Conservatives Make Case for Gay Marriage
Federal Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling last week, that California’s Proposition 8 violates the US Constitution, was more than a groundbreaking ruling in a landmark trial. It was, and still is, a media opportunity.
It is an opportunity for gay and lesbian couples to tell their stories to their friends and neighbors. But just as importantly, it is an opportunity for conservatives who support marriage equality to make their case to the public.
Attorneys arguing in favor of Proposition 8 were conservative. But nobody can question the conservative credentials of Ted Olson, who co-helmed the opposition’s legal team. Olson argued for George W. Bush in the 2000 Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, and was Bush’s Solicitor General. Judge Walker himself was nominated to the bench by President Reagan, and rejected for being too conservative. He was then re-nominated (successfully) by George H.W. Bush.
A handful of conservative thinkers are taking this opportunity to champion the conservative case for allowing gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Olson himself was on Fox News Sunday, rebutting the claim that Walker is an “activist judge.”
Conservative writer Meghan McCain tweeted on the night of the ruling “Amazing news about prop 8!!! I have faith we are one step closer to gay marriage being passed in this country!!” Meghan’s mother, Cindy McCain, spoke out against Proposition 8 earlier this year.
Margaret Hoover, the great-granddaughter of former President Herbert Hoover, took to Fox News on Monday, to argue “When an unpopular minority is denied the right to marry, it is indeed the role of the courts to protect the rights of that minority, especially when a majority would deny them.” Hoover, a self-identified conservative Republican, writes “The potential consequence that conservatives land on the wrong side of civil rights history again is the alienation of an entire generation of voters.”
And former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote on CNN that Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston pose a greater threat to our culture than granting marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples would. Although he does predict that Walker’s decision will be overturned, and he never says whether he supports the ruling, Frum argues that opponents of marriage for gay and lesbian couples are wrong to claim it will lead to the breakdown of marriage for straight couples.
But many prominent conservatives (like David Brooks, or even Dick Cheney) who are known to support marriage for same-sex couples, have yet to address Judge Walker’s ruling. We’ll be watching to see if they do.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
If the courts have no respect for marriage having been defined in Genesis 2:18-24 for thousands of years, and done so at a time before the existence of the government and courts of man, then how can the courts expect us, American Citizens, to have respect for their flash-in-the-pan decisions? If government is about bringing on the demise of our present civilization, they could not be doing a better job of it. Other than that, I think their decisions will fall upon those who know not to uphold the law of man above the law of God.
Hey, is it just me or, does old judge walker look like a homowhore from the castro district of san fransicko who has seen its' best trick a long time ago?
The courts are not beholden to any religious documents, regardless of the religious beliefs of the Framers. This is hardly a flash-in-the-pan decision, as the debate has been raging for decades. As homosexuality has existed for longer than the Christian Bible, I'm not sure we can blame the demise of present civilization on gay marriage. And while I can't really comment on whether or not Judge Walker looks like "a homowhore from the castro district of san fransicko who has seen its' best trick a long time ago [all spelling, punctuation, and moral errors yours]," you really only prove the point that you are reacting out of bigotry and not considering facts. I'm not calling your religious beliefs bigotry--the glory of this country is everybody's freedom to worship and believe as they wish, and I respect your right to believe whatever you choose about homosexuality--I'm referring to the fact that your attack is personal, petty, and not very Christian.
Our forefathers entertained God to guide them. Today, you are correct, the government/courts/etc. demand "their own turf." My point is simply, marriage is not theirs and existed before them; They will have to "discover" something new to cover homosexual cohabitation. Homosexual marriage will not destroy civilization, what causes that is government/courts losing the peoples respect, participation and consent--a count no one pays any attention to is simply worthless. I pointed out, walker looks like an old homohorror to me, others mileage may vary. Freedom is great, freedom to steal is ;not. If you take others traditions and attempt to warp and perverse them, it is simply stealing ... etc.
Take the word "gay", once used to signify happy, fun, etc. The homosexuals pick it up and attempt to convert its' meaning to homosexual--now, today, the word "gay" is hardly ever heard. The majority of the population has dropped its us. The there is the rainbow. Once the rainbow meant happy, fun, joyous, etc. in a visually symbolic form. Now, you never see rainbows, other than Gods' and homosexuals. Few will display them for fear they are tied to homosexual agendas. The same happened to the color purple--used to see it everywhere, even I had a favorite purple shirt which was thrown away to avoid having its' wearing related to the homosexual agenda. It was embarassing when someone stopped me on the street and explained that meaning to me. At first, I thought the person telling me this was an idiot, I kept on wearing the shirt. After a few people explained it to me, I trashed the shirt. So will go respect for marriage. It will get homosexuals nothing. It will destroy respect for marriage. This is not good for anyone, and all over the selfish, childish wants of homosexuals. Homosexuals are not about getting anything here, they are about destroying what others have because they will never have it ... to the sane, this is obvious.
Ayn Rand said you cannot have a logical debate when one person refuses to use reason. As such, I will let the speciousness of your arguments stand for themselves. Any sane person can see that you are more concerned about appearing gay than the actual religious or political thoughts involved in this issue. And my husband would like to tell you he thinks you're a raging hate-tank who is a poor excuse for a Christian.
I am so glad to find a forum that doesn't involve people yelling at each other and calling one another names. Hi!
1. The Constitution is above all other documents, including any one dictionary.
2. What is the 1975 definition of US-Soviet relations? Should the FCC operate under the Framers' understanding of the word "communications?" Should we strike down the the 13th-15th Amendments because the Framers believed in the moral acceptability of slavery?
3. Marriage should be about love, not children, money, or anything else. So saying gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex really does nothing to support the institution of marriage. Anyone who truly believes that the government should stay out of our private lives should not use the children argument; the government should not care if I have children or not. And my opposite-sex spouse and I are really tired of this argument anyway--my infertility is difficult enough, and I would prefer that procreation not be used as the defining purpose of marriage. Are we stealing tax benefits because we're married without childrent? Should we not have been allowed to marry in the first place? And even if we could have scores of progeny, I would hate to think that the government would interfere or even be interested.
4. If gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage or society as a whole, then a straight judge has just as much invested in this case as a gay judge. So you can have one argument but not both: a gay judge is more biased than a straight judge, or gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. If gay marriage is not a threat to society, then why do you care who marries whom?
5. The purpose of the Constitution is to create a country that provides for the equal treatment and governance of all citizens. The Constitution wielded for the purpose of denying rights is a grievous trampling on the ideals of the Framers. When the Constitution has been used to deny something to an individual (Prohibition and the owning of other persons), the government was rebuked when they denied freedoms and lauded when they defended unpopular beliefs about citizenry and basic human rights.
6. Just as freedom of speech is intended to protect the speech you love and the speech you abhor, civil rights are intended to provide equality to all groups of citizens, regardless of your beliefs about any one person or lifestyle. As Alexander Hamilton said in 1787, "Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few, they will oppress the many." This is not about the right of one group of people to vote--One group does not have the right to vote on the rights of another group. The Constitution needs to be wielded in defense of the minority.
7. Those opposing Prop 8 are not required to prove that the state of California has an interest in allowing gay marriage; in fact, just the opposite is true with regards to applying the 14th Amendment. The state must prove that denying a right to one group of citizens while providing to another is in the best interest of the state. Since the state cannot show that it is in their best interest to deny a right, they are not allowed to deny said right.
8. Defending justice, equality, and the Constitution when they are under attack is never a waste of resources.
9. We need the federal government when the states are not doing what they should. We would not leave other major, basic civil rights up to each state, so why this one? (And please don't say that this isn't a major, basic civil right--if it isn't, then why does it matter so much?) The most important rights embodied by the Constitution are reserved for the individual, not the collective and not the state.
Homosexuality is immoral. Homosexuality is perverse, and it negatively affects society and prosperity.
Homosexuality is not, however, unconstitutional. The law of our land clearly states that people have the right to govern themselves, and enter into legal contracts with whoever they wish. If a person's actions can be proven to infringe upon the rights of other citizens laws can legally and constitutionally be made to protect those rights.
The only argument (and it's a weak one) that I see for preventing homos from entering into a marriage contract, is what harm this may cause society as a whole.
Me? I prefer to remove government from the business of rewarding or punishing people according to their marital status. That may never happen.
As it stands, I believe the Republic would be better served in preserving these homo's right to enter into a marriage contract, no matter how perverse, so long as they do not impinge on the rights of others in doing so.
Do I like it? No. Do I see it as necessary to preserve my own freedoms? Yes.
This story is a teachable moment for America: Even if you don't like somebody or their "lifestyle", you can still afford them equal rights. Now if only Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and all the fundamentalist preachers could take a page from Judge Walker's book, what a wonderful world it would be!
The conclusions of law by Judge Walker, reputed to be gay himself, are in a word, ludicrous. See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-ruling-read-the-fu_n_671050.html
All marriage laws written since this country was founded were written with a single definition of "marriage".
The definition of "marriage", per Funk & Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary, as published in 1975 reads:
"marriage n. 1. The state of being married; a legal contract, entered into by a man and a woman, to live together as husband and wife; wedlock."
Every single precedent cited by Walker, referring to marriage as a fundamental right, was written under that definition, and no other. His reasoning is so far beyond foolish he should be removed from the bench for rank incompetence. The argument is akin to calling frogs ducks, because both swim, then ruling frogs are protected by the Migratory Waterfowl Act.
Men and women, through the normal course of intimate relations, tend to produce offspring. Men and men, or, women and women, through the normal course of intimate relations do not. Because men and women tend to produce offspring, states have an interest in defining the obligations of the partners in the event this occurs. Since such an occurance is flat out impossible in regard to same sex couples, the state has no similar need to define the duties of the partners.
All Prop 8 does is define a word, giving that word the same meaning it has always had. Frogs have never been covered under the Migratory Waterfowl Act. Same sex couples have never been covered by marriage laws. If someone were silly enough to insist frogs are ducks, it would become necessary to legally define the word "duck" to eliminate the patent absurdity of the claim.
That Walker insists there is no state interest in defining words, in order to eliminate confusion in how laws are to be applied, and to whom, is to deny the fact that nearly every statute, under every state and federal law, contain exactly those kinds of definitions. In fact, in interpreting law, where no such definitions are included, precedent is so firmly established that words have their common dictionary meaning that it shouldn't be necessary to do more than state it.
Gays can, and sometimes do, marry persons of the opposite sex. Their right to do so, if they should so choose, has never been impaired. Under existing law, they have no fundamental right to do anything else. There is no history or tradition of doing anything else. They are not similarly situated to persons desiring to marry a person of the opposite sex if they choose not to avail themselves of that option.
On the contrary, by precedent cited by Walker, related to a required showing of a state interest in enacting legislation, it's impossible to imagine any benefit to the state that lies from same sex civil unions. It's a deplorable waste of public resources, particularly at a time when emergency Federal funding is needed just to keep state police departments and schools properly staffed. If you vote for bread and circuses, eventually you end up with government run by fat clowns.
When the constitution was ratified, and as you said, the word marraige has always been defined as a union between man and woman.
I'm pretty sure the framers never in a million years imagined that we would be having this debate. Even if they did, they would never have wanted the federal government to get involved. It is a state issue and if you want your state wasting time on it, that's what you voted for.