avenues to secure power and assuage guilt; his was the very face of soft-tyranny -- worse was his cloak of Catholicism to cover his ungodly deeds.)
Discrimination is mostly a good thing, and it's a mark of the success of the statists that PC has become the cultural lingua franca -- thus denying to the public the ability to think clearly and discerningly about the nature of things and reality.
Keep the people confused, give them an arbitrary set of constructs (via PC) by which to frame opinion: Tell them that tolerance, non-discrimination, and equality are the new highest principles, and that the state will guide you into all matters "ethical."
Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor comes to mind.
And now this, tangentially related item: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015394.html
Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum is O's nominee for EEOC head.
These are truly perilous times in which we live.
Excellent rebuttal, Mr. Lord.
swink| 1.19.10 @ 7:16PM
Excellently stated, thanks.
James| 1.20.10 @ 12:13AM
Some of those 'bastards' of the Middle Ages were conquerors and kings, William the Bastard, a/k/a William the Conqueror for one. Current events would indicate the male libido is alive and well, as you note, with senators, governors, and celebrities too numerous to name. You set up the false 'straw man' of polygamists, and others have mentioned pedophiles, as those next in line to receive ' fair' treatment. Well, say that you are right. But, the issue now under discussion is 'one on one' relationships between consenting adults, American citizens. Finally, I agree that "marriage' is a religious ceremony, and our government, founded on the concept of separation of church and state, has no business regulating who can or cannot join in a legal union between such consenting adults. Churches and religions are free to perform such ceremonies as they desire, but they have no right to force the same limitations on the country as a whole as they choose to adopt themselves. This is, after all, a free country.
Klabautermann| 1.19.10 @ 9:07AM
Olson's position is part of a larger assault on civilization itself. Our "knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage" is based upon a visceral knowledge that this assault on family will result in a great deal of damage to our society. "Olson opens the legal barn door to the legalization of both polygamy and polyamory as well as the legalization other relationships." Lord states, "destroying the institution of monogamous, heterosexual marriage in America, turning the country into a swamp of legally sanctified Other Relationships -- gay marriage, polygamy, polyamory and heaven knows what else." What else? Polymorphous perversity, bestiality, necrophilia. What business is it of anybody if I want to marry my goat or march in a necrophilia pride parade?
The man-boy love advocates present "rational" arguments for their position. They have made significant progress in advancing their position. Homosexuals are not satisfied with practicing their behavior in private. They must flaunt their lifestyle. Once they are victorious, what rational reason is there for opposition to polygamy?
2Anglico| 1.19.10 @ 9:28AM
I wonder if Ted voted for Obama like so many other elitist "republicans"?
Rev JDSpears| 1.19.10 @ 9:37AM
Sadly, the author of this article, and most of the posters confuse the church for the state. Marriage in the US is NOT a "Christian Sacriment" and will never be, until such time as the US becomes a theocracy!
A secular state, and the US throughout and down to the indiviual states is secular and thus can not endorse a religuious institution, can only issue licenses for a secular institution. This makes marriage secular not sectarian. When a marriage is accepted by the individual's church then only in their church's eyes is it a "Sacrament"
Civil Rights can never be "decided by the people" and it is a scandle against the foundation of this nation to ever permit them to be "decided by the people." Are we so poorly educated to forget Jim Crow? It appears that man is an exceedingly dumb animal indeed!
Eliott G.| 1.20.10 @ 2:44AM
Well done, Rev. See my comments above to Mr. Brooks....
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 10:18AM
I see that you have not really listed any real arguments against gay marriage itself.
You are using the time honored tactics of listing slippery slope arguments. If you are going to argue against gay marriage then argue against gay marriage. If you want to argue against polygamy, polyamory, pedarasty, and pedophilia, bestiality, and then argue against them. They are separate issues with separate arguments for and against. Honestly, if this is the argument type you are going to use then we should most assuredly outlaw hetero marriage too because it most assuredly will lead to some man-raccoon loving, child molestation, and child and spouse abuse. O_o
"Same rights for the same commitment."
...and yes we are not a Christian Theocracy regardless of how much you may want it. The marriage that is being dealt with in court with Prop 8 trial is secular marriage, and not what-ever fundamentalist flavor of Christianity that you are subscribing to. Separation of Church and State and all that wonderful enlightenment stuff is very much an Amercian value. No where in the constitution or the Bill of Rights is God specifically mentioned. If we were truly a Christian state then God would have been mentioned, most likely, on every other line.
ChuckD| 1.19.10 @ 10:35PM
No they -polygamy, polyamory, pedarsty, pedophilia, bestiality, -are not separate issues. They are all forms of adultery.
The Christians who founded this country -Christians like Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams-made sure that this nation was not a theocracy, Christian or otherwise.
Today the religion of atheism dominates the government at the expense of the Christians. Atheists are determined to eradicate all vestiges of Christian moral code from our society.
Christians are answering the challenge and being accused predictably of trying to institute a theocracy.
The argument is not against homosexuality. Christians, or any others who oppose homosexual marriage, do not seek to outlaw homosexuality. Homosexual men have the same right to marry a woman as I do. And the same for homosexual women.
The argument is homosexual marriage is not a marriage. It is not normal. The question is how is marriage defined.
Conservatives define it as a consensual commitment between a mature man and a woman only. It is the basis of our civilization.
The family- the normal one with one father and one mother-rear children. They instill in them values and traditions that are passed on to each generation. These children become citizens and vote. They go to law school and medical school and become engineers. If they don't share the same basic moral code, what kind of world will we live in?
The argument has nothing whatever to do with the Constitution except that to allow the separate institution of marriage to be corrupted and perverted is a violation of its charge to "promote the general welfare". Which is of course because marriage is foundational to any society and deserves a special place.
If we redefine marriage to include any sort of union between any sort of combination of sex, animal or otherwise, we are diluting its significance and destroying it. Which is of course the objective of those who promote homosexual marriages. Then our traditional moral values will not be passed on and respect for God and country will be lost.
Socialists know that the sooner the family is destroyed, the sooner the state can usurp its power and expand its control over our lives, and more importantly, the lives of our children.
Eliott G.| 1.20.10 @ 2:51AM
You rock, Mr. O'Neill. Here's what I think about these folks on here: religion is for people who believe they are GOING to hell, while spirituality is for people who have ALREADY BEEN THERE. These people who hide their anxiety under the guise of religious doctrine are primarily motivated/influenced by heavily ingrained FEAR. Do people really think the ultimate and supreme forces of this universe (if they do exist) such as God and Jesus would truly oppose two souls wanting to marry if they were in bodies of the same sex? Do you really think that these are the major issues weighing in on the minds of God and Jesus....or Buddha or whoever? Let's see: disease, hunger, terrorism, misery, hatred. Oh yeah, Jesus and God are REALLY worried about the world over this gay marriage issue. What is fear? Its' F-alse E-vidence A-pperaing R-eal.
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 9:11AM
Thanks. *waves*
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 10:27AM
I would also like you to articulate the damage to heterosexual marriage. I am happily married and if in my neighborhood was all same-sex married people it would not affect my marriage at all.
Please list the specific damages that will occur to my marriage if same-sex marriage is legalized. Perhaps I am missing something?
Plus we have the "tyranny of the majority" going on too. The people of California have spoken through the voting process, but so shall the legal system of the United States state speak due process. The majority has been wrong before... check other civil rights movements in the past. You will find a very similar pattern.
Grzmlyk| 1.19.10 @ 1:53PM
Of course, if one of your neighbors slaughtered another of your neighbor's wives, that wouldn't affect your family either, would it?
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 2:08PM
I have no idea what you mean by this statement. Please elaborate.
Northern Rebel| 1.19.10 @ 10:49AM
Plastic fantastic emptiness?
Alan Brooks, you have failed to read the directions:
You are supposed to inflate the doll!
I don't care who does what, I just don't want my kids being taught in school that it is normal behavior.
If it was normal, two men would be able to produce a child.
I will not incriminate myself, but I will say, I am the exact opposite of a homophobe, though today, I have a loving wife, 2 kids, and 3 grandchildren.
Gays already have the same rights as all Americans, and a trip to a lawyer would solve most other issues, save hospital visits, and I believe those rules should be modified for today's circumstances.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, has been for 1000's of years, and should remain so.
Ninety percent of the homosexuals I know don't want to get married, they just want to be left alone.
Alan Brooks| 1.19.10 @ 5:40PM
"Alan Brooks, you have failed to read the directions:
You are supposed to inflate the doll! "
No thank you-- will pass on that. But thanks anyway.
Sex is not sinful anymore, just rote, stylized. Bring back dark, furtive, threatening sex... Ah, the good ol' days when men were men, 'n' sheep were sheep.
And the sheep keep running.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 11:01AM
A trip to the lawyer does not give them the same rights as any other American. Regardless of what the paper says hospitals etc ignore it all of the time. The fact that they have to do something special to get even some of the rights is a violation of their civil rights. By virtue of this extra required steps and label has them as a second class citizen.
David Shoup | 1.19.10 @ 11:07AM
The main reason for marriage is not sex, but children. Therefore, gay marriage, or any other aberrant form, is an exercise in futility. And monogamous heterosexual marriage must be the standard for a decent, stable society. Otherwise, the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah will await our beloved America. We do have the standard and the warning for failing to meet the standard in the Bible, the Word of God himself.
Clasina Segura| 1.19.10 @ 4:30PM
Thank you, Mr. Shoup.
darcy| 1.19.10 @ 4:51PM
Verily, verily, Mr. Shoup.
Peter A. Simm| 1.19.10 @ 11:08AM
Jeffrey Lord, oh Jeffrey Lord, where do I begin? Your entire rebuttal fails to offer a single argument as to why same-sex couples are unworthy of marriage. Instead you rely exclusively on repeating the mantra that, if same-sex couples are allowed to wed, then “other” people -- who deserve to be precluded from wedlock -- will inevitably be allowed to wed. Those undeserving relationships include “polygamy, polyamory and heaven knows what else”.
If polyamorists were indeed seeking state recognition of their relationships, then they would engage in polygamy (or at least attempt to do so). So strike polyamory from your list.
The phrase “heaven knows what else” is disingenuous. Your language is clearer when you refer to “man-boy love”. If adults of sound mind are able to validly consent to legally marry without regard to gender, then it obviously must follow that minors will magically gain the ability to validly consent to marriage. Not. You also fail to explain why pedophilic sexual relationships would magically cease to be inherently exploitive and abusive, and hence outside the realm of legal approbation. Indeed, your entire treatment of “man-boy love” is a not-so-subtle attempt to tickle the part of the reptilian brain that responds to the vicious lie that homosexuality somehow should be conflated with pedophilia.
As for the rest of “heaven knows what else” is left unstated -- but invites the reader to engage in fearsome imaginings -- we apparently are left to presume that animals and inanimate objects will also magically be imbued with the power to validly consent to marriage and to unambiguously communicate that consent. And that bestiality magically will cease to be exploitive and abusive. When scrutinized with a modicum of logic, the scary slippery slope towards nuptials between Fred and Fido actually isn’t slippery at all. Like any utterly groundless slippery slope, it is very, very tacky.
Although you didn’t mention it by name, “heaven knows what else” surely is intended to also refer to incestuous marriage. Power dynamics in family relationships make consent to an incestuous marriage inherently suspect. As well, the overwhelming weight of reputable scholarship confirms that incest is associated with serious risks of psychological harm.
This leaves polygamists as the only straw-men (and straw-women) left standing -- or maybe hurtling down another supposed slippery slope. Curiously, it is polygamists who are quick to insist that they are merely practicing their sincere and strongly-held religious beliefs. As you point out, the Bible mentions examples of polygamy with apparent approbation (or at least neutrality). Since, even in a Christian theocracy, religion would be problematic as a basis for barring polygamy, perhaps we should see if there are valid, secular reasons for not recognizing simultaneous multiple marriages.
The answer is found in the fact that a polygamous marriage typically is comprised of a man who simultaneously has multiple wives much younger than himself. (If anyone can find a real-life example of a woman with multiple simultaneous husbands -- as distinct from a serial marrier, like Liz Taylor or Zsa Zsa Gabor -- please enlighten us.) This standard model of polygamy raises legitimate public policy concerns regarding consent. Where a bride is a minor, the issue of valid consent is obvious, and parental permission is rightly viewed with scepticism when, as is often the case, the bride’s parent is also a polygamist or is a member of a polygamy-endorsing religion. Even where a polygamist bride is not a minor, society may doubt the validity of consent where she was raised in, or resides in, a closed community where the social, religious and family pressure to polygamously marry is enormous. Society may also have legitimate concern about the fate of males born into polygamous communities, since they tend to be expelled long before they are self-sufficient adults. Society -- and conservatives especially -- might be especially concerned by the high rates of welfare dependency in polygamous communities. Society -- but maybe not all conservatives -- might also have qualms because polygamy typically entails a socially-undesirable degree of female subservience.
The above concerns would seem to provide a rational basis for continuing a legal ban on polygamy. Supposing, hypothetically, that on further scrutiny it turns out that there actually is not a rational basis to ban all polygamous marriages, then that reality would exist independently of any legal recognition (or non-recognition) of same-sex marriages.
JP| 1.19.10 @ 11:18AM
RevJDSpears,
I think you have it backwards. Civil Rights are not the point here. Marriage superceded this nation, as well as the European states. It is not a civil institution, but a private religious one. The state can no more confer the right of "marriage" anymore than it can force a person into that institution.
The obvious solution is the idea of civil unions, but most activists rejected this compromise. What Olsen's constituents demand is a full participation and recognition of "married" homosexual couples. But religious organization reject this, and states have no obligation to recognize married homosexual couples. This is not a civil rights case. It is anything but one.
What Olsen is arguing is not the right to civil unions, but to marriage (by definition is a private religious institution). For 231 years, individual states have been given the right and responsibility to regulate this. Olsen says differently -that the hidden rights of homsexuals supercedes the rights of the states. What the gay rights activists are demanding is the recognition of the title of marriage by states who do not wish to recognize unions as such. This isn't civil rights but tyranny.
As I stated above, this isn't some abstract debate coving obscure legal principles. The health of any society is determined by the state of its families. And the notion of Western (and thereby Christian) families is becoming more than problematic. The weakening of the family has been on ongoing process for more than 6 decades, and the court's interference at the highest level will just be one more stone chipped away. The State has a vital interest in this, but acts as if it doesn't.
Europe is much farther along than we are in this respect. The Europeans have all but given up on the antiquated ideal of the Christian family. And no, there isn't any problems on the surface. Well, except one. They have no children. I lived in Europe for 4 years, and it didn't take long to realize that most of the parks and play grounds are empty. Native Europeans (who have no problem recognizing homosexual marriages) are in a death spiral. You can't have a future without children, and the Europeans average less than 1.8 children per female. Just a generation ago, Europe averaged close to 3 per female. Things can go to pieces in a hurry. As it stands, Europe's future may be determined by its large Islamic minority. They do have children, and they tend to take thier families seriously.
The late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once stated famously that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I think this nation would be wise to remember that.
molonlabe28| 1.19.10 @ 11:26AM
I can't stand Olson.
If my memory is right, he foisted John McCain on the Federalist Society about 3 years ago as the keeper of conservative principals and then, the next year, did the same thing with Rudy Guiliani.
Some conservative.
Seek| 1.19.10 @ 11:34AM
JP: Are youu implying that if a marriage ceremony is not explicitly Christian, then the marriage itself is invalid? God knows, there are enough screwed-up Christian couples in this world.
JP| 1.19.10 @ 12:20PM
Invalid in what way? Are you speaking from a religious point of view or civil? And in my earlier posts I underscored the sad state of marriage in this nation. The religious underpinnings of marriage have been hallowed out, deconstructed, and ignored to a point that no one really understands them anymore. The orginal term for marriage (from the Catholic Church) was the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony (or the Making of Mothers). The old name certianly emphasized where the focuswas applied-mothers and the rearing of children. And yes, Christians have made a mess of things. But much of the blame also lies in the secular pop culture which is everywhere. And behind this pop culture lies 40 years of federal court rulings that have undermined marriage from a number of different directions.
As I stated earlier, it took a millinieum of constant effort to build up what is known as the Christian Family. We're in the process of destroying it in less than 1/10 of that time. Europe is the canary in the coal mine. We are not too far behind them.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 12:44PM
Again you are making marriage a purely Christian affair. Believe or not, not everyone in America and the rest of the world is your flavor of Christianity. There are other religions out there that do not subscribe to your Fundamentalist beliefs. Same sex marriage has been done before in history if you care to look.
America, since its inception, is a secular state which has been under significant assault by Christian Fundamentalism. It has take the civilization a millennium to try to shake off the patriarchal and oppressive religious tyranny brought on by Christian Fundamentalism.
The religious underpinnings of marriage are for the individual and their faith to determine. If they are Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or Unitarian, Evangelical they all have the right to make marriage what it is them and their beliefs. American Law does not care, at least it should not. It is blind to your religious beliefs as long as no one is harmed in the process. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is a secular matter, and any religious associations to marriage are a personal matter.
"Keep YOUR religion out of OUR government." and "Keep OUR government out of YOUR religion.".
It also sounds like you are saying that marriage in any form did not exist prior to the Catholic Church's miraculous creation of it? I think history would beg to differ with you. Do not think even for a moment that Christianity is the sole purveyor of marriage in the world. Every single society through out history has had one form of marriage or another.
JP| 1.19.10 @ 1:15PM
James,
Go down memory lane and look at the how the family was ordered in Pagan Rome. And you don't have to go back that far -look at Islam, as well as Asian cultures. The West and its culture are firmly rooted in the Christian conception of marriage and the family. And as I posted before, it is gay activists who wish to impose thier very small minority view up religious people. In state after state the voters are happy with thier definitions of marriage. Olson and his clients wish to get a small number of judges (In the SCOTUS they only 5) to impose this redefinition upon all 50 states.
Yes, every society has had its own forms of family, but the West wasn't built on Islamic notions of family, nor those from India or Thailand. Europe couldn't have survived much less flourish without the strong (at at times fanatical) bonds of its extended family. And I don't know if people would like the family and marriage requirements of other societies (especially women). Of course, there are the secular ideas of "relationships" and co-habitation (Something that not even Rousseau, who was no friend of Christianity, thought possible in the long run). For more than 3 decades the US has drifted more and more that way. And look what it has brought us.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 1:52PM
I see polygamy in your examples even within Christianity. With your examples given I am assuming that you are promoting polygamy then since it was an exalted Christian marital ideal then?
I would not hesitate to argue that without the US' civil rights movements that your precious Christian Heterosexual Marriage would be just as oppressive to women as the various forms of Polygamy. It is our nation's commitment to enlightenment and equality that has prevented marriage from being the patriarchal "women as chattel" institution that has been pervasive throughout Christianity's and the US' history, which of course really started with your precious St. Augustine and his theological and philosophical contemporaries. Without the civil rights movements women would still be effectively property as was tradition to Christianity's history. If you study the history of Marriage as is well recounted in the Prop 8 testimony you will find this imminently true with great examples, so you can thank US civil rights movements for removing the oppressive bonds of the "traditional Christian" inspired ideals of the marital arrangement.
Actually, the US was formed on the backs of those fleeing from religious persecution from the Catholic Church. The US, being the melting pot that it it is, has people from all around the world: Hindu, Quaker, Muslim, Jewish, Unitarian, Buddhist, and of course those of the Native American nature worshiping too, lest we forget them, and they all have their own religiously inspired ideals as to what marriage is.
Believe me, if you look at history and every single civil rights movement throughout history you will find that the majority was wrong, and eventually civil rights and freedom won out.
I am sorry to hear that you feel that freedom for many oppressed minorities such as women, African Americans, non-whites, and sexual minorities are an affront to your beliefs and the Christian way. I am sad that you disagree with these advancements. =(
Marriage has existed in many forms. It is just Christian Fundamentalism have oppressed their specific ideology of what marriage should be and many conformed under the threat of militant theological threats of extinction. Marriage in the hetero form was the most common simply by virtue of a statistical majority not because the Catholic church said so. Marriage is not the creation of the Catholic Church, since it has existed as long as man has been intelligent enough to create such ideals.
Dave M.| 1.19.10 @ 2:40PM
No, marriage has not existed in "many forms". Historically, there have been two sanctioned forms of marriage: between one man and one woman; and between one man and two or more women (i.e. polygamy). So-called "gay marriage" was never sanctioned any where in the world until the past thirty years
Additionally, if so-called "Christian Fundamentalism" has forced its definition of marriage on the world, how do you explain Japan, China, Korea, India, etc. All of these countries, today and historically, recognize only heterosexual marriage (i.e. normal marrige), yet none of them historically were Christian nations, although Korea is quickly becoming one.
Furthermore, the first settlers to this nation were not fleeing from the Catholic Church, they were fleeing from the Church of England. Additionally, once this nation experienced huge amounts of immigration from Catholic majority nations, these immigrants retained their Catholic beliefs and, thus, faced discrimination here. They migrated here for mostly economic reasons.
For all of your crap about women as chattel and the patriarchy due to Christianity, please read the New Testament.
Finally, why are you such an anti-Catholic bigot? Maybe you would feel better if you lived in an Islamic country far away from any Catholic (or Christian) boogeymen. Allahu akbar infidel.
Denise| 1.19.10 @ 3:09PM
Mr. O'Neill,
I will forego commenting on most of your tribe-filled diatribe except to correct you on one point: Polygamy has never been "an exalted Christian marital ideal." Any group who claims so is working from a book of "prophecy" or "revelation" other than the Bible. Jesus clearly defines and defends true marriage as a God-created ideal in Matthew 19. Paul instructs Timothy to select only "the husband of one wife" to be a deacon in the early church (1 Tim 3:12). Early believers who were already married to multiple wives were not required to divorce all save one, but the practice was neither expected nor allowed to continue. There has never been a Christian community where polygamy was an acceptable, let alone exalted, practice, unless that community claimed to have received some extra-biblical, "new" revelation.
darcy| 1.19.10 @ 5:31PM
Quite right, Denise.
Moreover, the many wives of King David, Solomon, and others in the Old Testament was a matter "descriptive" not "prescriptive."
And Mr. O'Neill -- I'm afraid your extreme bias against Christianity has blinded you to the historical facts; had you a little less venom for Christianity and fear of "fundamentalists" you might settle down a bit, hunker down, and read the various State Constitutions acknowledging God. Take California's, for example: "We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."
"A Nation Under God? The ACLU and Religion in American Politics," is a good place to find some facts relating to the place of religion in our founding history and to learn how a concerted, deliberate effort is underway to erase the heritage and implications of this nation's Judeo/Christian roots.
Mike | 1.19.10 @ 11:43AM
Mr. Lord,
The main premise of your rebuttal appears to be little more than an artful reprise of Rick Santorum's concern. Thank you for leaving domestic animals out of the discussion.
As far as Proposition 8 goes, have you ever considered the possibility that this was little more than another example of "the tyranny of the majority?"
Dave M.| 1.19.10 @ 2:16PM
And if the Ninth Circuit overturns "the tyranny of the majority" won't it be little more than another example of the tyranny of the judiciary?
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 1:11PM
I think it is going to be more of a "tyranny of upholding the US Constitution".
ChuckD| 1.20.10 @ 9:28PM
Well said Dave M.
I guess one man's "tyranny of the majority" is another man's "Will o f the People".
victor| 1.19.10 @ 11:15PM
" another example of "the tyranny of the majority?"
Isn't that what you Obamanids say and do all of the time to justify your "mandate" of 52%?
That it gives you the right to do whatever the heck you wish to do?
Prop 8 and all of the other Props and Questions, apply only to one thing and one thing only:
Marriage as defined and ordained by God, is One Man and One Woman!
As Earl Scheib used to say:
No ups, No extras and No substitutions!
What you are proposing is " "the tyranny of the minority".
There are very few of you people out in society, but you insist on US following your perverted rules.
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 1:16PM
There is only a "tyranny" if unwanted laws are forced upon people and it adversely affects them. Legalizing marriage will not affect you, your heterosexuality, or your marriage one bit, but it will affect the lives of same-sex couples in a very profound and fundamental way.
You may not want the law passed, but it does not affect you rights or your marriage at all. It only offends you sense of morality.
Grzmlyk| 1.19.10 @ 12:11PM
Let's not underestimate the tyranny of the minority. That's what's been going on this country for for 40 years.
All you have to do is declare yourself a member of some preferred victim group, band together, voice grievances you have against the dominant culture, claim that those grievances are a violation of your civil rights, and, Voila! Your desires supersede the desires of the majority.
I find it fascinating that this article brought so many gay marriage proponents out of the woodwork. Who knew so many Amspec denizens were of this opinion?
I'm goin to go out on a limb and guess a lot of you folks aren't regulars on this site. I imagine you hang out at the Daily Kos waiting for the alarm bells to go off - some filter on your browser tells you that someone, somewhere, is against gay marriage.
Then, like dedicated firemen, you rush en masse to whatever article or site is promulgating the apparently utterly insane idea that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, cluck-clucking at the top of your little lungs to make it look like
most "reasonable" people believe this opinion is clearly confined to the knuckle draggers and the bigots.
By the way, 30 years ago, legally-sanctioned gay marriage wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye; now of course it's considered a birthright. So in 30 years will polygamy still be a "straw man" argument?
I wouldn't bet on it.
And if you read NAMBLA's materials, they make what they think are perfectly reasoned arguments for why man-boy love is legitimate. So don't be so confident that pedophilia will always be considered taboo. Remember, our culture continues to press ever leftward, and ancient cultures practiced pedophilia with nary a qualm.
Mike | 1.19.10 @ 1:42PM
"All you have to do is declare yourself a member of some preferred victim group, band together, voice grievances you have against the dominant culture, claim that those grievances are a violation of your civil rights, and, Voila! Your desires supersede the desires of the majority."
If this is true, the GOP should be ecstatic.
"And if you read NAMBLA's materials, they make what they think are perfectly reasoned arguments for why man-boy love is legitimate. So don't be so confident that pedophilia will always be considered taboo. Remember, our culture continues to press ever leftward, and ancient cultures practiced pedophilia with nary a qualm."
Evidently, you know no people who are gay. Are there gays who are into pedophilia. Yes. But there are straight folks who are too. I believe the vast majority of both gays and straights are united against the sexual exploitation of children.
Grzmlyk| 1.19.10 @ 3:33PM
Mike, are you willfully missing the point?
I didn't say that homosexuals and pedophilia are connected. That wasn't the point at all. That statement was an illustration that, 50 years ago, gay marriage wouldn't even have been dreamed of by anyone in society - so those who say polygamy or pedophilia will never be accepted at some point in the future are ignoring the inexorable leftward movement of culture toward an ever-more inclusive definition of "tolerance" - which leads to chaos.
You are pretty bad at sweeping generalizations. I am in the arts; not only did I choose four different roomates throughout college and grad shool who wer gay - and it never bothered me one iota - but gay people make up a large portion of my everyday life. I have nothing against them.
And I'm ambivalent about the whole kids thing. My sister is gay and she and her partner have kids. They are very dysfunctional, but is that a result of being gay? I don't know. Maybe being gay exacerbates an already- messed up situation. Maybe not. I don't know and nobody else does. But in my everyday dealings with them, I don't associate the two. I don't really think about it one way or the other. We just live. They are happy in their civil union.
But this claiming of a civil right to marriage, when marriage is simply something different, is where I get off the touchy-feely train.
Mike| 1.19.10 @ 9:56PM
Grzmlyk.
I am sincerely touched by your willingness to share your personal experiences in college and with members of your own family. When you say, "But this claiming of a civil right to marriage, when marriage is simply something different, is where I get off the touchy-feely train." Rationally, I understand what you are saying, but emotionally I don't. Those I know who are homosexual tell me that they have no more choice about their sexual orientation than I do. I believe them. Just as I cherish my marriage, I understand their desire for the same. I don't find convincing any reason to deny them what I enjoy so freely. Is this opening the door to pedophilia and bestiality? I don't think so. This is not to deny that either have or will exist among humans, but I don't see the camel's nose under the tent.
Again, thank you for a very human and honest contribution to this discussion,
Pingback| 1.19.10 @ 12:49PM
ADF Alliance Alert » A rebuttal to Theodore Olson links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 1:23PM
Tyranny of the minority? You are really going to attempt to use that line of reasoning?
Why should you lack care for some minority group's well being and rights make it OK to for the law to discriminate and promote bigotry against them? What does their gaining the rights that they deserve do to you? It does nothing at all to you or your rights. Are you harmed by the freeing of slaves, womens rights, or interracial marriage? Surely you must be if you are so adamant against gay marriage. Surely their having the ability to marry effects you in some tangible way? Let me guess none of those apply to you? I bet if you were a Lesbian African American Woman you would feel significantly different about all of these issues.
Socio-cultural evolution - get used to it, buddy. The world moves on and changes in light of an ever increasing understanding of our civilization and humanity. I know this idea flies in the face of everything that your movement stands for, but fortunately progress imminently forward winning against status quo maintenance, ignorance, and prejudice.
Dave M.| 1.19.10 @ 2:12PM
Not all change is good. Why don't you go take a walk late one night in a neighborhood near you where the institution of marriage no longer exists. After fifty years of "socio-cultural evolution" nearly destroying the sanctity of marriage, most of our society's pathologies can be traced directly to its disintegration.
It is because I care about society that I am against "gay marriage". Marriage is the building block and bedrock of any society. Destroy it and society will crumble. By redefining it into something it is not will destroy it.
Have fun on your walk.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 2:23PM
I would like you to show me these examples because I have no idea what you are talking about, and then I want you to explain to me how not having the traditional marriage is the only cause of said problem.
I am looking to be educated here.
Dave M.| 1.19.10 @ 2:54PM
Since you are ignorant on the subject Mr. O'Neill, even with all the resources at your disposal, I doubt you truly wish to be educated. However, to take you at your word, you might first want to look at "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action", also known as the "Moynihan Report", authored by the future U.S. Seantor Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) in 1965.
Another way to "be educated" is to take that walk. And to get really educated, make sure it is dark and you are alone.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 3:58PM
You are seriously pulling something from 1965? This is the same inefficient tactics that the Defense is trying in the Prop 8 case? Perhaps you can find something a little more contemporary and relevant to gay marriage?
I read over it quickly and it was an interesting. Are you attempting to equate AA Single Parent households of the '60's (at least as represented by this report) with Gay Parenting of today, and suggest that this will result in the dysfunctional decline of the children of Gay parents and their families?
So, are you also saying that violence occurring to people walking alone in the dark is a contemporary phenomenon, and has not occurred in prior history (say biblical times), or are you blaming it on African American equal rights? I am not sure what you are trying to say here?
Grzmlyk| 1.19.10 @ 2:25PM
Not only am I going to attempt to use that line of reasoning, I just did.
Gee, I didn't know I was part of a movement. Just because you are obviously part of a movement doesn't mean I am.
There is no such thing as sociocultural evolution.
That is a fallacy.
Human nature has remained remarkably constant over the millenia; it is societal boundaries, enabled by a growing and thriving middle class and the rise of technology - and the concommitant flood of " intellectuals" who mistake these things for evolution - that keep moving relentlessly leftward.
Only 8 decades ago, Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were all considered the apotheosis of cultural evolution. How'd that work out?
Despite the relentless push to the left, not every change is ipso facto a good thing. Some traditions are actually life-affirming and good - even if a minority doesn't like them.
I define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I don't care if homosexuals get together, but it ain't marriage - just as something that swims in the ocean and has fins ain't a bicycle even though you may insist it is.
Oh - and if one of my neighbors murders another, does that mean I should take no moral stand on it, since it didn't affect me personally?
Did you always want to be a bigot, or did the dream hit you only when you became a member of the Huffington Post community?
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 2:48PM
If socio-cultural evolution is a fallacy then not much must have change in our cultural views since the first colonists came here to the Americas? Is marriage still a highly patriarchal institution where women are little more than property and do not have equality? Do we still have slaves? Do we still require religious tests to become a public servant? I think history shows that our society is evolving whether you like it or not.
Human nature is fairly constant as evolutionary psychology would show, but our understanding of our humanity and civilization has changed and so have our actions, otherwise we would still be gathered together into small tribes and killing each other for resources. The scope of our understanding of "tribe" has shifted to a much larger scale - nation, just as our understanding in other socio-cultural areas have changed and therefore our actions. It does exist.
Hmmm...
a murder in my neighborhood-> self preservation is at risk -> do something to ensure I and the people I care about are not harmed - > makes sense
a gay person gets married -> I might marry a man -> I must stop gay marriage -> ???
How unsure are you about your sexuality? Mine is solidly hetero? I have no fear of my sexuality changing?
Marriage is very life affirming a good and the gay community is denied this wonderful thing.
Grzmlyk| 1.19.10 @ 3:15PM
I love you guys - you never fail to drag out the pathetic argument that we who are against gay marriage must be insecure in our sexuality. That's the only POSSIBLE reason we could be against it.
Please; the only thing you are insulting with that hoary chestnut is your own intelligence.
But since you brought it up, why the question mark at the end of your sentence when you assert that you have no fear of your sexuality changing? A Freudian slip, perhaps?
Yes, I actually do have a slave. Well, I refer to him as my cabana boy, but he is my chattel, no question.
The point is that humans have walked this earth in their present form for about 200,000 years; the pace of change of society has accelerated exponentially in just the last 50 years- comensurate not with greater self-awareness, but with our wealth and technological prowess, two occurrences that have removed us from the stuggle of daily existence, out of which many institutions were forged.
I noticed you didn't have a pithy responce to the supposed height of socio-cultural evolution that the 1930s ushered in.
Nice try on the neighbor killing another neighbor example, but I wasn't addressing the issue of safety; I was addressing the issue of morality. If a murder doesn't affect you, is it still wrong?
somehow I'm guessing if there were a gated community in which you had no desire to live, but one of its membership requirements was that people be straight, you'd be there with your sign protesting this violation of "rights" - even though it doesn't affect you personally one whit.
I'm sure the gay community can survive on civil unions just fine. Why, my very sister next door is in a civil union, and she and her CONSERVATIVE partner - and their kids - live their lives just fine without referring to themselves as "married." They're too busy living their lives to join a cause whose end game ultimately has nothing to do with gay marriage.
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 12:26PM
1930's Anglican conference? I don't really care about it due to Separation of Church and State, so there was really no need to comment.
Gated Community? I am pretty sure that Fair Housing Laws would cover that already. Hmmmm.... you may be right. I would have to research that topic a bit more to know for sure. I am not sure of the legalities regarding the creation and ownership of Gated Communities.
The fact that they have to "survive" is exactly the problem. The need to "survive" validates the existence of prejudice and a violation of equal rights.
"Equal rights for equal commitment."
TVHall| 1.19.10 @ 1:23PM
To argue this issue in terms of civil rights is to accept a fraudulent premise. Homosexuals enjoy the very same marriage rights as every other individual. This is strictly a matter of the definition of marriage.
For all of history, marriage has been defined as a heterosexual relationship. The only two possible exceptions are unlikely to palatable points of debate for those pressing this argument. If Mr. Olsen and his clients desire to alter this definition, let them present that appeal.
However, it should be clear that if the term "marriage" can mean whatever one requires, then it means nothing at all. And that is how the institution is inherently devalued.
Seer| 2.19.10 @ 9:16PM
The premise that homosexuals have the same right to marriage as heterosexuals is not aligned with the precedent of Constitutional law. To make it clear, look at disabled people. Prior to the ADA, your argument could have been applied to disabled people: everyone had equal rights to get into a building using the stairs. Unfortunately for your rationale, the SCOTUS decided that the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law didn't mean having the same rights, but rather having the enjoying the same fruits of such rights. As a result, you now see access methods for disabled people that are appropriate for their disability. This landmark decision also followed quite literally from the SCOTUS decision that separate but equal was not equal, hence invalidating the foxhole argument that civil domestic partnerships are the equal of marriages (which can easily be proven to be false simply based on the list of denied legal rights.)
Those of us who are living in California and paying attention to the trial have seen all the anti-gay-marriage arguments posited on this forum struck down one by one: first in public discourse and now in the courtroom where the mean-spirited and manipulative techniques of the anti-equality forces were exposed as having an deep undertone of wild, unreasoning bigotry.
Dai Alanye | 1.19.10 @ 1:37PM
Lincoln is supposed to have said, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg."
So it is with homosexual marriage. Same-sex alliances might come to be sanctioned by the state or the church or any other authority, but they will never be marriage in the true meaning of the term. The attempt to make them legal is nothing more than a form of rent-seeking by promoters of a specific type of perversion.
As far as conservatives favoring such a radical step as legalization of homosexual "marriage"— failure to conserve traditional marriage makes a mockery of the term Conservative. At least have the goodness to refer to yourselves by some other moniker.
S.L. Toddard| 1.19.10 @ 1:38PM
"The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, like Proposition 8, came into being by a vote of the American people"
I'm sorry, Mr. Lord, but the 14th Amendment most assuredly did not come "into being by a vote of the American people". It was decisively rejected by the southern states. The radical Republicans then crammed through the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which more or less expelled the southern states from the union and placed them under military dictatorships. The southern states had to accept the 14th Amendment in order to end those military dictatorships. Needless to say, this method of forcing through an amendment is not remotely constitutional but in fact illegal and even more remote - hopelessly so - from the idea that it "came into being by a vote of the American people". It was forced upon half the country at the point of a bayonet, and remains to this day a stain on our nation's history.
Northern Rebel| 1.19.10 @ 1:47PM
Mr. O'Neill:
Let me assure you, or disappoint you. The amount of homosexuals pushing for gay marriage, are about one percent, and they are an embarrassment to the rest of the "homosexual community."
The vast majority of gay men and women want to have a quiet, private relationship with their significant other, yet they keep seeing their lifestyle dragged out into the public light by a bunch of political militant wackos.
The fact that heterosexual people don't realize that, is a further dose of ignomy, to those who choose to live their life the way they choose:
IN PRIVATE!
It has gotten so bad, that the militants go so far as to "out" those, and humiliate those, unwilling to go along with their distorted political agenda.
In America, you should have the freedom to live your life the way you choose, as long as you are not infringing the rights of others.
The wacko gay political militants, do not abide by this principle. I doubt if you know more about this subject than I do, so go conquer some other liberal mountain, and leave patriotic homosexual Americans alone!
Seer| 2.19.10 @ 9:19PM
To make this conflict about extremists is giving it short shrift. Literally, those most committed to the struggle for equal access to marriage for gay people are those who deeply love the Founders, the Constitution, and the principle of Equality that this country was founded on. Your allegation that equality is unimportant because only a minority of a minority want it would have been completely irrelevant to the Founders, who made it clear that, as Cheney recently pointed out, equality isn't equality unless it applies to everyone.
Dave M.| 1.19.10 @ 1:59PM
Homosexual relationships are not inherently equal. In fact, they are dangerous, especially amongst the men. Does everyone here know that gay men who have acted upon their homosexual compulsions even once are prohibited from giving blood. The reason: AIDS. Why would any sane society want to promote a lifestyle that dangerous? Forcing so-called "gay marriage" down our throats would do just that.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 2:00PM
They do want to live their private lives. They also do not want to live in fear or feel like second class citizens not worthy of recognition or protection from the law.
Check out the Prop 8 trial tracker for testimony of those who are fighting for equality. See how traumatized they are that their love and commitment to each other is seen as something as aberrant, harmful and lesser than hetero marriage. Check out the mayor of San Diego and his testimony as to why he changed his mind.
Gay marriage is really easy to fight against when it is an abstract concept. Things start to fall down once you bring real people with real pain and real tears into the light.
Paul McGrath| 1.19.10 @ 2:48PM
True, Mr. O'Neill, but the fundamental issue here is that these real people with real pain and real tears will never be able to biologically produce real children, which is the reason that the so-called marriage benefit exists in the first place.
Yes, I understand that there are gay couples raising children, just as there are single mothers raising children and foster parents raising children. But as a society, I believe that we should want to instill the concept that the best way to raise children should be by those who conceive them. This is why we bestow the marriage benefit to one man and one woman, and why it should continue to be restricted as such.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 2:58PM
Of course, if you really are going to use this argument then those couples who chose to be celibate, who choose to not have children, or who are infertile should also not be allowed to get married. This would also apply to the elderly as well. It sounds as if you almost want to require a document to be signed by the couple to be married that they ‘will have children‘ otherwise you are not really married since that is what marriage is for by your definition.
or if we take your logic the other way then either we should force the biological parents to stay together since it is "what is best" for the children or that if the biological parents separate then they should lose their children..... and then do what with the kids?
Have these people not existed all throughout history and these people are only a byproduct of contemporary society? Are you saying that Christianity all throughout its existence believed and legislated as such? You can only get married if you are planning to have biological children?
The best way to raise a child is to give him loving and supportive parents. I am sure we can come up with a plethora of examples where the biological parents are abusive in many ways. If you check the expert testimony in the Prop 8 trial you find that you are incorrect about this.
Paul McGrath| 1.19.10 @ 3:51PM
Yes, I have heard this argument. But as to this issue, society obviously does not have the desire to demand that its members have or do not have children, or that they stay together or even get married in the first place. I would not wish to live under such draconian rules. All society does, in what I believe is a very benevolent way, is to promote a certain kind of behavior by bestowing a certain recognition--and yes, certain additional rights--to heterosexual couples who may or may not have children. That's all.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 4:04PM
I respect your right to your opinion, but to promote a value is one thing . To legalize it as such is to actively deny equal rights and promote prejudice is another, and this results is really harm not only to the affected individuals, but to society and their place in society on the whole.
Paul McGrath| 1.19.10 @ 4:19PM
You have finally defined the fundamental flaw in your argument. Marriage is not a right. Nor is drinking, or driving, or prostitution, or smoking dope, or unlimited use of firearms, or blowing things up, or walking around naked, or having sex in public, or jumping from a ten story roof, or just a whole lot of things that "don't really harm anybody, man." No. Society has the right to determine the rules under which it wishes to live. Marriage is not a right.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 4:53PM
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
The Supreme Court disagrees with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
John Pack Lambert | 1.20.10 @ 6:44PM
In 1972 the Supreme Court specifically limiting marriage to a man/woman institution.
The simplest way to explain this is that everyone has equal access to marriage under the current rules. You say "no they don't, homosexuals can not marry".
This is false on multiple levels. First, what is actually forbidden. There are a few things forbidden, but I will focus on two. a 13-year-old can not marry anyone people of the same gender can not marry eachother. The Loving case ended the complexed laws on inter-racial marriage.
Let us work out this with my friends Lydia, Abigail, Truman, Dillon, John, Adrienne, Kevin and Emily. Currently John can marry Adrienne or Emily, Kevin can marry Adrienne or Emily, and everyone else on the list is too young to marry. Adrienne can not marry Emily and John can not marry Kevin. The "sexual orientation" of any of these people is not known, and is not actually relevant to the law. Thus discrimination is not based on sexual orientation.
Now Kevin could not have married Emily if they had been born with the same race early enough to have been of age in 1966 Virginia. However assuming ages were right, John could have married Emily. So, under the old system different people had different sets of marriage partners.
It could be argued that currently the system makes it Adrienne can marry John but Kevin can not marry John. However, Olsen is not arguing that this system is based on animus against males, or animus against females. He is arguing it is based on animus against homosexuals, yet homosexuals have equal access to marry as anyone else.
The fact that they do not wish to avail themseoves of this access is not legally relevant. Deciding to marry is an individual choice, the state just needs to provide equal access.
The Loving v. Virginia case might be relevant if the argument was that people with cross-racial sexual attraction were being discriminated against. However, this is not how it was ever spoken of. The desires and goals of a multi-racial couple are the same as of a single-racial couple, at least in the broad realm of marriage.
The argument was that race was used as a consideration in law, something forbidden in the 14th Admendment. Since the 14th Admendment lacks the same wording for sex, and since the ERA was defeated, sex CAN be used as a consideration in law, especially when it is central to the purposes and nature of the institution as is the case in marriage.
Seer| 2.19.10 @ 9:25PM
If you examine Loving vs. Virginia, the SCOTUS ruling clearly is based on the reasoning that marriage is a civil right that cannot be denied to people based on prejudice. As I pointed out above, the SCOTUS has made it clear that equal protection under the law doesn't mean having the same right, but rather equal access to enjoying the fruits of such rights, as for example the ADA (americans with disabilities act) ensures. Ultimately, your argument rely on the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, which is not a fact but rather a propaganda campaign by religious authorities which has been repeated often enough that people accept it as fact. In truth, science has already determined that it is not a choice, much as you yourself must admit that you never made a choice to be heterosexual.
The desire to cast it as a choice is actually founded on another Christian tradition, punishment. Punishment for people's unique and God-given traits has been repeatedly repudiated in American history, and I see no reason why that direction will suddenly reverse itself.
Oldefarte| 1.19.10 @ 2:41PM
As Shakespeare once proclaimed: KILL THE LAWYERS!!! That said, let me repeat myself on this subject: [1] God's NATURAL LAW is the basis for, and supercedes MAN'S LAW; [2] Examples of [1] forbidding homosexuality are the Commandment 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife' (indicating a male-female relationship); God's creation of a man and a woman as the first two humans (for God's intent of PROCREATION purposes); and finally God's Commandment to 'Honor thy father and thy mother' (again indicating a MAN and a WOMAN). Therefore, hetersexuality [and man/woman marriage for the purpose of procreation] is the preferance of God's Natural Law, which cannot be superceded by man's laws; and homosexuality becomes illegal!!!!!
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 3:02PM
This only really applies if we were a Christian Theocracy and we are not. If someone does not believe in God or Christianity then why should they beholden to your interpretation of the Biblical writings.
Separation of Church and State
Ret. Marine| 1.19.10 @ 6:58PM
You ignoramus, the term seperation of Church and State has absolutly no substence to this conversation whatsoever. I suppose you were edumicated in the pubic scrools too.
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 9:19AM
It has everything to do with this conversation.
My support for separation of church and state has nothing to do with my schooling at all. *shakes head*
Seer| 2.19.10 @ 9:29PM
Well, the Constitution specifically makes it clear that church and state must be separated, and the Founders very clearly wrote (in the Federalist Papers) that any control of one over the other would rapidly lead to the demise of freedom. This issue is all about the separation of church and state because Proposition 8 in California would not have passed without the legal (and illegal) participation of religious organizations, who spent nearly $30million to mislead California voters with spurious issues not related to the matter at hand - in general by creating fear of homosexuals in them. As the court case recently showed, their success indicates that the church can successfully influence government to further its agenda, which is a betrayal of our Constitution.
Jane| 1.20.10 @ 4:51PM
Du.. there IS no "separation of church & state!"
James O'NEill | 1.21.10 @ 9:14AM
Is too!
Paul from SA| 1.19.10 @ 2:44PM
The issue of gay marriage has very little to do with marriage. Gay people in CA can already form civil unions which are identical to marriage. Those in other states can go to a lawyer and enter into a obligatory relationship formed by contract.
If they are complaining about benefits, then we know it's not about marriage.
This is about forcing Americans to accept gays -- by law. It's not about discrimination, it's about acceptance. They want us to stop being repulsed by their behavior.
The same goes for gays in the military. It's not designed to help the military.
The larger issue is gov't vs. people with the judges in between. How do we make laws? When one or two judges make a new law, there will never be acceptance.
FreeXenon@gmail.com | 1.19.10 @ 3:07PM
DP are not even close to the same. They only impart some of the rights and no matter what contracts and legal paperwork you have signed hospitals, probate courts, etc have definitely ignored them. It is about being seen as the same and equally in the eyes of the law. If there is a different process then it is not the same. Why should they have to go through all this extra work and pay all of this extra money to a lawyer to acquire the rest of the rights they rightfully deserve?
Separate is not equal. It is very much about discrimination.
You should read the testimony and you will see you are very much wrong.
There will never be acceptance of gay marriage just like there will never be acceptance of slaves as free people or interracial marriage? Really?
Paul from SA| 1.20.10 @ 5:38PM
So you've just reinforced my point. Now you're saying it's about rights and hospital visits and the legal hassle.
I thought it was about love and marriage. I was right; if you're talking about secondary benefits, you're not talking about marriage.
Equating slavery to homosexualilty is invalid. Equating acceptance of either is invalid. Homosexual behavior is voluntary; slavery is not. Slavery is illegal. Homosexual behavior is not illegal. For me, I consider it repulsive. It's like asparagus.
So if this is about benefits and rights, then why can't people marry their children, parents and siblings?
Separation, or discrimination is also not a valid point. We discriminate for marraige based on age, sex, family tree....
James O'Neill | 1.21.10 @ 9:20AM
Marriage is about very much about love and marriage and that is going to be a primary focus of the Prop 8 trials which will definitively show discrimination.
Real people with real relationships. Real love, affection, passion and a desire to love support and affirm their relationship the same as everyone else. This important step is something that they are denied purely on the basis of discrimination and prejudice which is mostly religious based.
"Equal rights and recognition for Equal Commitment"
I guarantee you if it were the other way around you would not feel like you do now.
Grzmlyk| 1.19.10 @ 4:31PM
Paul from SA, I agree, but I would add:
1) it's not just about acceptance; they're forcing this down our throats because tolerance isn't enough; acceptance isn't enough. We have to embrace homosexualty as perfectly normal. From a statistical standpoint alone, this isn't true. It is abnormal behavior.
2) the end game has nothing to do with sexuality one way or the other; it has to do with erradicating any meaningful definition of marriage whatsoever - no doubt that, just as in the similarly-purposed "green" movement, there is no shortage of true believers.
But the point of the gay marriage movement, as well as the "green" movement - and feminism and amnesty for illegals, etc. is to remove all obstacles from the State being at the center of our lives.
James O'Neill | 1.19.10 @ 5:33PM
Nothing is being forced down you throat. No one is coming into your house and listening to what you say or taking a survey as to what you believe to ensure you support gay rights or that you do not speak out against gay rights. You do not have to do anything. Legalizing gay marriage does not affect you in the slightest.
Tolerance only exists if there is intolerance or prejudice present.
It really depends on how you interpret the statistics. If you compare (and had reliable statistics) on the relative frequency of Heterosexuality/Homosexuality/Bisexuality within humanity I would bet that you would find a fairly constant rate for all three. Heterosexuality has to be the norm due to natural selection and perpetuation of the species. Homo/Bi sexuality has been apart of our humanity for at least as long as we have recorded history and I bet it even predates recorded history.
Marriage is when 2 people come together to love and support each other through whatever life may bring. Some people want kids. Some do not.
Seer| 2.19.10 @ 9:44PM
> But the point of the gay marriage movement, as
> well as the "green" movement - and feminism and
> amnesty for illegals, etc. is to remove all obstacles
> from the State being at the center of our lives.
This is flawed logic. If you look at Prop 8, effectively the churches chose a strategy of using the State to enforce their morality onto a minority. In other words, the State became a proxy for religion in exercising power. This makes the State more than ever the "center of our lives", especially for the gay and lesbian people who now have the State standing guard over the door to the courthouse. You seem confused about the exercise of power by the State in this issue: in California, gay people had the right to marriage, and it was the exercise of power by the State that took it away. The Founders specifically wrote that the exercise of power by the State against a minority on behalf of the majority was in their opinion the betrayal of all democratic principle, since it facilitated the concentration of power in the hands of the few. They were very familiar with this, since they have lived out being the minority that was persecuted in England.
darcy| 1.19.10 @ 6:32PM
The larger issue, as you allude to, Paul from SA, is that the leftist "state" has decided that it will be god, and that our private religious beliefs -- if they do not comport with state diktat -- are irrelevant and superseded by what the state declares is best for the "common good," regardless that such diktat contravenes the Constitution, most notably the First Amendment.
Mr. O'Neill's comments betray a serious gap in his understanding of the separation of church and state issue. Were he to educate himself and not merely spout off leftist propaganda, he might in the future be able to redeem his credibility.
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 9:26AM
The real issue here is that Christian Fundamentalists have decided that religion is not a private matter, but a matter to be decided and enforced by the state. Christian Ideologies are what has been enshrined into our laws and forced onto non-Christians.
Their concerted and long term effort to break down the wall of separation of church and state has been successful and has resulted in extreme harm to Americans. Fundamentalist Ideologies has been worming its way into our laws and oppressing Americans for a very, very long time. This Prop 8 is an excellent example of it.
Seer| 2.19.10 @ 9:49PM
Darcy, you seem very confused about the exercise of power by the State. The Constitution, which the State is empowered to defend, guarantees the right of individuals to practice any religion - or no religion - as they see fit. Yet, your statement clearly indicates that you think that someone practicing a belief system other than yours - as ensured Constitutionally by State "diktat" (cute use of the spelling, but it implies the opposite of what you are saying) infringes on your rights. In essence you are misunderstanding the Constitution. The very fact that people are allowed to practice belief systems that violate your morality is evidence of the fact that your rights are safeguarded. It is only when your morality is enforced on others that your own rights to practice your beliefs are threatened. For example, there are many democratic nations in the world today where Islam has pulled the same trick that Christianity pulled in California, and limited or removed the rights of Christians to live their lives as they see fit. This is an issue of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You, as the gander, have lost sight of that.
JP| 1.19.10 @ 3:01PM
I think we can agree to disagree on the socio-philosophical meanings of marriage. On a more practical level, let's assume for a moment that the courts side with Olson and broadly define gay-marriage is a constitutional right. If you mix in Grunwold v Conneticutt and Lawrence v Texas in with this ruling, you essientially have redefined the social contract as compared to earlier generations. And it will become very very difficult not to include foriegn practices that are contrary to existing laws (polygamy, incest, child marriages); afterall, they are just life style choices, and why should a decaying WASP culture dictate to other diverse ways of life? If you don't believe this is possible, just look to Europe and Canada to see how they handle these issues.
Pingback| 1.19.10 @ 3:11PM
Foreclosure Starts Continue to Soar in California : HousingWire … | Merced County CA links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 1.19.10 @ 3:53PM
Jeffrey, you lack of a cohesive secular argument belies that your response is just a shell to hide your religious beliefs. From a secular perspective, your slippery slope argument to "poly" marriages makes little sense because if you allow more than 2 people to enter the marriage contract, you could have marriages encompassing whole cities or States. This makes no secular or legal sense -- and you know it. If you want to argue the involvement of children (e.g. NAMBLA), we protect children in this country and that would be considered statutory rape. Besides, you cannot enter into marriage contracts while a minor.
Besides, limiting marriage also limits our liberty. In other words, you are arguing for a more intrusive government into our lives.
So next time, instead of providing faux argumentation, just say that you are a fundamentalist Christian and you want to impose your religious beliefs on me.
Paul McGrath| 1.19.10 @ 4:11PM
Whatever you think of Mr. Lord's article, you can not deny that there are many good secular arguments against gay marriage, many of which have been made right here, today. So stop with the straw man already.
Limiting marriage does NOT limit our liberty. Indeed, we are at liberty to regulate marriage in any way we see fit, and do. As you well know, most states do not allow brothers and sisters to marry, many states do not allow first cousins to marry, all states prohibit polygamy, and all states regulate to some degree the marriage of minors.
Society should have the right to determine the rules under which it wishes to live, providing, of course, that these rules do not infringe on the rights given to us in the Constitution. The Constitution, as we know, is utterly silent on the issue of marriage.
Seer| 2.19.10 @ 9:55PM
As a participant in the equal rights to marriage debate in California for the last two years, I have seen NO valid secular arguments against gay people having the right to marriage. Not one.
There have been many spurious non-sequiturs presented, but they always boil down to conclusions based on factual inaccuracies promoted by religious organizations, or failure of those presenting the arguments to realize that they were indeed based on a relative (to them or their religion) morality.
People seeking to justify discrimination are always grasping for an argument that cannot be defeated, which draws them inexorably to moral absolutes. Yet such absolutes invariably are grounded on two arguments: religion or "it's always been done this way." Neither qualifies as a logical, secular argument.
I recently participated with a group of fundamentalists who cleaved strongly to the idea that gay people getting married would have a material impact on their lives. After months of trying to get them to the table to present evidence of such *material impact*, which would essentially be a secular argument, the best they could come up with was that "textbooks would have to be rewritten." Given the illiteracy of their writing, I'm certain that nobody would have asked them personally to rewrite even a single textbook.
Grzmlyk| 1.19.10 @ 5:11PM
So what if poly marriages make no sense? Many things that are legal make no sense - to you or me. But they may make sense to someone, and, according to you, who are we to limit their freedom?
And you argue that our laws protect children in this country. Funny, I thought laws could be changed. Or isn't that the thrust of the whole gay marriage argument?
Don't forget, the voting age was changed from 21 to 18. And as some bright bulb here pointed out, women used to be unable to vote legally.
Gee, speed limits limit our freedom too. So do endangered species laws that prohibit my brother-in-law from paving his runway on a remote piece of land. And noise pollution laws. In fact, it seems to me a lot of laws limit our freedom.
By the way, I am not religious in any way whatsoever.
Bob| 1.20.10 @ 8:45AM
You've made my point. Laws that are not right eventually change. This is called "evolution"...
Bob| 1.19.10 @ 4:22PM
There were no good secular arguments made by Lord other than majority rules even if it conflicts with people's rights. And I received quite a laugh at your phrase "...we are at liberty to regulate...." The whole concept behind liberty is to limit regulation. How can you be so dense and illogical? If society decided that is was fine to put a camera in your bedroom to monitor your activity, you would obviously be fine with that as well. Your arguments are hollow as you are just making excuses for forcing your religious beliefs on all of us.
Paul McGrath| 1.19.10 @ 4:58PM
Again, the problem here is that marriage is not a right, no matter how many times you insist that it is. Society limits behavior in all kinds of ways, and should. As I pointed out above: Marriage is not a right, nor is drinking to excess, or driving above the speed limit, or prostitution, or smoking dope, or unlimited use of firearms, or blowing things up, or walking around naked, or having sex in public, or jumping from a ten story roof, or just a whole lot of things that "don't really harm anybody, man." No. Society has the right to determine the rules under which it wishes to live.
I don't believe that a societal requirement to put a camera in everyone's bedroom would be constitutional, nor do I believe that society would ever agree to such a thing.
And now you insist that my argument is a religious one, when I said nor implied anything of the sort.
You're blowing it, kid.
Bob| 1.19.10 @ 5:12PM
So your argument is that marriage is a "behavior" that society can limit? Then let's go back and limit interracial marriage. Why not if society says that is acceptable? Let's make sure that you can't marry someone who is 5 years younger than you.
The problem with your example of other behaviors is that they have a proven negative impact. Driving while drunk causes accidents. We do no limit your right to get drunk in private. Prostitution spreads disease and thus has a public health impact. We limit those things that cause SECULAR damage. That's why marriage does not fit into that category. And I don't understand why we cannot vote to put a camera in your bedroom. We have voted before to not let homosexuals have sex in private. Does that violate your constitutional right?
No, your arguments are simply straw dogs for imposing your religious beliefs on me.
Paul McGrath| 1.19.10 @ 6:05PM
If society wishes to prohibit marriage between partners who are more than five years apart in age, it may do so. If society wishes to ban marriage altogther, it may do so. If society wishes to legalize marriage between minors, it may do so. Marriage is not a right.
Society can not ban interracial marriage because it would be unconstitutinal to do so, as this prohibition would be based on race.
If society voted to put a camera in everyone's bedroom, it could do so, but again, I believe this would also be unconstitutional.
Your point that these other behaviors have a proven negative impact on society is correct, which is exactly why I am against gay marriage. Although perhaps not proved, in my view gay marriage will damage the institution of traditional marriage, which will inevitably impact the way children are raised.
toddes| 1.19.10 @ 6:31PM
Bob,
You wrote, "The problem with your example of other behaviors is that they have a proven negative impact."
Hasn't homosexual behavior been shown to have a proven negative impact? It was not that long ago that AIDS was spreading through the gay community at an alarming rate. While the disease was also spread through heterosexual activity (as well as blood transfusions and through the sharing of needles among drug users), it was dominant in the gay community.
I remember during my formative years hearing gay activists calling for government to "Stay out of our bedrooms." Why is it now that they are crying for the government to sanctify their relations?
Homosexuality is immoral. That is my belief and my argument. It is immoral in the same manner that lying and stealing are immoral. Just as lying and stealing damage a community, so does homosexuality. Homosexuality diminishes the community. The homosexual relationship, by its very nature, cannot perpepuate the existence of a society.
Others have tried to compare this to a man and woman who choose not to have child. This is a comparison of apples and oranges. A childless couple could, if they so decide, conceive a child. The homosexual couple, no matter how hard they tried, could not. Yes, they could adopt or, through surrogates, produce a child but obviously, this is external to the relationship.
As well, some have argued that denying homosexuals the "right" to marry is akin to denying blacks the right to marry. Again, this is apples to oranges. If you were to line up a dozen individuals, you could with great accuracy determine whether they are black, white, Asian, etc. You could very easily determine whether they are male or female. The traits of race and gender are determined prior to birth and during the gestation period. The same cannot be said for sexuality. (Given that I am a Christian, I hold to the fact the heterosexuality is the norm and that we are created with a innate knowledge of that norm. However for the sake of argument I include both heterosexuality and homosexuality in the following.)
Sexuality is learned behavior. It is learned from observation and instruction. It is also a chosen behavior. Except in limited cases, we choose when, where, how and with whom we participate in the sexual act. To deny this is, in my opinion, to deny our humanity and reduce us to no more than animals without the will or the ability to control our basic impulses.
darcy| 1.19.10 @ 6:49PM
Excellent points, toddes! Especially that last sentence -- it gets to the nub of what's at stake here: If there is a transcendant order, then the Founders were correct to claim and declare that our rights come from God; if there is no transcendant order, then the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are mere shells into which future generations may insert a table of rights that reflect the prevailing Zeitgeist.
The latter has been the chief work of progressives for over a century -- and we see now its ugly fruit, ripening and smothering the ground on which our freedoms, instead, should be nourished.
Mr. Olson has much to answer for.
James O'Neill | 1.21.10 @ 9:53AM
No where in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence is God, Jesus, or Christianity mentioned. "nature's god' or 'the creator' is mentioned in the Declaration, but that is it. Believe me if they meant GOD (full stop) they most assuredly would have said as such. Their words were chosen very carefully.
Patrick| 1.19.10 @ 9:32PM
Actually, a heterosexual couple that determines that _will_ themselves absolutely to be childless is no less damaging. They are intentionally stealing the benefits of marriage for selfish gain. Further, they willfully burden society with their selfishness in their later years.
The belief that a couple can mechanically stave off conception or unnaturally force (in-vitro fertilization) without repercussion is the primary cause for the existence of an abortion industry and the demographic insolvency of our nation.
Given that I am a Christian, I hold to fact that "faith" requires trust.
Jane| 1.19.10 @ 11:09PM
Warped.
Seer| 2.20.10 @ 4:40AM
>
This argument misses the fundamental point of sexual orientation, which is that what is not chosen is who you are attracted to. If it were, then you could relate a moment where you chose to be attracted to the same sex, which you cannot. You were simply endowed with that attraction.
I agree, sexual behavior can be controlled by the mind. However, to assume that someone who is attracted to the same gender should spend their lives denying their God-given sexual attraction while you indulge in and celebrate yours is both arrogant and represents a clear desire to enforce your religiously-determined morality on others, which violates the founding principles of this nation. (There are plenty of nations where it is the norm, such as Iran...)
As it turns out, you have a convenient "out": sexual orientation is determined during gestation as well - just like gender - by the latest scientific research. Scientists have theorized that nature selects *for* homosexuality as a means to improve survival of the species by balancing providers with caregivers in the tribe. (Well, you have to believe in evolution, of course, but that is a closed issue, scientifically, since it can be *observed*!)
Big J| 1.19.10 @ 4:27PM
Might I make a suggestion to our new-found bull-horner, James O'Neal?
Buy and read Mark Levin's book, Liberty and Tyranny.
By far, he makes the best argument for a civil AND moral society that I have ever read.
There's a lot of other fantastic information in there as well, regarding what our founding fathers had in mind when they crafted the Constitution.
Mr. O'Neal, you would do yourself (and the rest of us) a great service by reading this book .
THEN, come back and post here.
Northern Rebel| 1.19.10 @ 4:36PM
Thousands of years before Christianity, homosexuals were routinely put to death.
Homosexuality aboard ships, was a walk the plank offense.
Homosexuality amongst soldiers, was a shooting or hanging offense, so don't give me the religious intolerance shit.
Our society has modified it's stance in such a way that at least in America, you can have a homosexual relationship, without fear of violence, or negative repercussions, as long as you do the same thing heterosexuals should be doing:
Keep it to yourself!
Your sex life is nobody elses business, and that works both ways. I don't want to know if Fred is fucking Debbie, or Joe.
The political militant gay wackos, are not appreciated by patriotic American Homosexuals, and should go hug a fucking tree, and leave people alone!
Go plead your case in Muslim States, and see where that gets you.
Seer| 2.20.10 @ 4:43AM
I always find it amusing how the homophobes can point to two men holding hands in shock and admonish them to shamefacedly take it to the privacy of their bedroom, while loudly proclaiming that heterosexuals don't make such displays of themselves. Then they turn to the woman next to them and slide their tongue down her throat in a public theater.
It just goes to show that you only see what you're patterned to find unusual.
Alan Brooks| 1.19.10 @ 5:12PM
"I don't want to know if Fred is fucking Debbie, or Joe."
What if Joe is YOUR child or grandchild? then you have doubts. Personally, I don't know; but have doubts. The swinging sixties went sour.
Bob| 1.19.10 @ 5:14PM
That is a dumb comment. We have statutory rape laws in this country because we protect our children.
Tex Expatriate| 1.19.10 @ 6:46PM
If Olson was ever a conservative, which I doubt, he certainly is one thing. A lawyer. Someone in a Shakespeare play suggested the remedy: kill all the lawyers.
Ret. Marine| 1.19.10 @ 6:59PM
Yes a good start indeed.
Robert| 1.19.10 @ 7:56PM
"OLSON: "Our clients wish to be married. They believe that they have that constitutional right."
And he is correct. Any man has the right to marry any woman who will have him. And vice versa.
James O'Neill | 1.21.10 @ 9:46AM
...which specifically discriminates against those who are not heterosexual. If it were the other way around you would not feel the same way.
philfl63| 1.19.10 @ 8:56PM
I once got into a debate with a young soldier regards homosexuality. He like all the "brain-washed"young people of today told me that he had "gay friends" and that he saw nothing wrong with homosexuality. Poor kid. Anyway, I explained to him that there must be absolute truth or else there is only the truth that each one of us believes. I advised him that there must be a line in the sand or else nothing is sacred and everything goes. I framed my argument such that if I believed in truths only as I saw them then if I believed it was alright to steal for my money as opposed to working for it, who was he to tell me that I was wrong for robbing him of his wallet just because he believed stealing was wrong. I told him it did not matter what he thought about me stealing his wallet but only what I thought. I believe stealing is ok, I need money, ergo give me your wallet, or I will kill you. He was silent after that. Hopefully he had some food for thought. By the way, homosexuality is wrong and immoral, and homosexual marriage will be the final nail in our society's coffin. We can not let the perverts win.
Seer| 2.20.10 @ 4:47AM
You already have let the "perverts" win, because you are the perverts!
"To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good... Ideology - that is what gives devildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors."
-Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
Patrick| 1.19.10 @ 9:00PM
First, I am amazed at how many posters here, and the writer himself, have fallen into the trap. They know the slippery slope is there, yet fail to remember that their opponents don't mind the abyss it leads to.
Second, this is not a slippery slope, but rather a cliff edge, and the West jumped off back during the Seventh Lambeth Conference in 1930. Sure, we've grabbed at some branches on the way down and hit some jagged rocks, but the direction remains the same.
Second, religious arguments, including Natural Law, regardless of how true or sound they may be, are totally ineffectual in an agnostic-leaning-atheist legal system.
Third, I alluded to the Seventh Lambeth Conference. Essentially, at that moment, marriage and responsibility, sex and babies, etc. were all divorced within a major societal institution of the West, namely the Anglican Church. Everything else that has transpired since then is simply gravity. Of course, the only way to stop going down is to establish a goal in climbing up. Nearly all Christian conservatives, and a majority of Christian conservatives reading this, will find the descent into the liberal abyss preferable to actually forgo contraceptives.
Lastly, you can only fight this intellectual imbecility by laying down an argument that an atheist could swallow. This means dusting off Social Contract Theory. Sure, it's not the Bible or even Aquinas, but it is the only thing that the legal system might, perhaps, maybe listen to.
Now, the purpose of government is that while the "rights" found in total anarchy (also known as the "state of nature") are fun, they are very much lacking when it comes to making a living or raising a family. As such, a social contract is formed, where the governed relinquish certain "rights" for the benefits of a "rule of law".
This contract is quite literal when it comes to the United States. The Colonies formally rescinded their consent to be governed by the King of England in the Declaration of Independence, backed it up with lead and blood, and then later established a material social contract of their own in the form of our Constitution.
Of course, individuals will face the privation of certain actions based upon the nature of a given social contract. In the U.S., it is perfectly acceptable for a citizen to use a power drill for home remodeling. It is not, however, acceptable to drill holes in other citizens' heads. That "right" has been surrendered to the rule of law that we each may not be the one who gets a hole drilled in our heads.
Because this "right" has been surrendered to government by society as a whole, individuals who are part of that society, yet drill holes in peoples' heads anyway, are punished by that rule of law.
The same case can be argued for more complex and indirect situations such as ponzi schemes or check kiting.
Now, the responsibility of government is to govern in a way that protects and nurtures its host society, lest it be dissolved by the will of the people or by their extinction.
Now, lets consider the legally legitimized institution known as the military. It would be asinine for the military to accept a lunatic, regardless of how the lunatic feels, into its ranks. Said lunatic's psychosis in a time of war is a liability too great for a sane military's chances of victory to be accepted. He is therefore Section-Eighted. This is not malice, but rather an actuarial reality.
The same can be said for the institution of marriage. It is a societal institution that is given unique benefits by the government because it makes babies. Babies grow up to be adults, which in turn give another generation of life to the society and the government. It is not malice that the government grants no benefits to cohabitating homosexuals, it just happens that they offer _zero_ chance of perpetuity.
P.S. Contraception is Onanism, always was, always is, and always will be. It is also no different from sodomy.
Patrick| 1.19.10 @ 9:09PM
Also, please note that "highly improbable" and "impossible" are not to be confused. I have a family photo album that could help clean up that confusion.
TVHall| 1.19.10 @ 10:27PM
Contraception is Onanism? I suppose that works for the coitus interruptus definition. However, I fail to see how sexual relations between husband and wife, that don't result in insemination, is no different than masturbation, or even worse sodomy.
Such a fatuous remark serves only to undermine the credibilty of your argument.
Patrick| 1.19.10 @ 10:54PM
The deliberate misuse of one's sexual gift is the entire scope of the larger debate. Differing applications of intentionally closing sexual relations to life are still joined by the same immediate goal.
Patrick| 1.19.10 @ 11:01PM
Simply by side-stepping a nuance of method does not falsify the charge. For instance, adultery is still adultery regardless if it is via seduction, prostitution, or "swinging". The act is the act, regardless of how hard one tries to rationalize around it.
TVHall| 1.20.10 @ 1:15AM
Since a husband and wife sharing sexual intimacy does not qualify as a "deliberate misuse of one's sexual gift," your point is somewhat obtuse. And your use of adultery for an example is an absolute non sequitur.
Consensual sexual relations between husband and wife are a means of strengthening the marital bonds, as well as bringing children into the world. Both are approved uses of "one's sexual gift," as bestowed by our creator.
Chuckie| 1.20.10 @ 6:46PM
That was logical and well written. Have I landed in some alternate-universe Internet?
Onanism is different from Sodomy, though, if for no other reason than being less messy.
RMS| 1.19.10 @ 9:38PM
Robert Gagnon has probably the best arguments, religious and otherwise against homosexual "marriage".
http://www.robgagnon.net/Index.html
As others have said, it is not about "rights". Homosexuals have the right to get married to a partner of the opposite gender. Just like anybody else. But they choose not to. OK but let's not pretend that marriage isn't what it is and has been from time immemorial, even if it at times is honored in the breach and abused by adultery, polygamy, incest, or even perverted by homosexuality.
But it is about "special rights", as in specious. Homosexuals many times hate and despise breeders. How come they want to act just like them and get married? Isn't part of the thrill of perverted sex just that? It's not normal. But they want to normalize their "relationships".
And what next? is a legitimate question. NAMBLA lurks in the background and while at one time this country used to protect children, that changed with RoeWade. There's nothing saying incest can't become accepted and legal, give or take a couple of years, however the apologists for perverted marriage deny it. There's no such thing as truth or right and wrong anyway, right?
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 9:33AM
"As others have said, it is not about "rights". Homosexuals have the right to get married to a partner of the opposite gender. "
Really? I am not sure what country you are living in, but it id definitely not the US. If your statement is true then Prop 8 and the only 4 or 5 states which have legalized same sex marriage have really wasted their time since they can already get married?
Where do you live again?
It is not about special rights. This is all about equal rights.
Chuckie| 1.20.10 @ 6:35PM
James, you illiterate boob. RMS said that Homosexuals have the right to get married to a partner of the opposite gender.
O P P O S I T E. Read before you type.
And it is possible that it ID definitely in the US that he lives.
James O'Neill | 1.21.10 @ 9:27AM
Fair enough. Thank you for pointing that out.... =)
If they were heterosexual then there would be nothing to complain about, but they are not, so that right does not matter. Their sexual orientation is homosexual and therefore they want to marry someone of the same sex, so that right to marry an opposite sex person does not really apply to them any more than a law specifically allowing same sex couples to marry would be of use to a hetero couple.
Time immemorial?!?! Someone needs to actually research marriage and relationships throughout history. You are most definitely wrong. I have posted some links a little further down that prove as such.
Seer| 2.20.10 @ 4:55AM
You sir suffer from the mistaken impression that the civil procedure of marriage, which was designated as a universal right by the SCOTUS in "Loving vs. Virgina" is the same thing as the religious rite. Gay people do not seek equal access to the religious rite (or the religious Right) because they already have that access: there are hundreds of churches in several denominations that will marry gay people. The right - already denoted so by the SCOTUS - that they seek is civil marriage - you know, the kind you get at the courthouse. That right is not extended equally to gay people because as has been clearly delineated in Constitutional precedent, a right is not equal unless the fruits of that right are equally available to all. This was clearly shown in the decisions that led to confirming the Americans with Disabilities Act, in which it was made evident that everyone had the right to access buildings, information, and services ... not just to use the stairs.
So what's next? Equality. And Equality is not a "special right" even if those for preserving slavery, racial injustice, gender disrimination, and bans on interracial marriage announced that it was. One wonders why you are so threatened by Equality, given that our nation's founders wrote that it was the single most important founding principle of this country. What threat does someone else having equal rights to you pose to you, just because they're different from you?
Despite years of reading forums like this, I have never seen an answer to that question from the haters and bigots. I presume it is becuase there is none, other than the threat to their fake superiority and righteousness.
JBoz| 1.19.10 @ 10:34PM
Interesting that the left is trying to redefine marriage as a "right", ignoring of course that the rights enumerated in our Declaration are "God Given", thus tying rights of citizens of this country firmly to Christian theology. Yet, rather illogically, the left then veers off course to argue that the marriage "right" can't be defined Biblically, but however they choose.
It's also interesting how the leftists refuse to follow any chain of logic resulting from their arguments or intentions. Why not, why is it that their good intentions are all that matter? Millions have died as the result of misguided "good intentions" all across our world, why would you not embrace some logical extrapolation to examine possible unintended consequences. This is called activated ignorance. The act of deliberately embracing a blindness to the facts. Which defines many, but is particularly egregious among our more left leaning friends.
Wayne Clifford| 1.20.10 @ 2:01AM
I have read all these posts. I think Lord still carries the day, even though it took some of the comments to flesh out the down-side of dissolving the institution of marriage.
To me it just comes down to this: if Prop 8 is reversed, there are going to be some really, really pissed off people who are just tired of having moderate electoral decisions invalidated by the courts. There have been many of these reverses over the last few years and people see what's going on. IMO, we the unwashed masses have a better feeling for our own and society's interests than the courts, and we have that right. It has always, maybe with the exception of Seattle, been that marriage is a 1-man, 1-woman thing. The idea that the courts would reverse these elections such as Prop 8, and that so many people are OK with it, is outrageous.
Seer| 2.20.10 @ 4:58AM
The courts shall reverse Prop 8, for it is unconstitutional. And I find it outrageous that someone who claims to be a patriot would find it "outrageous" that such a violation of our constitution could be supported or promoted, especially by churches who are constitutionally disallowed from participation in the political process.
That disallowal is also considered "outrageous" by many zealots, yet it is just exactly that separation of church and state which legitimizes their right to practice their religion. You don't get to practice your religion because it's the most popular one in the country: you get to practice it because all religions - and the freedom FROM religion - is protected.
Why is it always the patriots and the faithful who are the least familiar with the constitution and the teachings of their prophets?
Yosemeti Sam| 1.20.10 @ 2:04AM
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis ch. 2, v. 24
A corollary:
Therefore shall a woman leave her father and her mother, and shall cleave unto her husband: and they shall be one flesh.
One flesh!
'Marriage' - as defined by GOD!
Question for Olsen and Boies:
Just how exactly do homosexuals become 'one flesh' ?
In qualifying for the rite of marriage?
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 9:35AM
We are not a Christian Theocracy.
Separation of Church and State.
Jane| 1.20.10 @ 4:55PM
Yoohoo. There is no such thing as separation of church and state. Wakey wakey, eggs n' bakey.
James O'Neill | 1.21.10 @ 9:22AM
Is too!
Seer| 2.20.10 @ 4:59AM
You may be right, but it is clearly spelled out in the constitution. So that makes you and all your ilk seditionists and betrayers of the constitution.
Etiquette Man| 1.20.10 @ 2:57AM
Mr. Lord is quite right to hammer away at the logical necessity of allowing polygamy if and when gay "marriage" gains widespread acceptance. The reason the DailyKos trolls are squealing is that they've been stuck. This simple point puts the lie to the idea that gay "marriage" will not affect the institution of marriage more broadly. This lie is so big that it hides in plain sight, and defies even otherwise astute defenders of marriage to articulate an adept response.
Marriage is a religious sacrament and a social franchise. Leaving aside the religious element, expanding any social franchise obviously changes it. Maybe it's wrong to have "men only" clubs (like Augusta National), and perhaps forcing the admission of women is the correct thing to do; but only a fool or a liar could say that doing so would not change the club, i.e. alter that particular social franchise.
The lie is, again, hiding in plain sight. Mr. Lord "outs" it rather nicely, by doing more than just alluding to polygamy in passing. He presses this crucial, and utterly damning point, persistently and ably. The Kosites have no reply; all they can do is fume and fulminate because they know the charge is accurate and, hence, deadly to their position.
David Shoup | 1.20.10 @ 5:36AM
Ted Olson has gone off the deep end, like C. Everett Koop before him. What is it about Washington that makes people conform themselves to the hedonistic big spending and controlling mindset that pervades that place.? Mr. Olson needs to retire to a country estate somewhere and write his memoirs of happier days with Barbara.
Ben| 1.20.10 @ 9:41AM
Why all the reference to polyamory?
I'm not aware of the polyamory movement seeking legal 'marriage' recognition.
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 11:06AM
For all of you saying that same-sex marriage has never existed prior to recent times here are some sites that say otherwise:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index.html
http://rictornorton.co.uk/marriage.htm
I will try to find more and higher quality sources later, but these should suffice for now.
You would think that me being an advocate would have already researched this and had this ready to throw at people, but I am finding myself a bit remiss in my responsibilities. =(
James O'Neill | 1.20.10 @ 11:07AM
two more links:
http://worldofwonder.net/2009/04/22/Homo_History/
http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=2155
David 7| 1.20.10 @ 1:17PM
Thanks Mr. Lord. The slippery slope argument has been one of my main arguments against same sex marriage.
If the idea is doing what is fair and legal regarding consenting adults, then it would be impossible to deny any three, five, or ten of either sex from engaging in "their" idea of marriage. Moreover, how could we fairly stop incestuous marriages. The argument used to be that sex among family members would producee hideous offspring. Well, that problem is now solved because anyone can get an abortion for any or no reason at all through all months of pregnancy. There are a mother and son in prison in Michigan for living as man and wife. Who is to say their love (unnatural and immoral as it is) is not as real as the love of any other couple or group? How is it fair to deny them their "pursuit of happines"?
I wish that homosexuals would acknowledge what probably any gastroenterologist would acknowledge: Our rear-ends were not made for sex.
Chuck| 1.20.10 @ 6:18PM
The US Constitution has nothing to say about Marriage. Read it. You can read and undertstand the entire document in an hour. It does say that all powers not specifically given in the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the People. That means this is a States Rights issue. That means California has every right to decide what marriage is within the state. Olson is spouting very learned nonsense.
James O'Neill | 1.21.10 @ 9:41AM
" nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This most assuredly falls under "liberty" and "equal rights", don't you think? They most definitely is religiously motivated discrimination going on here.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I am pretty sure that this applies as well....
justplainbill| 1.20.10 @ 6:20PM
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
"And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their list one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense or their error which was meet.
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
"Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents'
"Without understanding, coventbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
The Word of God, written in the Book of Romans, Chap. 1:16-32.
John Pack Lambert | 1.20.10 @ 6:53PM
What marriage as a right means is that all must be granted equal access.
Currently a person has access on the same grounds to marriage no matter what their sexual orientation is.
The claim that homosexuals are banned from marrying is FALSE. All people have the equal right to marry any non-related (by the definition in each state), un-married adult of the opposite gender, and age limits on marrying restrict the actions of the person under age, parental consent is needed equally for a 17-year-old to marry an 18-year-old as to marry a 56-year-old where it is the legal requirement.
Thus all people are equally able to marry someone of the same gender, so the law is treating all equally.
James O'Neill | 1.21.10 @ 9:32AM
If the law were that you could only marry someone of the same gender would you feel the same way? Would you want to marry someone of the same sex you did not love and then not be able to love and affirm your relationship with your beloved wife?
For some reason I think not.
Quartermaster| 1.21.10 @ 8:18PM
O'Neill, your argument is not an argument, nor is the statement even relevant.
When one man can impregnate another man, then we can talk. And, I'm not talking about some warped woman with cosmetic surgery to look like a man, getting pregnant either.
James O'Neill | 1.22.10 @ 9:24AM
It most definitely is a valid argument. How would you feel if the tables were turned?
Hurt? Lesser? Inferior? and list of other horrible things?
James O'Neill | 1.22.10 @ 4:16PM
oh... and if we are going to use the 'cannot bear children' argument then the elderly, infertile, or those who just refuse to have children should not be allowed to marry as well. There should also be a form to sign before you get married assure that you will be having children otherwise your marriage will be negated. =(
David7| 1.21.10 @ 1:37PM
Again, once we allow homosexual marriage, it will only be fair and legal to allow all consenting adults to define marriage however they choose, including marriage among family members.
Homosexuals can have all the rights of heteros by filing the proper legal documents. What homos want is to have special rights. They don't want to EVER be challenged in a court of law, yet it happens all of the time in traditional families. What homos want is to have the government and society approve of what they do. That is why it is so important to them to have us recognize them as "married".
The average life expectancy of a homosexual is 47 years. Check it out with the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. Why isn't that big news? Again, our rear ends were not made for sex - ask your gastroenterologist/proctologist.
Dale| 1.21.10 @ 4:50PM
David, all homosexuals don't engage in anal sex. Duh!
Dale| 1.21.10 @ 4:52PM
Perhaps a contributing reason gays don't live so long is that we live stressful lives dealing with all the BS of ignorant haters. Or maybe it's because they're not given the chance to have MEANINGFUL life-long relationships (marriage).
Dale| 1.21.10 @ 5:04PM
...and O'Neil is correct. Legally--via the Loving case and affirmed in the Texas "sodomy" case--marriage is one of our most fundamental rights. The right is of little value if one can't marry who he would choose. I swear, some of these religious freaks--the kind our ancestors left Europe to get away from--make it sound like heterosexually as we know it will end if gay marriage is affirmed. I'm certain that a change in law will NOT affect number of gay or straight people out there, but it MAY affect the number of people HONEST about their sexuality. The one thing I HATE, is someone who is really gay, but just plays it straight for religious purposes. What a lie!
Quartermaster| 1.21.10 @ 8:28PM
The Loving case was not jurisprudence, it was from whole cloth. It dioesn't even have the sheen of legality as such. It is accepted simply because of the moral authority that has been traditionally granted the courts because of their position in society.
That moral authority is coming to an end as they arrogate more and more authority to themselves that simply does not belong to them.
Queer activists have done more damage to themselves than they know. The push for homosexual marriage is an open assault on society. Save your breath on the protests, many activists have stated pointedly that is an assault.
People do not accept homosexuality because it is a mental and spiritual illness. That fact is what you are trying to overcome. In the long run, all you are trying to do is put a lid on a boiling pot that will eventually explode and burn you seriously. If all you wanted was to be left alone and live your life, you get out of our faces. That you find it impossible is because you you are full of hate for those of who are normal and find your liefstyle utterly repugnant.
James O'Neill | 1.22.10 @ 9:40AM
Mental illness? The American Psychological Association disagrees with you. They also disagree regarding conversion therapy. This is one link that covers it, but not in great detail. You will most likely be able to find more in depth articles on their site.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/.....ation.aspx
Believe me, I have no hate for heterosexuality. Being a heterosexual married male with newborn daughter I find it rather wonderful and appropriate for me.
Seer| 2.20.10 @ 5:02AM
>>> That moral authority is coming to an end as they arrogate more and more authority to themselves that simply does not belong to them.
Actually, it does. It is the JOB of the courts to reverse decisions of the legislature, executive and initiative process when they violate the constitution. They have absolute authority to do so, according to the constitution.
It's a shame that so many patriots don't even understand the founding principles of the nation they are so ardent to defend.
James O'Neill | 1.21.10 @ 3:09PM
It is not about special rights as I have said before in this thread. It is about equal treatment which is far from what they have.
A trip to the lawyer does not give them the same rights as any other hetero married couple. Regardless of what papers they have hospitals etc ignore it all of the time so they do not get sued.
The fact that they have to do something special to get even some of the rights is a violation of their civil rights. By virtue of this extra required steps, money, and separate label has them and their relationship as a second class citizen and inferior. Separate is not equal as has been supported by the supreme court.
David| 1.21.10 @ 3:21PM
Hetero couples have to file the same types of documents that the homo couples would have to file. There are no extra steps, effort, or money involved.
Are you willing to accept that all consenting adults can define marriage in any way they choose? If not, aren't you violating their civil rights, and their pursuit of happiness.
James O'Neill | 1.21.10 @ 4:01PM
So, are you saying that a same sex couple can go to their local county court house (clerk of courts or whatever) and request a marriage license just like hetero's do and have it legally recognized with no problems? As far as I am aware there are only about 4 0r 5 states where that is possible. In the other states they are denied this right.
....or do they have to file for a Domestic Partnership, or Civil Union, or go to a lawyer to get a bunch of documents that give them more, but not even close to all of the same rights that hetero's have, just to have them ignored by the hospital, probate court, etc? Or do they have nothing at all in most cases?
Can they file as married on their taxes or their insurance? Does a DP or CU have the same psychological impact as a state recognized marriage?
=(
David Rhodes| 1.21.10 @ 4:56PM
One of the traditional signs (or goods) of marriage is permanence (bonum sacramenti). The permanence of marriage in America began in 1972 when Reagan signed into law "no fault" divorce; civil marriage can be ended at any time, for any reason, without any consequence or constitutional rights to due process. I find the argument against homosexual marriage empty, given that marriage in America has ended long ago. This is just a consequence of our prior decisions. Where was the protests when the permanence of marriage was taken from us?
fit2post| 1.21.10 @ 10:26PM
Does Mr. Olson believe a bisexual person has a right to both a husband and a wife? If not, why not?
WAKE UP| 1.21.10 @ 10:34PM
Lissen up: there's a reason there are, throughout nature, overwhelmingly TWO (count 'em) sexes. I don't pretend to know the reason/s for this - but this I do know: I know that when something is so much overwhelmingly - and NATURALLY - the norm, other options are relatively insignificant, and you mess with it at your peril. And that's the way it is.
James O'Neill | 1.22.10 @ 9:51AM
Using your logic then polygamy should be the norm since monogamy in nature is a distinct statistical minority - somewhere in the area of 8% (I have seen different numbers for this, but this one will do to illustrate the point).
Homosexuality is found in many species in the world as well.
Seer| 2.20.10 @ 5:04AM
This person's comment is quite common among the haters and bigots and reveals the true depth of ignorance that those who get their edumacation from the church are left in. There's a difference between gender and sexual orientation. And to discus either without understanding both simply brands you as a rube.
"and that's the way it is" is not an argument, it's a tagline for a news anchor. Don't confuse the entertainment channel of Faux News with true reporting and facts.
RMS| 1.22.10 @ 2:35PM
Here we go again. I see that Mr. O'Neill is a troll with nothing better to do than post specious objections. But I repeat myself and others. Ditto below.
As an adult hetorosexual male I CANNOT marry:
My sister, daughter, mother or aunt; my wife and her best friend or a girl under the age of 12;
Rin Tin Tin or Mr. Ed the Talking Horse; a goldfish, bicycle or refridgerator.
The homosexuals claim discrimination.
Answer: GET IN LINE.
Who gave you cuts or said you could go to the front?
Discrimination is a unavoidable fact of life. So too those who whine about it.
James O'Neill | 1.22.10 @ 3:03PM
Troll? No.
Activist? Yes.
Specious? No. Because you do not agree does not mean I am wrong.
We really need to look at the why the discrimination is present and ask if is it still valid in the current context of our contemporary understanding of sexuality and our humanity, at least in the context with which you are using it.
* My sister, daughter, mother or aunt - genetics issues
* my wife and her best friend - polygamy
* a girl under the age of 12 - not and adult who can sign a contract
* Rin Tin Tin or Mr. Ed the Talking Horse; a goldfish, bicycle or refrigerator - not really applicable, but I will humor you none-the-less; not an cogniznant adult who can sign a contract or be recognized in the court of law as such.
* Homosexuality? - religious based prejudice
Same-sex marriage's discrimination is of a distinctly different class than all of the others, especially in light of our current understanding of sexuality.
David| 1.22.10 @ 3:23PM
James, I am not talking about the marriage license. That would be acceptance of what I am against. I am referring to all of the other documents, legal or otherwise, that govern a person's life and death: wills, living wills, various powers of attorneys, designations of beneficiaries to life insurance policies, 401K's, and bank accounts, etc.
I seriously doubt that hospitals and probate courts IGNORE legal documents. What may happen is that family members may challenge those documents in court; but, that happens all of the time within traditional families, too. What homos want is say that their wishes CANNOT be challenged - they want an escape, whereas probate matters between heteros and traditional families do not have that escape.
Again, if same sex marriage were allowed, are you willing to accept that all consenting adults can define marriage in any way they choose? If not, wouldn't you be violating their civil rights, equal protection of the law, and their pursuit of happiness.
For years homos said they wanted people to stay out of their bedrooms. I suggest to you that in the year 2010, it would be hard to find anyone who cares what homos do behind closed doors. The problem now is that homos want to drag what they do into the streets, into the public schools in very early grades, and demand approval and acceptance from society via the struggle to "marry".
David| 1.22.10 @ 3:33PM
And homosexuals also insist that they be allowed to adopt and rear children. It is hard to imagine any child of any age being proud of announcing that he/she has two mommies or two daddies.
And they also demand that homosexuals be allowed to be scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts.
They need to go flippin' start their own club. Then see how many adults allow their children to join. While I'm on that, the flippin' atheists also need to leave the Boy Scouts alone. Start your own clubs and do as you please. How flippin' intolerant and repugnant to insist that the vast majority of Americans sh0uld conform to tiny minorities of homos and atheists.
James O'Neill | 1.22.10 @ 3:55PM
Other documents: I have read of specific cases of this happening. It would take me some time to hunt such examples down. =( And all of these other things are inherent in marriage, which they deserve to have.
It is not about not wanting to be challenged. It is about wanting equal treatment and protecting in the eyes of the law for the same loving and supportive relationship that hetero's engage in.
"Equal rights for equal commitment."
Tell me that you do not believe that you statements are not prejudiced? If you read any of the Prop 8 testimony and you will find that your statement about children is definitely incorrect. Children are great like that. Children are free from judgement, prejudice and bigotry. These are all learned characteristics that they learn from society and parents - especially parents. If you teach them to be ashamed and to hate gay people then they will. It is up to you as to what values you instill in children. A same-sex parents will most likely rear children who are significantly more open minded about life and not contribute to the global glut of religious inspired prejudice.
If you say bad words about a child's family and tell them bad things then they will start to believe it. They are sensitive to such things as they are searching for their identity and place in life. This is not a problem with homosexuality. This is a problem brought on by bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice.
There is no asking for you to conform. No asking you to change your sexual orientation. They do not want people to become gay. They just want equal rights and protection under the law.
You may find their very existence offensive, but I do not. They are human just like you and me. They love , cry, work, spend money, have mortgages, and pay bills just like everyone else, and deserve to marry the one that they love.
James O'Neill | 1.22.10 @ 4:20PM
btw you can follow the Prop 8 trial testimony here:
http://prop8trialtracker.com/
http://seminal.firedoglake.com.....ddysanfran
David| 1.22.10 @ 5:31PM
You are so far off base with your bigotry comments. I worked in the restaurant business for many years in Houston, and worked with numerous homosexuals and lesbians in the business. Except for one, who was actually investigated for murdereing a black homo (the guy who was responsible for getting me a job where he was a waiter), I liked all of them. They were funny, smart, worked hard, and I even had them over to my place after work at times to party. So stop throwing around the standard liberal claims of bigotry and hatred. You don't have a clue. No sense in arguing with you. You simply ignore everything that has been said by me and others. Even the highest court in liberal France said that homos could not "marry". We will never do what homos demand, and that is to say what they do is "okay" and that we "respect" it as an alternative way of life. It ain't gonna happen. I'm tired of going in circles with you.
Why don't you answer this simple question. After all that is what Quinn's article concerned. Again, if same sex marriage were allowed, are you willing to accept that all consenting adults can define marriage in any way they choose? If not, wouldn't you be violating their civil rights, equal protection of the law, and their pursuit of happiness?
James O'Neill | 1.23.10 @ 11:37AM
Regardless of where the legalization of same-sex marriage may or may not lead, a civil rights violation is a civil rights violation, period. To base whether or not to end an unconstitutional civil rights violation on 'what ifs', fear mongering, or religious tenets is unethical and very un-American. It is sad that people think otherwise. =(
Office 2007 Professional | 1.29.10 @ 1:53AM
Office 2007 Professional
Office 2007 Ultimate
Tim| 1.30.10 @ 2:00PM
Gay marriage is simply not possible. If you want to grant certain legal rights to gay couples for inheritance and health care purposes, that is fine. Marriage involving two members of the same sex is simply not possible! Marriage and the family are the building blocks of all society. The purposes of marriage are unitive and procreative. Despite the modern birth control mentality, the central purpose of marriage is the creation and rearing of new human life. The other central purpose is as a union demonstrating the love of one man and one woman for each other. Gay "marriage" clearly fails on one of the two central purposes of marriage without any possible argument. One could flimsily argue that the purpose of marriage is simply a mutual contract between two people who elect to live together and receive tax benefits out of a feeling of mutual attraction. But if this is simply based on feelings and living together, does not granting legal privileges to such couples legally discriminate against single Americans? Should they be punished for their lack of perfectly subjective feelings for another person? To deny gay "marriage" is not to denigrate homosexuals, many of whom are fine, law-abiding, even largely moral (especially if they strive to abstain from disordered, sinful sexual practices) human beings who have full dignity and equality with the rest of us. At the end of the day, marriage requires man and woman.
Seer| 2.20.10 @ 5:08AM
>>> Gay marriage is simply not possible.
I guess I must be living in a parallel universe, then. I have a marriage license on my wall, and my "gay" marriage has lasted nearly 20 years, and I enjoy all the rights that marriage accords heterosexuals (in my state, that is.)
It is not only possible, it's a fact. And it works better than 90% of the marriages in this country.
What IS immoral and un-american is to impress your values on others who do not share them by force, and to so cowardly use the power of the State to do so.
KurtW| 2.10.10 @ 1:07AM
All of your arguments can be reduced to the very proposition that if we allow gay marriage it would open the legal Pandora's box for polygamy.
This view lacks a very distinct misunderstanding of Supreme Court precedent and the interpretation of law that goes into understanding and balancing due process claims of discrimination. First, the major distinction that exists is that polygamy and polyamorality are fundamentally choices that people make. Sexual Orientation, while some contest this to be the case, is certainly not a choice in the same sense.
Second, and probably your biggest oversight yet, is that the case is apply for equal protection of the law under due process. This means that they're hoping that the Supreme views this case with "strict scrutiny" rather than a mere "rational basis test". Even though, under a "rational basis" review of Prop. 8, it would still probably fail to pass the test. Strict scrutiny means that the government must prove that their is an OVERWHELMING interest for the state to discriminate against a certain "suspect classification" (again another legal term you should look up, before making wild accusations you don't understand). None of your arguments would come close to passing this test and the Court only really recognizes national security reasons overwhelming state interest in regards to strict scrutiny.
The only argument you make that comes anywhere near this is the argument about "Pandora's box". In fact, the only way you can extend your argument to the extent where you can "support" the claim that homosexual marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, is to claim that it would lead to polygamy and all sorts of other marriages, and thereby destroying the monogamous relationships we have as the basis to our society. If you read the case law, and understand the distinction, there is no logical or legal extrapolation why this would be the case. Allowing polygamists to marry would in fact harm society, as you explain, in such a detrimental way that a review of laws that prevent polygamy would in fact be upheld by the Court. Whereas, monogamous, homosexual marriages definitely do not harm heterosexual marriages.
In other words, the Law and the Court can make obvious distinctions between to the two. Monogamous homosexual marriages IN A VACUUM would in no way harm homosexual marriages. As your argument clearly outlines, by themselves they do no harm to marriage, and in fact support Ted Olson's argument that it would create more families for raising productive members of society. They would only destroy our social fabric if we for some reason they led to polygamy and non-monogamous relationships. The Court, society, and the law make a clear distinction that ALLOWS for homosexual marriage, but NOT polygamy. Strict scrutiny would guide the Court to strike down bans on same-sex monogamous relationships, but NOT polygamous relationships because of the overwhelming state interest in preventing polygamous relationships.
Pingback| 3.31.10 @ 5:20PM
Ruth Institute Blog » Point by Point rebuttal of Ted Olson’s Newsweek piece links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
www.juicyihandbag.com | 4.3.10 @ 7:05AM
Juicy couture handbags are among the brands which have gained a great repute over a longer period of time.The quality and material used for their manufacturing is up to the mark and has no match. The most attractive thing of JC purses are their reasonable prices, which makes www.juicyihandbag.com them liked by people belonging to all classes. These are easy to be purchased from online retail stores. You have the advantage to check the available variety on internet and then buy the item of your choice through the credit card. It would be good to make a phone call at the company number before making the transaction, in order to confirm the authentication of selected retailer.
www.in-watch.com | 4.3.10 @ 7:12AM
Being a proud owner of a watch is a wondrous thing that many take for granted. No one remembers back when things were simple and they had to call "time and temperature" to get an accurate time . Now certain devices run on their own with no batteries what so ever and some get updates from satellites so that the time is always perfect.Looking back on all of the famous inventors or the wrist watch, it makes you happy to know that the item located on your wrist is truly a miracle and wonder of the world. From the first watch with its round face to the tiny ring watches that sit delicately on your finger, they are truly a piece of history.Dating back to the 1800s up until now, watches have constantly have been moving forward and keeping us in time with the rest of the world. If you are looking to find out more about the history of the watch www.in-watch.com then you will want to look to the founder's of this wondrous invention. It is amazing to see how the watch has evolved and the parts get smaller with each new watch on the market. There is a watch for every lifestyle and wardrobe so you can be stylish or simple anytime of the day or night.
Thomas| 4.19.10 @ 12:44PM
You've really got to be kidding me with this argumentation. Not only is Jeffrey Lord's argument here the mother of sophistry, the comments that defend it are possibly even worse. A few quick hitters so that I can sleep with a clean conscience after reading this:
1. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but marriages in this country are no longer purely religious institutions. They are a civilly enforceable collection of state-recognized benefits. The arguments about the "Christian nation" and the representation of religious values in government are all invalid, by Constitutional standards. There are Arabs, polytheists, Satanists, and many other religious proclivities in this country whom the state has issues marriage licences to. The defense of the Christian home is not a legal sacrement to be protected. By the by, for those arguing about the 1000s of years that Christian marriage takes in being developed, kindly note that several pagan traditions, not the least of which was Rome, adopted the concept of monogamy. It wasn't invented by Christianity...just further legitimized. In the states where gay marriage is legal, no church is required to render services to that couple. That would not change upon the legalization of gay marriage. Religious institutions are free to privately exclude or condemn anything they want. The question is whether or not the STATE has the same privilege.
2. Child-rearing! There are actually people in this civilized nation making an argument that the purpose of marriage is child rearing! Can anyone point to any passage in a state or federal law, or even the Bible, should you so desire that illigetimizes a marriage that doesn't have children in it? Go ahead, I'll wait. Is there any state in the union that can annul a marriage because the two people within it are not going to have kids? I'll wait on that one too. Please don't make an argument against gay marriage that you wouldn't apply to opposite sex couples. It's disingenous and the sign of a weak position.
3. I'd give a lot more credit to the "conservative" position of gay marriage if I hadn't heard this argument before. When the state disallowed members of different races to marry in states like Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, etc... the argument was that dilution of racial identity would lead to social strife and cause the breakdown of the family. There are several Biblical proclamations that ban interracial marriages (Ex. ch. 34, verses 12-16, in case one is interested). The prohibition is made specifically to prevent the dilution of the bloodline of Christians. So do those who defend marriage a religious institution subscribe to this type of ban? Was the Supreme Court being "activist" when they allowed the interracial couples to "mongrelize?" Step up, guys. This is your chance to get on board this train.
4. Lord's facile points on Plessy and Dred Scott--This trick may work with those who haven't looked into the argument long enough. Plessy isn't an "judicially activist" decision at all--it represents exactly the type of states-rights nonsense that allowed Jim Crow to blossom in the first place. The laws that Plessy upheld were laws enacted BY THE PEOPLE, who said that they didn't want to intermix with those of African descent. The Court didn't cobble that up. THe laws were voted on and passed by the majority of those subject to them.
As for Dred Scott--let's not pretend for a moment that the COnstitution had some approbation of slavery, it didn't. The specific argument made by the Confederate states (correctly, if your are an originalist) is that because there is no mention of the federal government's power to regulate slavery, it is purely a decision to be left to the STATES! Any laws made to regulate the process would be unconstitutional on their face. Period!
It's one thing if you decide that gay marriage is an affront. I can sympathize with that position. But if you're going to use the Bible as your justification for it's illegitimacy, you have to go all the way: No interracial, or interfaith marriages either. If procreation is the goal, those who don't should lose their marriage licenses.
To argue for state's rights is one thing, and I can get on board on that. But don't whitewash the facts: States rights has historically been used by individual voting majorities to lead to incredibly discriminatory, results. What should be argued is : THAT'S OK! DEMOCRACIES DO THAT ALL THE TIME! SO LONG AS THE PROCESS IT "FAIR" THE RESULTS DON'T HAVE TO BE! But let's not sugarcoat the history, but accept it.
cvzxcvzxc| 5.6.10 @ 11:00PM
Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
sadasd
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 11:08PM
is good