The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Politics' started by kundalinikat, Jan 11, 2010.

  1. kundalinikat

    kundalinikat Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Seattle (WA, US)
    This is an editorial by Ted Olson, one of the lawyers presenting the case against California's Proposition 8, a case which will go before the Supreme Court, seeking to find separate-but-equal marriages unconstitutional following the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection and due process of law. He represented Bush in Bush v. Gore in Florida during the 2000 election. His partner in this case, David Boies, represented Gore in Bush v. Gore. Yes, you read that right.

    The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage - Newsweek.com

    I just wanted to show this to y'all because I cried (in a good way) while reading it. I mean I like reading about Supreme Court cases, and SC rulings, and interpretations of the Constitution. But this one really touched me.

    Here's a sample:

     
    #1 kundalinikat, Jan 11, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2010
  2. Dave NoCal

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,992
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    243
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sacramento (CA, US)
    Thanks for posting this. Mr. Olsen makes powerful and clear arguments. For those who are not aware, he is a major player in the legal system of this country having argued before the Supreme Court on countless occasions. He also has rarely lost his cases. I am guardedly hopeful.
    Dave
     
  3. 3664shaken

    3664shaken New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Teenie Weenie Hell
    The problem with the article is that it does not address the main conservative argument against gay marriage: The rule of law.

    The federal government has defined marriage to between a man and a woman, most conservatives I know are pretty ambivalent about gay marriage but insist that we follow the rule of law. If you want gay marriage change the definition legally but don't use back door tactics and judicial fiat to arrive at the ends.
     
  4. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    What does the Fed have to do with marriage?
     
  5. B_mitchymo

    B_mitchymo New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Rugby, England
    Absolutely agree!
     
  6. 3664shaken

    3664shaken New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Teenie Weenie Hell
    Marriage is considered to be a contract under American laws and therefore is bound by federal code. Contracts use legal terms some of which that have been defined in the US Code,

    For those who do not know about the USC

    "The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States. It contains 50 titles and is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives.[1]"
    United States Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In this case it is Title 1 Chapter 7 Subsection 7 and it states the following:

    "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. "

    http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/2008/2008usc01.pdf
    US CODE: Title 1,7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

    This will open a whole host of complications, your married but at the VA which has to follow Federal rules, SS benefits, etc. It's also that the states are generally allowed to do what they want to unless the federal government has made a ruling or law that says otherwise.
     
  7. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    is there any real case for gay marriage?

    or are we looking at a post-Stonewall artifact?

    can anyone point me to a pre-Stonewall declaration of gay love and devotion?

    the reason I ask is that the self-image of gays underwent a remarkable transformation before and after that historical occurrence

    before Stonewall:


    [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]mass production of gay male porn began in the late 1950s. Many early gay male porn magazines made efforts to break away from the stereotypical images of the gay swish: from the limp-wristed weakling to muscle bound bodybuilder, cowboy, leatherman, soldier, construction worker, etc. In the 1940s and 1950s gay oriented muscle magazines (e.g. Physique Pictorial) the muscle men were often effeminate or strange compared to straight-oriented muscle magazines. The gay pornographers' attempts at liberating the gay male symbolic from the shackles of stereotypes resulted in queer or hypermasculine versions of macho occupations and fetishes, or trade, e.g. bikers, sailors, working class iconography (Ramakers 68, 79; Steel, 176). "The cowboy, the trucker, the athlete, and the hardhat are archetypal figures of masculine authority, rootless adventure, physical strength, and sexual prowess...There, the pursuit of an unacknowledged but mythical force is partly a response to being social pariahs perceived as weak or ineffectual"

    then, post Stonewall,

    [/FONT][FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]the riots "implied a rejection of the negative social meaning attached to homosexuality in favor of pride and self acceptance" (qtd. in Ellenzweig 126). They also explain the significance of coming out narratives, that they [/FONT]
    [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]came to represent not simply a single act, but the adoption of an identity in which the erotic played a central role...No longer merely something you did in bed, sex served to define a mode of living, both private and public, that encompassed a wide range of activities and relationships (qtd. in Ellenzweig 126).
    [/FONT]


    From Johnson to Nixon: Narrative Shifts in Gay Male Pornography

    I simply wonder, I do not claim to state with certainty, that the self-image now held, and now driving the movement to gay marriage, may be just as chimerical as the previous self-image, rendering the relevance of marriage in the case of gays, equally delusional?

    the question arises, of course, because in my case, I do not find the sexual act or impulse to be as central to, or as defining of my personhood, as the current gay mythos implies
     
  8. justasimpleguy

    justasimpleguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    425
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    3446shaken, oh come on. you serious about that "uphold the laws" claim? what else will you find to hide behind? where else will you run for an excuse to keep opposing gay rights? Laws are changed all the time. It's time for man and woman to be changed to two people.

    And Nick with the Stonewall comments, too. Seriously. How to you expect people to act when they are a minority subjected violent repression? They act out. They get confrontational.

    Using gay porn to define a minority is a nice touch. Would you do the same for African Americans? It plays into all the same stereotypes that imply gays are perverts, or deviant or dirty or whatever. Anyone who knows enough gay people knows that is complete bs.

    As gays become more accepted, they want the things that were totally unattainable to them before like marriage and family. It's not rocket science.
     
  9. 3664shaken

    3664shaken New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Teenie Weenie Hell
    I'll be honest here people like you scare me.

    Should the government be able to raid your home and arrest you over what your read?

    Should the government be able to seize your property because they think they have a better use for it?

    Should the government be able to hold you without just cause?

    Should the government deny you a job because you don' agree with their ideology

    Should the government hire you because of your skin color?


    Well should they, the right says no the left says yes, im not ideologically but the right wins on this one.
     
  10. Zeuhl34

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,104
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    Then by your logic, blacks and whites should still have separate (but "equal") schools, as that change was brought about by judicial rulings, as opposed to legislating.
     
  11. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    The really ironic and sad thing is, NickySixxy is supposed to be "gay". As a member of a minority himself you'd think he would be able to figure this out?
     
  12. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Oh, yeah, there's that.

    Which was my point.
     
  13. 3664shaken

    3664shaken New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Teenie Weenie Hell
    Maybe I didn't do a good enough job explaining some of the problems.

    If you get married in CA and your SO dies you WILL not Social security benefits, if you SO is in a VA hospital you will not have visitation rights, etc. etc etc.

    Is this your goal??????????????

    A hodge podge of some states recognizing it and others that don't.

    Would it not be better to change the USC code and have a federal ruling that gays will recognized in marriage?

    The second issue is legitimacy, if CA allows gay marriage and AZ doesn't is it really legitimate?

    If you go back historically and look at the times the law was changed by judicial fiats rather than a legislative change these issues always are more contentious with the American people. People can rationalize away a change that their representatives away easier than a group of unelected judges.

    Look at abortion, I know many people who are pissed off over the WAY it was enacted not the outcome.
     
  14. 3664shaken

    3664shaken New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Teenie Weenie Hell

    WOW your leap of logic is incredible.

    In the Brown case the court overturned the Plessy ruling. Notice that the judiciary was working in their realm of power.

    In this case we have a legislative issue that the congress (IE the legislature) needs to remedy.

    The idea of the judiciary over-stepping it's bounds and becoming a pseudo-legislative branch was one of the founding fathers biggest concerns. The legislature is beholden to the people they represent the judiciary is not, if the idea of the judiciary ruling by fiat is not bothersome to you I suggest that you have not deeply thought about that issue.
     
  15. RsideNole

    RsideNole New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida/Boston
    I have read arguments that gay marriage will diminish the value of marriage, that children will be at risk with same-sex parents, that the Bible alludes to such a construct as an abomination. Not one argument I have read has been founded on it not being established in the U.S.C.

    So is the true issue that gay marriage is not permissible under federal law?
     
  16. ericbythebay

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    304
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Verified:
    Photo
    Deciding whether a law is constitutional or not is clearly within the bounds of the judiciary.

    Please provide an example of this so-called "ruling by fiat"?
     
  17. ericbythebay

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    304
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Verified:
    Photo
    No, DOMA is a separate issue from the Prop 8 case. DOMA only applies to federal laws. Prop 8 was a state constitutional ammendment.
     
  18. wallyj84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,742
    Likes Received:
    682
    You're being intellectually dishonest. The laws that state that marriage is only between a man and a woman were made in response to fears that states like Hawaii would soon legalize gay marriage. These were laws made by conservatives and pushed through congress by conservatives from both parties. This isn't trying to protect someone's freedom of speech or the right to bear arms; this is nothing more than a bunch of bigots trying to defend the legal basis for their bigotry.

    Judicial review has been in place for over 200 years. It might not be strictly laid out in the constitution, but it is a recognized and legitimate power of the American judicial branch. To imply that it's not legal or some kind of back door tactic is at bunch of bullshit.
     
  19. 3664shaken

    3664shaken New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Teenie Weenie Hell
    To my little pea-brain I suggest you stop you emotional rant and begin to think clearly. How am i being intellectually dishonest? Even you admit that the laws are on the books, it is irrelevant where or when they came from. If you want to change the federal law THAN change it, they are up for review every 6 (?) years anyway or it can be changed at anytime they feel the need.

    Call your congressmen/women, start a grass roots campaign, I'm all for that, doing it the proper way.

    How then am I being intellectually dishonest??????????? :mad:

    You do realize what the bigotry means right?????????

    "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

    The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."
    Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Therefore those who push Gay marriage are being bigots against those who view it as immoral.

    Just hope you realize that both sides of this issue have bigotry involved so there is no moral high-ground.

    OH DEAR (Banging my head on the table)

    This has nothing to do with judicial review my friend, please look up what judicial review actually is.

    This has to do with legislating from the bench VERY different from judicial review.

    The bottom line is that any moral ideal should be brought about by the will of the people. Only when you can say that the majority of the country is an agreement do people begrudgingly accept new laws. This can only be done when elected officials will be held responsible to their constituents for the laws they vote for.

    The idea of letting the judiciary to issue forth decrees, whether I agree with them or not is frightening. If you took the time to look at this most anyone would agree. Do you really want a group of unelected people dictating to you new laws.

    Just imagine for one second if these people were the antithesis of what you ideology is all about. Imagine if the were all radical Christian fundamentalists - you would most likely be screaming and yelling, but you remain silent if they back your position. That sets precedent and one day they will not be your friends.

    Read the founding fathers, especially Jefferson on this issue, an over active judiciary was one of their biggest concerns and for very just reasons.
     
  20. 3664shaken

    3664shaken New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Teenie Weenie Hell
    That was my point and we agree.

    In order to discuss thing intelligently we must remove ourselves from whether we agree or not agree with the outcome, if you can do that then this might be a fruitful exchange.

    Roe V Wade would be a perfect example. Many liberal legal scholars point out that this is a glaring example of a bad decision. The court in this case made up a whole new constitutional right by fiat. The right to privacy.

    Without going to deep into legal theory the judiciary was designed to issues proclamations on the matter of law. They could judge on the constitutionality of the law, but if they felt the law was unconstitutional they could only throw out the law NOT create a new law. That is the job of the legislative branch.

    In Roe they not only created LAW they also CHANGED and created new constitutional rights, something that is reserved specifically for the legislature.

    The problem is though we get mired in the fact that we want abortion so we can't honestly and openly discuss this and say that the way we got abortion was WRONG. It should have been legislated and part of this great country is to allow different opinions and to allow states to do things differently as long as they don't go against federal law.

    In the case of gay marriage the first thing I would do is change the USC code and then fight for individual states to allow it. However this will be a long process and we have seen, even in liberal CA they have voted it down. It will not come overnight but I believe it is more important to leave the bedrock principals of our country intact rather than demand instant gratification.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted