Quote of the Day: Ted Olson on “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage”
Our political Quote of the Day actually is an entire piece in Newsweek by Ted Olson, Solicitor General in George W. Bush’s administration, called “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.” Here’s the beginning and the end of his column:
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California’s Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California’s constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the “traditional” definition of marriage and press for an “activist” interpretation of the Constitution to create another “new” constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
He has an extensive analysis, and ends it this way:
California’s Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of “domestic partnerships” with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California’s citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.
So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.
Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.
Now read it in its entirety — from beginning to end.
Here’s Olson making his case seven months ago on on CNN’s Larry King:
OF RELATED BREAKING INTEREST:
–Supreme Court blocks video coverage of Prop. 8 trial in San Francisco
–Prop. 8 trial to include unprecedented testimony
–Simple Justice
–Bumpy Legal Road Ahead for Marriage Equality
–CBS News report on the case:
a
NOTE: Olson’s name was spelled incorrectly in the first version of this post but was quickly corrected. TMV regrets the error.
30 Responses to “Quote of the Day: Ted Olson on “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage””
Imagine…
People giving birth to gay children, then abusing them throughout their lives and even further via unjust laws meant to single them out for further difficulty and abuse.
Then imagine…
Those very people who created all of the gay children screaming their heads off about morality while advocating for Apartheid toward their very own offspring.
Heterosexuals of the United States have MUCH to apologize for where their gay children are concerned. And our government has MUCH work to do to prevent this kind of abuse of law-abiding citizens in the future. Because clearly gay children can not count on their very own creators to protect them. Indeed, they seek protection FROM them via the courts. Sad. A more than a little pathetic. That heterosexuals will choose superstitious garbage and the false promise of 'eternal life' in exchange for the lives of their gay children, who they treat like garbage on the street. Especially since the god they abuse their gay children in worship of clearly states that people are not to be treated in this way.
Morality indeed, folks. Morality indeed.
Understanding that the piece is about California, and recognizing that Olson does an excellent job of pointing out the craziness of the current CA situation, the absurdity increases when we understand that we have American citizens who are legally married in one state, but have their marriages involuntarily dissolved when they exercise their right of free travel and cross an artificial boundary to another state. The legal morass in domestic relations court or probate court as legally married, but ivoluntarily divorced (for having crossed a state boundary), couples face issues of property division upn separation/divorce or estate allocation after death.
We will realize, hopefully sooner rather than later, that the implications of the current hodgepodge system are not sustainable. The idea of involuntary divorce, unknown to any other segment of society, should itself raise a cry for fairness.
Nice try with the “giving birth to gay children” thing billjones. You know that has not been proven. What has had more evidence surface supporting it however is that sexual preference is affected by environmental pressures and cues. http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pf…
Frome the article: “same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation”
*******
In marriage, sexuality is implied. It is a sexual union recognized by society between two people, a man and a woman. Given that sexuality is implied, you must realize that conservatives have their gut reaction against gay marriage riding on the fact that they know that children go through a formative stage and in that stage they mimic adult behaviors they see around them sanctioned as normal.
If you normalize homosexuality via marriage, and the findings in the study are accurate, then you have a situation where the numbers of homosexuals within a given population over time will increase proportionately.
Now, conservatives don't like this. Considering the statistics I have to conclude that many moderates don't either, and even some left of center. When considering a radical change like retooling the definition of the “condoned normal sexual arrangement” ["marriage"] between people, it is wise to do a complete background check and prognosis for the future.
People promoting gay marriage want to ignore science. They really do. They want to chant that gays are born that way in spite of mounting evidence that they are not. They want us to believe that they are born that way so they can categorize themselves as a true minority instead of an incomplete group of sexual behavioral deviants.
Then we get into the mire of if they gain rights, why will we legally tell the polygamists no? There will be no reason to “descriminate” against polygamists for they too will argue that it is in their innate nature to breed with more than one partner. And we absolutely cannot deny that as a fact in homo sapiens! So there you go. There's your quagmire that the pro-gay is deftly placing walking planks over so you won't notice…for now..
Sil, since you are so fluent in the literature on this subject, perhaps you are familiar with this study: The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation. Funny, Dr. Rahman (the author) cites the Pfaus article you mention (emphasis added):
Try not to dress up your bigotry by hiding behind the veil of science; you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sil, since you are so fluent in the literature on this subject, perhaps you are familiar with this study: The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation. Funny, Dr. Rahman (the author) cites the Pfaus article you mention (emphasis added):
Try not to dress up your bigotry by hiding behind the veil of science; you have no idea what you're talking about.
Same sex coupling and/or “Gay” is not “born” it's acquired.
Since it is acquired, we should do everything humanely possible to prevent it's acquisition. Legal prevention measures that separate long established societal norms from this abnormal and bizarre behavior must be established. We cannot allow the “gay psychosis” to proliferate into an illegitimate societal acceptance by allowing marriages, adoptions, military service, ect, to expand. Indeed it must be reversed into oblivion. On this issue, Democrats and Republicans easily find common ground. Needless to say this common ground can be a seed for partisan harmony and reunification of our divided government.
Does anyone else get weary of the battle of “scientific studies” that always comes into these discussions? Does anyone else remember the “scientific studies” showing that tobacco was not addictive and not harmful? Does anyone else remember the “scientific studies” that claimed to prove that blacks were inherently inferior to whites intellectually? Is anyone else aware of the “scientific studies” on climate change that dispute human impact on the global climate? And for every such study there is a counter study.
One can always find a “scientific study” to support one's view or challenge another's view.
This is an issue of principal, not science. The principals are freedom, fairness and equality. Nor is it freedom of a class or fairness and equality toward a class. Even if I agreed with Sil that homosexuals should not be considered a class (and I do not agree with her), the issues of individual freedom and individual fairness and equal treatment remain. And, for the record, I don't give a rat's patoot about polygomists. The line I draw is at consenting adults, and if you are a consenting adult you should be free to enter into the union of your choice and be treated fairly and equally once having made that free choice.
jchem
Easy. There is no ROBUST same sex society. This is because same sex coupling is not truly accepted anywhere. Same sex coupling must not be promoted, rather it must be at the very least, discouraged.
tidbits
[One can always find a "scientific study" to support one's view or challenge another's view]-
Incorrect. There is science that is a truth tool that can be used for finding “support” and there is junk science that is worthless except for finding false support.
tidbits
[individual freedom and individual fairness and equal treatment]–
Of what? People that choose to say they are different so they can get special privilege and power? “Gay rights” has NEVER risen to the legitimacy of racial equality. How many “different peoples” do we accomodate?
tidbits, I agree with you to an extent that this is an issue of principle. However it is also an extensive area of study in psychology, neurology, and science. What bothers me though are folks who appeal to this authority when they know next to nothing about it. It's like “Hey look at me, I'm citing a study to support my view, I'm smart”. When someone wants to claim the mantle of science on their side, I'm going to call them out on it. On the other end some will just state their position, and that's just the way it is–nothing will change it.
I just can't understand how anybody can look another human being in the face and tell them that they are “deviant”, akin to a “dummy animal”, or suffer from the “gay psychosis”. That has nothing to do with science, but is just a way to tell others that they are less of a human being.
F_T, did you even read the original post?
Please tell me, how is this acceptable?
jchem,
Here's what I know as an attorney. You can always find an “expert” to
testify for your side, and they all cite study after study to support their
view, though the views are utterly contradictory. Nowhere is this more
true than in the fields of psychology and sociology in my experience.
But, just out of curiosity, are there any studies on why people insist on
sticking their noses into other peoples sex/love lives, attempting to
dictate to others what they can and cannot do, and with whom they may form
a union or what kind of union they may form? Or is that just a really
silly question?
—————————————-
From: “Disqus” <>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:02 PM
To: ghealy@newdawnal.com
Subject: [themoderatevoice] Re: Quote of the Day: Ted Olsen on “The
Conservative Case for Gay Marriage”
jchem wrote, in response to tidbits:
tidbits, I agree with you to an extent that this is an issue of principle.
However it is also an extensive area of study in psychology, neurology, and
science. What bothers me though are folks who appeal to this authority when
they know next to nothing about it. It's like “Hey look at me, I'm citing a
study to support my view, I'm smart”. When someone wants to claim the
mantle of science on their side, I'm going to call them out on it. On the
other end some will just state their position, and that's just the way it
is–nothing will change it.
I just can't understand how anybody can look another human being in the
face and tell them that they are “deviant”, akin to a “dummy animal”, or
suffer from the “gay psychosis”. That has nothing to do with science, but
is just a way to tell others that they are less of a human being.
Link to comment: http://disq.us/8jkjy
—–
Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment.
To turn off notifications, go to: http://disqus.com/account/notifications/
tidbits,
interestingly enough, I was going to ask the same question earlier. Off the top of my head, I'm not aware of such a study, but I would imagine that it would be an interesting study to read, were it to be carried out. Psychologists would have a field day with it.
I would be interested to get your thoughts as an attorney about the trial out in CA. Do you think Prop 8's supporters have a legal leg to stand on or is this a clear violation of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law (with regard to the case at hand)? We can agree on this as an issue of principle, but from a legalistic point of view, I haven't been able to put together a scenario where the court doesn't rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
Now if you would excuse me, I have some chemicals to mix together, but have to read a couple of “scientific studies” first so I don't blow the building up
Silhouette said, “In marriage, sexuality is implied.”
So old people shouldn't be allowed to be married?
—
As a supporter of gay marriage, I don't buy Ted Olson's argument. Since when are “thinking beyond one’s own needs” and establishing “a formal investment in the well-being of society” conservative values? If anything, they sound like socialist ones: serving the well-being of society rather than rugged individualism. Marriage isn't about self-interest; it's about institutionalizing the maxim “from each according to ability and to each according to need.” That's about anti-conservative as you can get.
Jchem -
Well, like you in your profession, I'd need to know much more, and do a
little research before starting a legal firestorm. The Fourteenth
Amendment is often used in conjunction with other Constitutional
provisions, or federal law, rather than standing on its own. An example
would be Miranda Rights where the federal Constitution guarantees the right
to counsel and the right to remain silent in the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments, and is applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Just a lay-of-land view would indicate some possibility of success in the
Ninth Circuit (CA & western states), one of the most liberal in the
country, but considerable trouble if it were to reach the US Supreme
Court.
The biggest problem I see off the top of my head is that equal protection:
a) generally is applied to “protected” classes (that's the meat behind
Sil's argument for not identifying homosexuality as a protected class) and
b) there are different levels of legal “scrutiny” in equal protecton cases
depending on the type of class and the type of proof the state must present
to justify its actions (compelling reason, rational justification, etc.).
Perhaps in the future we will reconnect and I will have learned more about
the specifics of the case.
—————————————-
The whole point is galtin not that sexuality is so much implied as it is who it is implied to, to the greatest potential for influence. And that of course would be children.
“Does anyone else get weary of the battle of “scientific studies” that always comes into these discussions?”~ tidbits
**********
Nope. If you have science that says something might happen, you'd better look at it until you get it. On the subject of the child-onlookers to this debate and any outfall as a result of GLBTs getting the rights to marry, we take special precautions to look at all angles before we leap.
And on that subject too….for this big Supreme Court case that these lawyers hope to get to if soaking their clients in a losing battle isn't enough for them, make sure to invite the polygamists too and save the taxpayers some money. Since both arguments are the same, “sex equals love” to dismantle “between one man and one woman”, they both can argue the precident at the same time.
Who says I don't come up with good ideas huh?…lol..
It remains controversial that the federal courts would be used to overturn state law in this way, and that the courts would be used at all. It's a shame what has happened in modern times with the judiciary. At this point, though, all we can do is wait and learn what arguments these two make and then read what the judge rules. That Olsen would join Boies is probably the most interesting thing about this case.
The people have spoken. What is “right or wrong” is decided by the majority.
The will of the majority is paramount with protections for the minority listed within the Bill of Rights. There is no “sexual preference right” listed or any such reference what-so-ever by any degree of subtlety. Same sex couples should be happy for the considerate tolerance they have been receiving from this gentle and liberal society. History shows that we have jumped through enough hoops to accommodate these perpetually unhappy people. Legitimizing their abnormality will only serve the lie they live at our expense. No more.
“I don't buy Ted Olson's argument. Since when are 'thinking beyond one’s own needs' and establishing 'a formal investment in the well-being of society' conservative values?”
He's not doing a Souter on us (and getting in good with people in DC), is he? Otherwise — I hope he hasn't been infected by the germ of judicial overreach and related ambition or power-corruption, or just litigating for litigation's sake. (And why involve the federal government and encroach into state scope?)
tidbits
So we should shoot the attorneys not the experts. The problem is not science, it's judiciary.
“equal protection”
Or “privileges and immunities,” and a claim that they're being abridged by discrimination. (There still remains to be answered the fundamental question, especially then, of just what, if anything, truly exists that is being abridged by California.)
“That Olsen would join Boies is probably the most interesting thing about this case.”
*********
Not if you understand that lawyers are all about money and not about loyalties or passion. That these two would join is the first red flag: money is what they see and are after. Dont' think for a minute that all the rich liberal GLBTs have escaped their radar. Those two [and any other lawschool flunkie] know full well that the GLBT [but not polygamists] arguments and positions are so full of holes they're like a swiss-cheese factory on “bring your shotgun Friday”. They know they won't hold water in that GLBT is not either fully descriptive of a 'minority', nor inclusive if they did manage to get a cohesive description of themselves other than “we like to have other than monogamous hetero sex and flaunt it as an entity in and of itself”. They know that not including other fetishes will look descriminatory. And they know the first historical lobbyists for the dismantling of “between one man and one woman”, the polygamists, will use the precident to get their rights to marry too.
They just want to lead the delusioned along for several years and fat retainers so they can exploit their ultimate failure. That is sad. It's why they say lawyers will go to hell.
People go through polygamist communities all the time, Sil. It's called high school and college.
Look, what is this all about, really? This fight to legalize human sexuality from the bench is beyond tiresome. Toss out all the religious pretext and marriage comes down to state-granted privileges between people who (presumably) have sex, raise children, and share assets. For those concerned about children, the shared assets and greater income it implies contributes more to successful child development than anything else. So I say, the family unit of the 50s is dead, long live the new family unit, whatever it may be. “Brave New World” notwithstanding, I don't think a more liberal sexuality will be has devastating as society thinks it will be (as long as the ol' sheepskin is used…)
I can't tell if a lot of previous comments are sarcastic or not, so I'm sorry if I'm preaching to the choir here, but people, gay people are depressingly ordinary. There are no more Oscar Wildes or Noel Cowards or Truman Capotes, only their misbegotten brood who pay bills, work jobs, and go to bars to hook up with strangers just like HETEROSEXUALS OMGWTF. On the flip side I agree with Sil that children should be protected as much as possible until they can make their own decisions (which is earlier than 18, inevitably) about their sexuality.
But yeah, it does come down to choice…to choose your spouse, to choose your life, to have the same freedom everyone else does. I don't think any minority group is looking for special treatment unless you so obviously abuse them that public opinion swings against you and they agree that the minority group DOES need special treatment to protect them from idiots like you.
FT -
In the grand tradition of Shakespeare, I have no problem with attempting to shoot the attorneys. They are, for the most part ,a sordid lot of scoundrels. But, if you have a personal agenda there, be forewarned that I will be armed and will return fire.
As for scientific studies, particularly in the soft sciences, it is my view that we need an arbiter to determine which studies are “truth tools” and which are “junk science”. And, I'm here to apply for the job. My qualifications? Well, somebody's gotta do it. Might as well be me.
Sil, allow me to play Devil's Advocate (I always thought I could do a better job than Keanu…). What is so wrong about polygamist marriages, so long as the marriages (theoretically) go both ways genderwise? By the way, polygamists and LGBTs have even less in common than lesbians, gays, bis and transgenders themselves. Most polygamists are of the religious variety and often force themselves on unwilling teenage girls, something I think everyone can agree is FUBAR. But that's America, where you can have insane religious freedom that messes up children, creates cults such as Scientology, and promotes strife, but sexuality is regulated by people who are probably wearing nothing under their judicial robes and politicians who chase skirts and dicks with equal abandon. Sexuality has become yet another thing that is “for me but not for thee” among the ruling classes; witness Liz Cheney and the “polygamist” attitudes of Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, John Edwards, and countless other bankers and high-flyers who can afford high priced, discreet callgirls (or boys).
tidbits
Ha. Who am I kidding, have you ever been to a science convention? They would eat an arbiter alive. Better to stand on a high wall tossing each side raw meat than to attempt mediating discourse. No, this should be done afar via journal. At least what they rip to shreds will be mere paper.
Lit3Bolt,
I urge you to get behind a “GLBTP” umbrella wholeheartedly, since that's what it will wind up being anyway. Go ahead, push for polygamy and see how far it will get the rest of GLBT…lol..
That's why the pro-gay is being so quiet about their polygamist friends. They know the sound of a movement going “splat” right on its face..
The case the lawyers are trying to bring forward is doomed to fail for a dozen different reasons. Remember, there will be equally competant lawyers arguing for the preservation of traditional marriage. They will argue that “GLBT is an arbitrary grouping of some but not all fetishes. Personally, I think the best remedy for the GLBT hypocritical pleas that leave out their polygamist brethern in “anything but between one man and one woman”, would be to find some really sharp attorneys and get the polygamy movement going now.. I think Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transexuals should lobby fierce and hard for those other people in “love” and wanting to wed, but can't because of the number “one”.
FT,
Here's a little known fact. In my other life, having served on uncounted boards for non-profits, I actually have attended scientific conventions and have served, as a lay advisor, to medical and scientific committees in awarding or not awarding grants for various scientific studies.
Your description of those events is not far from reality. Btw, it is another context in which the contradictory, and often very personal, nature of scientific inquiry raises its head as the battle lines are drawn as to whose theory/study is or is not most worthy of funding or endorsement.
Perhaps this masochistic streak of volunteerism will save me when the pistol toting vigilantes come looking for attorneys to shoot.
Aside: some of the best preliminary reports I ever received for medical/scientific meetings came from an openly gay staff member. I hope he is happily married…if that is what he wishes.
[Aside: some of the best preliminary reports I ever received for medical/scientific meetings came from an openly gay staff member. I hope he is happily married...if that is what he wishes]–
…and that gay member probably understands my legislative concerns, has no desire to force offense upon me, bring harm to me and my family, or, even curtail my seeking happiness, but others will if given the legal tools to do so. They salivate at the prospect of gaining legal power to flaunt their abnormality in the face of society, bring lawsuits against those whom prevent their freak show behavior on the job or in public places. They want power to dominate or destroy, not freedom from oppression.
I am not ignorant to the LGBT movement. I actively supported it for many years. It was not a snap judgment that I have made this opposite change and I know exactly what I am talking about.
Your naturalistic false fallacy argument fails miserably because they simply do not need the right to marry, or, any other “right“ for that matter. They just want it in order to legitimize their abnormal sexual choices and force acceptance of their degradation upon a normal population. Laws already protect everything they want to do, the laws just don’t legitimize it.