NEWSWEEK: - a Conservative Case For Gay Marriage
Doug Bashford
The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage - Newsweek.com
Why same-sex marriage is an American value.
By Theodore B. Olson | NEWSWEEK
Jan 13, 2010 ... because same-sex unions promote the values
conservatives prize. .... If this is the case that Theodore B.
Olson is going to present at ...
www.newsweek.com/id/229957 - 37 minutes ago
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.
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.
* 1 * 2 * 3 * Next Page
� The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage Why same-sex
marriage is an American value. NEWSWEEK
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the
political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats,
liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America
began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration
of Independence in words that are among the most noble and
elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
.......snip
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage
is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans
under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to
create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and
burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a
social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a
part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy,
freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short,
the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in
a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the
law.
It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been
regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman,
and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in
precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always
previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying
rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way
confined to heterosexuals.
Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but
hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship
recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected
status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The
California Supreme Court described marriage as a "union
unreservedly approved and favored by the community." Where the
state has accorded official sanction [noun: formal and explicit
approval] to a relationship and provided special benefits to
those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted
that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and
may not be arbitrarily denied.
What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in
Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage
for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual
orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.
The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply
because something has always been done a certain way does not
mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would
still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and
lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our
society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and
communities. For a long time, they have experienced
discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are
starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding.
California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians
to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the
rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian
individuals are now permitted to live together in
state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to
cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of
marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as
less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.
The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage
furthers the state's interest in procreation�and that opening
marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue
this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians
and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry
and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians
to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage
heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How,
then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of
children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not
inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or
have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to
marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates,
and.... ...snip
.......Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that
gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage [as:
www.protectmarriage.com/ ]. I have yet to meet anyone who can
explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing
same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual
couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent
to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm
heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he
could not think of any.
The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should
deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are
many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships
and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become
full and equal members of our society. ....snip
Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on
principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the
value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and
communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned
bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends
who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status
undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with
the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even
those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what
they may perceive as an unacceptable "lifestyle" should recognize
that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal
treatment.
When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we
discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage
for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them,
and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy,
less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their
relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine
how we benefit as a society by doing so.
................big snip
- Political Economics:
- "Fascism should more properly be called
- corporatism, since it is the merger
- of state and corporate power."
-- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.
- Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
- Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
- Republicans: think the very rich are the backbone of America.
- Democrats: think the middle class are the backbone of America.
- Republicans: fear government but trust corporations.
- Democrats: fear both.
- "Fascism...is the merger
- of state and corporate power."
-- - Benito Mussolini
So? How might that merger happen in America?
Well in this case, what's the difference between merger
and government's deregulation of corporations?
Not much that I can see. Voila!
Corporations are now super people protected by the Constitution.
But it hasn't always been that way.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a person, not in fact, not in flesh, not in any tangible form, but in law.
To their everlasting glory, this is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
For 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, various governmental entities led corporations around on leashes, like obedient puppies, canceling their charters promptly if they compromised the public good in any way.
The leashes broke in 1886, the puppies got away, and the public good was increasingly compromised until it was finally displaced altogether.
Today, the First Amendment protects the right of corporations-as-persons to finance political campaigns and to employ lobbyists, who then specify and redeem the incurred obligations.
Democracy has been transformed into a crypto-plutocracy, and public policy is no longer crafted to serve the American people at large. It is shaped instead to maintain, protect, enhance or create opportunities for corporate profit.
Isn't that the root of the rot?
more info:
End Corporate "Personhood"
The Supreme Court's ruling is set to either expand the doctrines
of corporate personhood and corporate rights by expanding the ...
www.change.org/ideas/view/end_corporate_personhood
Corporate Personhood
Unequal Protection may prove to be the most significant issue in the history of corporate personhood, a doctrine which dates to 1886. ...
www.commondreams.org/views02/1226-04.htm