Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Ted Olson, one of the most prominent conservative legal scholars in the country, is now, as I'm sure you know, representing the plaintiffs in a challenge to California's Prop 8 that banned gay marriage in that state. I think that case is a bad idea, as I've said many times. But Olson has written a wonderful op-ed for Newsweek that lays out a powerful and compelling conservative argument in favor of gay marriage.
It really should be widely read. It's interesting both for its legal and constitutional arguments and for its broader statements about the history and culture and the standard arguments against gay marriage. This is the essence of the conservative case for gay marriage:
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 also directly takes on many of the arguments against gay marriage often heard from the right.
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 by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.
The whole thing is very much worth reading.
Politics
Comments
But he is clearly missing some much more fundamental conservative arguments such as "Them folk ain't like us", "god says those people are evil", and of course the classic "any change will destroy life as we know it and allow gay nazis to conquer the world"
Posted by: Ramel | January 13, 2010 9:41 AM
We must call it as it is: that's a beautiful piece of writing, all things considered--measured, thorough, personal, well-evidenced, and decisive. The ethos is even more essential. This is Ted Olson, once knee-jerk defender of conservative causes, staying true to an honest and quite persuasive conservative position. He dismisses the arguments against gay marriage, one paragraph each, pow, pow, pow. I'm trying not to respect this piece simply because I agree with it, or because I will enjoy seeing it hit the crazy-right like a big sticky tidal-wave of ghey. I respect it because it is the most focused and honest statement of the "big shift" I've read so for, when you consider the status of the individual and the directness of the logic.
Ted Olson. Imagine that.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | January 13, 2010 10:15 AM
Yes, one of the best arguments for gay marriage that I have read. Thank you for highlighting it.
Posted by: Owen | January 13, 2010 10:30 AM
I had a number of reactions to this article. By far most were positive. However from a historical and presend day perspective I found this one assertion by Mr. Olson most annoying when Olson states:
There is a distinct difference between making a conservative argument as Ed's first blockquote represents compared to defining whether a position on an issue is a definitively conservative or liberal position. Liberalism is what presents gays with this opportunity to perhaps soon exercise their rights and have them properly defended, certainly not conservatism which is the primary impediment. The reality of American conservatism and liberalism is that support of gay marriage is a defining example of a liberal issue and opposition to gay marriage is a defining example of modern-day American conservatism.
I appreciate Mr. Olson's rhetorical attempts to get conservatives on-board with gay-marriage as I quote here and Ed's first blockquote; however it's simply defective thinking to claim support of gay marriage as anything but a defining example of liberalism. Liberalism is what has gotten us to this pivotal time in history, certainly not conservatism.
The only concession one could make is towards Burkean conservatism, which doesn't attempt so much as to suppress progress but instead better insure progressive efforts value the benefits we currently enjoy the marginal result is optimal relative the status quo. However modern-day American conservatism in no way represents Burkean conservatism. While I realize there are space constraints in such articles, if Mr. Olson wanted to make this argument he should have noted it would require that American conservatives return to the traditional and more successful Burkean conservatism, which would be stellar advice given the current state of the movement.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 13, 2010 10:37 AM
Eloquent and persuasive. Seriously, this should be posted far and wide.
Posted by: Janice in Toronto | January 13, 2010 10:48 AM
I am a little bothered by the knee jerk statement "the State's itnerest in furthering procreation" I'm sorry, there are three hundred million of us, and that is arguably too many from a carrying capacity standpoint.
Posted by: Brian M | January 13, 2010 10:52 AM
@Heath
We got to this stage despite liberalism not because of it.
Posted by: yoshi | January 13, 2010 11:03 AM
Yoshi, considering the modern era is an order of magnitude more liberal then even 100 years ago, you'll have to define what you mean.
Posted by: Rutee | January 13, 2010 11:05 AM
@Brian M - That's something I wish someone would point out to these dimwits. We're doing quite well as a species and we don't really need any encouragement from the state to procreate.
Posted by: Owen | January 13, 2010 11:19 AM
Yeah, I agree with MH's point, and a larger one--conservatives can't resist seizing the high ground with question-begging on the assumption that conservatism is inherently better educated and more sensible etc. So Olson implies that a conservative argument for gay marriage is just a natural, comfortable observation rather than a counter to a brutal and dangerous trend in politics in which conservatives manipulate fear and loathing in their base to win elections and further their own grasp on power. If you make this argument, you acknowledge that it stands not against some general, benign and unquestioned status quo but against a very specific and pointed bigotry or manipulation, choose the shoe.
Of course, Olson is negotiating political shoals even as he declares by style and substance that this is above politics. I appreciate this, and excuse it within the context. We can't expect the man to repudiate people directly who will not miss the fact that they've been repudiated indirectly. He's not joining the Democrats here, so I excuse him a few showoffy fillips of standard right rhetoric...I'm just so happy to see a sane evaluation of this issue.
And by the way I've heard nothing but crickets from the usual suspects of the far right. They're frantically evaluating whether they can escape unscathed from attacks on Olson, or whether they should join in and start trying to establish that they've been there all along. Everybody's waiting timidly for somebody else to jump in the cold pool. It's hysterically funny, and more proof that the bankrupt demagogues operate in a separate and silent Charley Foxtrot, Mongolian of their own devising.
So I thank Theodore for something else--entertainment.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | January 13, 2010 11:33 AM
yoshi @ 7:
Gays have had problems with getting support from the Democrat party looking to stay centrist and big tent. The principles of liberalism are supportive of the gay movement getting to exercise their rights and have them defended; if it weren't we wouldn't have gotten this far. The Democratic party does not equal liberalism just like the Republican party of the 20th century was a collection of more than conservatives, a group who occupied both parties.
In addition, there are times when ideological movements don't satisfy the faithful in regards to priorities, where liberalism has not always served as a faithful servant to gays when looking at the suite of issues liberals would prioritize. But as a political ideological movement coupled to set of principles, it is liberalism and its basic tenets that brings together a sufficient quantity of people that provide ever-increasing promotion of gays securing their rights.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 13, 2010 11:37 AM
Being an old fogy and not understanding many of the current political positions, I always thought a bedrock principle of conservatives was to stay out of people’s live as much as possible that the government should not and would not dictate people’s private affairs. Mr. Olson’s statements seem to hearken to that position.
What is obvious to the most casual observer is that the major opposition to gay marriage is based upon tyrannical religious principles rather than conservative principles. I think what we must do is separate the principled conservative from the human-hating slave master attitude of the god babblers and have a rational discussion.
Posted by: Yeti | January 13, 2010 11:43 AM
Olson has overlooked the most fundamental reason conservatives are pushing to keep gay marriage illegal. The idea of two men kissing kicks in the massive ewwww factor. (You might argue that lesbians should then be allowed to be married, however this leads to the second most important reason conservatives want all gay marriage banned. While the idea of two women kissing is titillating, there must be room for a man to enter the frivolities you know to bat clean-up I guess.)
Posted by: Lorax | January 13, 2010 12:00 PM
Bravo Ted Olson.
Building on that article here are couple more conservative* arguments for gay marriage. First it makes good financial sense. Weddings are expensive, averaging more then $30,000. Think of all the money to be made by expanding the wedding market into this new sector. Same-sex marriages will pull millions of dollars from savings accounts and get them moving around the economy. This is particularly true in California, where a single celebrity wedding can easily top $2 million.
For the religious conservatives who think gay sex is a sin, allowing gays to get married is sure to reduce the amount of gay sex they have. Just ask any married couple. After a couple years they’ll be faking headaches and pretending they’re already asleep when their partner crawls into bed too.
Finally, legalizing same-sex marriage would be a big "fuck you' to our Muslim and Communist enemies. Those oppressive regimes all oppose same-sex marriage. Legalizing it here would show them we will not bow to their intimidation. We will not follow their tyrannical example. Show them America is still the land of the free and the home of the brave. Support same-sex marriage!
*Conservative in the tribal group sense.
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 13, 2010 12:34 PM
Yeti @ 12:
That's a mere talking point used by conservatives and only when its convenient to promote such a talking point, such as when conservatives argue a diner's right to deny blacks service is superior to African Americans' right to purchase food and the government does not have the power to defend African Americans' right to purchase food.
It's not a conservative principle nor has it ever been a principle in the conservative movement given their demonstrated legacy of fealty to authority consistent with their tenets, order, and submission to mandates that are religiously dogmatic and rule over even the Constitution.
Indeed your point is instead a classically liberal principle.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 13, 2010 12:35 PM
Yeti, #12: Being an old fogy and not understanding many of the current political positions, I always thought a bedrock principle of conservatives was to stay out of people’s live as much as possible that the government should not and would not dictate people’s private affairs.
That's interesting. In my 46 years of life, staying out of people's lives has never been a conservative position. Well, I admit this is what they've always claimed, but when you look at which laws and policies they've supported as opposed to what they've been saying, it becomes very clear that the main conservative position has always been to interfere in people's private lives.
Maybe things were different when you were a kid, though.
Posted by: Chiroptera | January 13, 2010 12:37 PM
There was never a point when I just 'decided' to be a liberal. There was just a slow period where it came to pass that if you didn't want to murder gay people, starve the poor, ignore science, and cut taxes until the government was bankrupt, you started getting called a liberal.
Posted by: steve s | January 13, 2010 12:37 PM
Yeti: What is obvious to the most casual observer is that the major opposition to gay marriage is based upon tyrannical religious principles rather than conservative principles.
This is not obvious to me. There's a whole side of my extended family that's socially conservative, and their opposition to gay marriage is a result of gut reaction (they don't like the idea of gay sex and can't comprehend how someone could be sexually attracted to a person of the same sex). We've had many conversations about why they believe what they believe, and while I think they're being stupid to deny someone rights based on nothing more than emotional discomfort, I'm at least glad that they don't trot out "because God says so" to justify their own personal beliefs.
Which is a roundabout way to get to my point, which is that I think there's a lot of people out there with a personal squeamishness towards homosexuality who merely use religious rhetoric to justify their position. They don't disagree with gay marriage because the bible says so, they use the bible to justify their independent prior opinion on gay marriage.
Posted by: eric | January 13, 2010 12:45 PM
There is a sense in which marriage is definitely a conservative institution. Even if you can escape the gender roles (which I suspect is easier for same-sex couples than mixed-sex ones) it comes with built-in assumptions on things like "of course we will live together," monogamy, and socializing with each other's parents, along with legal structures about things like property and inheritance. The ways the law is structured to preserve property within a marriage (including estate tax exemptions for spouses) are conservative, protective of property in specific, cu
If someone is my boyfriend or girlfriend, we may have some of those same structures in our relationship, either by default or because we actively want to (say, living together), but there's a little more flexibility. "My girlfriend and I don't live together" is a less startling statement than "My wife and I don't live together," for example. And we don't get an automatic exemption on estate taxes, or claim on each other's property if we separate. I'm less expected to bring her to family things--and the family is less pressed to accept a girlfriend or boyfriend than a wife or husband. On all sides, it's a little easier to let it slide, if they don't get along, or the partner hates any social event with more than four people, or the parents don't approve of the partner's religion, gender, race, or class.
Posted by: Vicki | January 13, 2010 12:56 PM
So you're saying that you didn't cross the border, the border crossed you?
(Yes, that is an overt reference to another so-called "conservative value", btw.)
Posted by: Umlud | January 13, 2010 12:58 PM
This could represent serious hope for the Republican party. The socially conserative wing won't even consider it, of course, but whatever pulse remains of the moderate GOP should fire up at Olson's words.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 13, 2010 1:08 PM
Well said, same here. I always get irritated by that old trope about "if you aren't a liberal when you are 20 you have no heart, if you aren't a conservative when you are 30 you have no brain." I was fairly (little L) libertarian at 20. I was a died-in-the-wool liberal by 30, because it rapidly became clear that libertarianism was a completely unworkable philosophy (how the hell is the free market going to fix global warming?!?) and because the conservative end of the spectrum got so despicable I could no longer find the slightest iota of common ground. Nope, liberal through-and-through these days.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 13, 2010 1:12 PM
The comments at FreeRepublic are beautifully idiotic. The wingnuts are saying Olson is a RINO now.
Take a gander here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2426225/posts
Posted by: Robert Chambers | January 13, 2010 1:28 PM
Let's see, will conservatives refrain from dictating:
1) Whether my kids pray or not in school? Nope.
2) What kind of erotic materials I choose to look at? Nope.
3) Into whom I choose to stick my penis (with his/her consent)? Nope.
4) What pharmaceutical substances I ingest? Nope.
5) Whether a woman chooses to have an abortion? Nope.
6) How tall I let the grass grow in my back yard? Nope.
7) Whether I take off my cap during the pledge of allegiance? Nope.
8) What constitutes legitimate scientific teaching and inquiry? Nope.
9) Whether I can marry another man? Nope.
Umm, just which one of my private affairs is it that conservatives are supposed to be leaving alone?
Posted by: James Hanley | January 13, 2010 1:43 PM
That's not likely the case. More than likely, Mr. Olson will now be kicked out of the Republican party as a traitor. See Robert Chambers' @ 23.
Posted by: Owen | January 13, 2010 1:44 PM
James Sweet said:
Are you perhaps defining libertarianism as anarchism? I don't see any conflict between promoting small government and concluding that there are some things that the government just has to tackle-- especially if you advocate that those are the only things the government should tackle.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 13, 2010 1:57 PM
I know it's not likely, Owen, but hope springs eternal.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 13, 2010 2:01 PM
James Hanley "Umm, just which one of my private affairs is it that conservatives are supposed to be leaving alone?"
You don't count. You aren't in their "in-group". The government is only supposed to keep its nose out of the "in-group's" private affairs, not the "out-groups'", as it were. In the same way, the Constitution doesn't protect you, you dirty hippiecommiefascist.
It helps that they tend to regulate stuff that doesn't effect them. Prop 8, good. Banning, say, divorce, bad. Mandatory prayer in public school, good. Science in science class, bad.
The Law, rather than mitigating harm, is for punishing "the other" for not being a part of the Popular Majority ("their" justice system is "tough on crime", ignoring the concept of rehabilitation).
Granted, I am a foreigner and, as I've said before, you all look a little nuts to me.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 13, 2010 2:10 PM
"Umm, just which one of my private affairs is it that conservatives are supposed to be leaving alone?"
YOUR FREEDOM TO REFUSE TO SERVE MINORITIES IN YOUR RESTAURANT!!!! DUH!!!
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | January 13, 2010 2:19 PM
I'd say you've nailed it, like hammer into anvil. The other thing I've noticed is that social conservatives advocate butting into people's personal lives, with governmental force if necessary, all the while railing against government as the cause of all the world's ills.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 13, 2010 2:20 PM
I went to Free Republic as Robert Chambers suggested. OMG, depressing.
Posted by: Owen | January 13, 2010 2:25 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | January 13, 2010 2:30 PM
If you haven't got enough money to pay for health care, that is so totally none of the government's business.
Posted by: pough | January 13, 2010 2:38 PM
ur not dum enuf
Posted by: James Sweet | January 13, 2010 2:41 PM
I can't decide if modern conservatism in America is fundamentally about having terrible values, or fundamentally about being stupid. Those two aspects vie for supremacy, and it's neck-and-neck.
Posted by: steve s | January 13, 2010 2:48 PM
James Hanley "Hey! I'm a straight white male."
Do you know who else was a "straight white male"? That's right: Hitler.
"How much more 'in' can I get?"
"They" don't judge a man by the colour of his skin. "That" would be racist*1. "They" judge a man by whether he agrees with them*2.
Footnotes:
*1 African-Americans aren't wrong and part of the out-group because they're black. They're wrong and part of the out-group because they generally vote for the wrong Party.
*2 And the colour of his skin.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 13, 2010 2:52 PM
Ed is right to point out that a lot of the anti-gay sentiment boils down to 'gays should be punished because anal sex is gross.'
Posted by: steve s | January 13, 2010 2:53 PM
I would argue that anti-intellectualism is one of those "terrible values", i.e. the latter is a subset of the former.
That said, the other "terrible values" would be far more difficult to maintain without that one, so I suppose stupidity could be seen as the "keystone" value of the American conservative movement...
Posted by: James Sweet | January 13, 2010 2:53 PM
I like to flip the question around. Ask conservatives, imagine gays were always allowed to get married. In this scenario, it's the year 2010, and there are 3.2 million gay/lesbian households, taking care of their kids, paying the bills, helping each other when they go to the hospital, etc.
Give me a good argument for forcibly divorcing these 3.2 million families."
Posted by: steve s | January 13, 2010 2:57 PM
Conservatism is primarily, I think, about preserving the status quo (or returning to the perceived status quo ante). Hence the essence of most conservatism is to protect the haves from the have-nots. Conservatives oppose government action when they think it interferes with the power of large corporations or traditional social majorities. They support it when it is used to enforce the power of those entities.
In this sense, opposition to gay marriage is less about any actual consequences of its legalization and more about asserting the authority of the once dominant social hierarchy.
Posted by: josh | January 13, 2010 2:58 PM
"I would argue that anti-intellectualism is one of those "terrible values", i.e. the latter is a subset of the former.
That said, the other "terrible values" would be far more difficult to maintain without that one, so I suppose stupidity could be seen as the "keystone" value of the American conservative movement...
Posted by: James Sweet | January 13, 2010 2:53 PM"
The overlap between values and intelligence is kind of murky. You can say approving of torture, for instance, is an example of terrible values, but you could also say that it requires a lot of stupidity to not understand the counterproductive consequences, the virtual nonexistence of the ticking time-bomb scenario, etc. But I'll have to think for a while to figure out whether modern american conservatism is the union, or the intersection, of terrible values and rank stupidity.
Posted by: steve s | January 13, 2010 3:03 PM
"Take a gander here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2426225/posts"
How do people that ignorant manage to find their way on to the interweb?
I can picture them getting home every night and beating their dog, "just because". (Then, when it eventually cracks and bites some kid's face off, they say "See? That's why I beat it.")
*Sigh* There's a sizeable minority of the population that I don't understand at all. Worse, I have no idea how to liberalize them. First, I tried facts (but those were reality-based and, therefore, the wrong kind of facts), then I tried emotion (but they have no empathy for the out-group) and I can't argue using Scripture (I do have standards, y'know).
What can we do?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 13, 2010 3:06 PM
"*Sigh* There's a sizeable minority of the population that I don't understand at all. Worse, I have no idea how to liberalize them. First, I tried facts (but those were reality-based and, therefore, the wrong kind of facts), then I tried emotion (but they have no empathy for the out-group) and I can't argue using Scripture (I do have standards, y'know).
What can we do?"
Wait til they all die, is what we can do. The younger generations have much better values w/r/t gay people.
Posted by: steve s | January 13, 2010 3:27 PM
"What can we do?"
Ostracize them.
Posted by: jws | January 13, 2010 3:27 PM
Eh, so I think defining libertarianism as "the government should not tackle those things which it should not tackle" is hopelessly overbroad. It would require quite an authoritarian streak to disagree with that statement :D
However, the set of things which I think it is necessary for the government to tackle has gotten large enough that it would stretch credibility to call myself a libertarian anymore. It has become clear to me that, as well as the free market functions in some industries, it just doesn't work at all in others. Furthermore, it's becoming more clear to me that too much income inequality -- not lower income overall, just a large amount of inequality -- has numerous inherent negative consequences for society at large, and that therefore trying to limit this inequality, by regulatory action if necessary, is on balance desirable.
Given the above, is it really reasonable to call myself a libertarian, just because I think the government shouldn't mess around in stuff where, uh, I don't the government should be messing around? I'm thinking not.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 13, 2010 3:42 PM
steve s "Wait til they all die, is what we can do. The younger generations have much better values w/r/t gay people."
Okay, but...*sigh*
jws "Ostracize them."
Except that we, much as they like to disagree, live in a pluralistic society. As such, we can't just push the ingredients in the Melting Pot that we don't like aside, as their flavour is in the mix, to mangle a metaphor. Possibly a simile. Maybe an analogy.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 13, 2010 3:43 PM
Hmmm... I wonder what kind of sex is not?
Posted by: Owen | January 13, 2010 3:44 PM
Heh, well, I might argue otherwise, however you point out an element of the mix that I think is too often overlooked.
The reason why many of these bigots feel revulsion at even the thought of a gay couple (even if sex is nowhere on the radar) is because, since a homosexual relationship -- and the accompanying sexual mechanics -- are so novel to them that they can't help but associate it with the actual sexual act.
Imagine if walking down the street, every time you saw a heterosexual couple, you pictured them getting it on, sloppy and sweaty. I imagine one might start to develop quite an aversion to any sort of public display of affection, no matter how mild. "Straight people holding hands? Ew, gross!"
Of course, that would be your own mental problem, and if you started trying to legislate others' behavior to get around it, you'd be a major asshole. But still, I think this is an important insight into the minds of the bigots that is too often overlooked.
What can be done about it? Two things: In the short term, de-emphasize the sexual nature of homosexual relationships. In the long term, exposure exposure exposure.
I lived in a neighborhood with a fairly large lesbian population a few years ago, and being a fairly typical heterosexual male, eh, I sort of "noticed" every time I saw a lesbian couple go by. Of course I wasn't feeling revulsion, but still, lesbians in public being a common sight was a novel experience for me, so for the first few months I found myself compulsively paying way too much attention whenever a couple would go by. Of course, after a short time, the novelty wears off and now it's just like any other couple.
The point being, even someone who for whatever reason feels intense bigotry when they "notice" a homosexual couple, after enough exposure one cannot maintain a reaction. Enough exposure, and even people who think that god hates teh gays won't really give a shit.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 13, 2010 3:56 PM
Might I suggest another possibility?
From the comments on the NY Times' article on Palin joining Fox
I think there's a strong element of "sticking it to people who, you know deep down, know better than you."
Posted by: DaveL | January 13, 2010 3:58 PM
Yeah, right. Those of us who fought for peace, civil rights, women's rights, & gay rights in the 60's/70's* (and made significant inroads) would tend to disagree.
Bring back the draft.
____________
*not to mention environmentalism, which at the time included population control
Posted by: Diane G. | January 13, 2010 4:05 PM
@46: Sure we can, don't you cook at all? Dilute the mixture and then add more of what you want, then make a reduction. Voila.
Posted by: jws | January 13, 2010 4:08 PM
I was a little surprised by this sentence (emphasis added).
Have I been misled by using Positive Liberty as my type specimen for libertarians or has Mr Olson made an error here?
Posted by: Matty | January 13, 2010 4:10 PM
Whatever your perceptions may be, steve s's statement that younger people tend to have a much more positive opinion of LGBT people, and are far more likely to support gay marriage, is a statistical fact.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 13, 2010 4:24 PM
@53: I think Diane G. was referring to polling data that demonstrates the current younger generation is much more hawkish on foriegn policy, and tends to be too quick to punish for petty crimes.
But, Mr. Sweet, I believe the same data also confirms your point: even those hawkish youngsters who thought that shooting looters on site during the Katrina disaster was a good thing are giving less and less of a shit about sexual orientation.
I wish I could quote, or even cite, the poll. So this could be bullshit, but my own very recent college experience with students about 10 years or so younger than me confirms that this is true.
Posted by: jws | January 13, 2010 4:30 PM
In addition to what jws mentioned, (some) polls also show the current younger generation to be more conservative on abortion.
Do not put your faith in polls. Even if the sample selection is perfectly distributed and the questions flawlessly worded, both doubtful, I'll bet every younger generation has always scored more liberally on some issue than older generations. And besides, there is quite a gulf between opinions and translating those opinions into action.
The modern Civil Rights laws, the creation of the EEOC, the EPA, & OSHA, the ERA campaign, Medicare, the Roe v. Wade ruling, the abolishment of capital punishment by many states, etc., were all accomplished by older generations.
I realize I'm broadening the discussion. But I don't think liberalism can be parsed by issue.
Posted by: Diane G. | January 13, 2010 5:30 PM
I know we are, once again, way off-topic, but your last point, Diane G., reminds me of the anti-Vietnam War protests. Most people think that the boomers started that movement, but it was actually the professors and not the students who led the first brigades.
Posted by: jws | January 13, 2010 5:39 PM
Owen | January 13, 2010 3:44 PM:
There are many kinds of sex which are not gross. These include "making eye babies" and the "Christian side-hug".
Posted by: llewelly | January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
Can anybody explain why this is not a 1st Amendment issue? Making laws about who can marry based on religious objections is surely a 1st issue?
I have never heard of a State maintaining the marriage laws are to protect procreation, although even if so they should have nothing to do with behavior that does not limit procreation. AI is positive in that regard, and surely adoption has to also support the pro-lifers? Oh wait, I forgot, they don't give a shit about what happens after birth, do they.
The way this case is framed, if the Prop 8 promoters win, they can get the State of Utah to declare Polygamy as their definition of marriage. After all, it was promoted and funded by the Mormons, IIRC. The way these latter day legislators rush to pass laws without proper consideration for their actual effects, this could very well be allowed even though I'm sure the majority of the Fundies have not thought of it, and would strenuously object.
Then again, it may just be Family members' subconsciousness' angling to legislate so that their suppressed fears will never be tempted into reality.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | January 13, 2010 6:53 PM
Either way, it was still an older generation. :D
That's not the way it went at my university, but YMMV. And nonetheless, if there hadn't been enough followers, said protests would not have garnered the attention they did. There are still plenty of uber-liberal academics on campuses, just no draft to light a fire under their potential acolytes.
(As to being off-topic--in my defense, in the larger sense, the rights of any of us are tied to the rights of all of us...gays, women, minorities, atheists...to me it's basically one battle, with several different fronts.)
While it's
probablydemonstrably true that statements like "Wait till they all die..." get my (admittedly old) goat, it's largely because that's pretty much what we felt, back in the day. I now suspect it's been ever thus, and that not much will have changed in the next several decades. Would love to be wrong, though.Posted by: Diane G. | January 13, 2010 8:23 PM
Ahh, what timing:
"Gay Teen Worried He Might Be Christian"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/100136
Posted by: Diane G. | January 13, 2010 8:29 PM
Agreed. I think that has been the strategy and what the 'mo foes are fighting hardest against. If the majority of society were to see gay relationships as only different, rather than deviant, they've lost.
Posted by: Owen | January 13, 2010 9:06 PM
Mr. Olson is absolutely correct to extol the benefits of marriage. Two homosexuals are far better off themselves, and far more beneficial to their community, as a stable married couple than as two single men.
This is exactly why homosexual marriage must be opposed. The ability to marry would be a huge boon to homosexuals, and if the disadvantages of the homosexual lifestyle were reduced that significantly, many more people would choose to embrace that lifestyle instead of denying and concealing their harmful, deviant sexual urges.
Posted by: mad the swine | January 13, 2010 9:20 PM
Well-written? Hardly.
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.
No, marriage between two individuals is not what conservatives prize, marriage between a man and a woman are what conservatives prize. This guy is building his "case" with a redefinition of what conservatives "prize". Straw man fallacy here.
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.
A culmination? Hardly. If gays can get married, what argument is there to prevent marriage between polygamists, relatives, groups of people? The "culmination" will be when marriage is redefined to the point of being meaningless.
The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.
Utterly ridiculous statement. So if two relatives want to get married, are they somehow less than equal to the rest of us because they can't?
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.
Many people are denied the right to marry for various reasons. Some types of even straight relationships are prohibited from marriage.
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?
Again, this is NOT what conservatives are arguing. The concern is for the children that result from a marriage. They are best served by a committed mom and dad, as nature has set up, therefore conservatives are arguing that the law should sanction only the best possible familial framework for children. Straw man fallacy here.
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.
Absurd. What about all the other people that can't get married? Relatives who want to marry each other? Underage people? Are they "second class" too? Gays are on average far wealthier and more highly educated than the rest of America. The persecution argument is absurd. Nobody is saying they have to sit at the back of the bus or that they can't vote. This is purely an emotional argument, which is logically fallacious.
Posted by: mroberts | January 13, 2010 10:04 PM
Absurd. This has not been demonstrated and has been shown (and told to mr roberts, time and time again). He is once again substituting emotional attitudes for facts.
Posted by: gwangung | January 13, 2010 10:09 PM
mroberts,
Despite the many, many posts you've made on the subject, I've never understood why you think marriage "between a man and a woman" should not be expanded to "between a man and a woman, or between two men, or between two women." I'd appreciate it very much if you could post just a simple list of reasons. I am, of course, assuming that you do have some reason other than a wish to impose your particular religious beliefs on other people.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 13, 2010 10:47 PM
The same arguments you have now.
If you can show that any of these other scenarios present a legitimate harm to society then by all means, keep doing so. Allowing gay marriage should not change any of your reasons for those other things, however. (This of course assumes that you have some other reason besides "because I don't like it." Which we all know you don't.)
Posted by: Leni | January 13, 2010 11:39 PM
mroberts "Hardly. If gays can get married, what argument is there to prevent marriage between polygamists, relatives, groups of people?"
Every potential modification should be taken on its own risks/merits. And if you're thinking that marriage now is what it was, your sense of history is poor, at best.
"The 'culmination' will be when marriage is redefined to the point of being meaningless."
People said the same thing around Loving v Virginia. The Slippery Slope argument was no more valid then, then it is now.
"So if two relatives want to get married, are they somehow less than equal to the rest of us because they can't?"
The specific case escapes me at the moment, but two relatives can get married, in limited circumstances. One was barren (which was the important part) and they had been adopted out as babies to different homes (which reduces the "ick" factor, although the "ick" factor isn't a valid foundation for law).
"Gays are on average far wealthier and more highly educated than the rest of America."
And so? The argument of "They have X. Why would they want Y?" isn't an argument. Them getting Y in no way takes away your Y. That's the thing about rights. It's not a zero sum game.
In short, mroberts, why do you hate rights?
"The concern is for the children that result from a marriage."
First of all, children don't result from marriage. They result from something else. You'll understand when you're older. Second, some of "the gays" have kids. Yes, they can reproduce. It's a little more complicated than "our" way, but they can. Some who do have kids from their "hetero-phase", from before they realized that what they were was something else. So now they have kids and can't get the State protections that automatically come with marriage.
In short, mroberts, why do you hate children?
"Nobody is saying they have to sit at the back of the bus or that they can't vote."
Yes, metaphorically, they are. "You can't see your dying so-called 'wife', Mrs Butterworth." at the hospital is the back of the bus. It's a big "fuck you" to your relationship.
In short, mroberts, why do you hate stable relationships?
"This is purely an emotional argument, which is logically fallacious."
At worst, that's a tu quoque.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 14, 2010 12:50 AM
Despite the many, many posts you've made on the subject, I've never understood why you think marriage "between a man and a woman" should not be expanded to "between a man and a woman, or between two men, or between two women." I'd appreciate it very much if you could post just a simple list of reasons. I am, of course, assuming that you do have some reason other than a wish to impose your particular religious beliefs on other people.
My opposition to gay marriage derives primarily from concerns about religious freedom, as I have said many times on this blog. Most I have argued with on this issue have no problem demonstrating the most vicious bigotry toward me as a Christian yet utterly condemn me with the most vile comments when I simply oppose and disagree with their viewpoints (just look up some of my past conversations with hateful bigots like SLC and democommie). I have also heard gays express that they would be happy to essentially ban any opposition to gay marriage. One gay woman even went so far as to say on a radio show that she thought people that opposed gay marriage should spend some time in jail. Leftist politicians have passed so-called humans rights laws that penalize Christians for opposing homosexuality (in Canada, you can be fined simply for expressing opposition to homosexuality, despite the fact that their constitution guarantees free speech). For example, some Christian photographers in New Mexico got fined simply because they refused to photograph a gay commitment ceremony on the basis of their religious beliefs. There were plenty of other photographers in town, but the gays apparently felt they needed to stick it to the Christians. Those that push for gay marriage always demand tolerance, but they are the last to extend it to others. Even worse, they seem intent on writing their religious intolerance and bigotry into the law. That is the primary reason why I oppose gay marriage. Gays have all the rights to do what they want with each other, but they do NOT have the right to impose on my freedom of religion, regardless of how much they hate my religion.
Posted by: mroberts | January 14, 2010 1:44 AM
Diane G. - Your argument (#55) is essentially:
a) The Empire State Building was built in 1929.
b) It was built by an older generation.
And so?
What did you expect? That space-riveters from the year 2525 jumped back in time to build it? Or did you expect the Empire State Building to be demolished every year and re-built?
Gen X & Y don't get excited by the Civil Rights Movement* because it's already part of their world (do you get excited about the frames of your house's doors?), they have other things to fight for, like reversing AGW for example, thus improving the lot of the next generation.
Without knowing it you've become a conservative, fondly remembering the social wars of the past, while all around you the younger ones are fighting the social wars of the present, so they can fondly reminisce, to their children in the future, how they 'saved the world', just like you're doing now.
"So it goes." - Dingo
-----------
* do we know this for a fact, or is it simply a lazy generational generalisation?
Posted by: DingoJack | January 14, 2010 1:56 AM
Mrroberts wrote (during a break from tending his 'Leftoruim'):
OK, let sort through this (again).
a) "Leftists" didn't pass this legislation, the Canadian Parliament did. Those "Leftists" (aren't there any "Rightists" is Canada?) were elected by the people.
Why do hate Democracy so?
b) I'm no expert on Canadian law, but I'd say you'd have to a little more than merely 'express opposition' to attract a fine. It's a law designed (badly) to stop people saying hurtful, dangerous and/or bigoted things. [You are aware of the irony of complaining of bigotry of others and a[n ineffective] law to stop bigotry in the same post, right?]
c) This New Mexico photographer has become an Internet meme. Who is this photographer? What is the truth of the matter? Did this go to court? Are there documents and rulings from that Court? Was a contract made and then broken at the last minute? Would photographing a wedding really offend the photographer's god (where does it say specifically that 'thou shall not photograph a gay wedding')? Perhaps the photographer thought it would be like Raiders of the Lost Ark, and god would send down a tendril of plasma to melt his/her head.
Enquiring minds need to know. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 14, 2010 2:43 AM
Lets try again
I had to remove one example but otherwise this version is at least as coherent as the original and probably bears more relation to the real world.
Posted by: Matty | January 14, 2010 2:56 AM
Smile. You're jumping to conclusions. I have nothing against younger generations, which include my kids, of course. I was only reacting to "wait till they die." Wait till you're older--you won't want to hear it either, nor will you any longer believe that the newest generations won't fuck up like the older ones. (And remember--the scientists behind most of the AGW research are...BOOMERS!)
I see no reason to be generationally divisive. We have like thinkers throughout the continuum--as do the rightists.
By your logic, shall we not be excited by the Bill of Rights?
Posted by: Diane G. | January 14, 2010 4:36 AM
Mroberts @68,
have you faced bigotry for being a Christian? If so, that's unfortunate. Nobody should face bigotry. (I will assume arguendo that what you faced was, in fact, actual bigotry and not "bigotry" as Christianists so often describe it, e.g., reminders that the American constitution demands separation of church and state). You must be, and are, free to perform whatever rituals give you comfort; to believe whatever stories you find appealing; and even to draw (as some Christians do) the most loathesome conclusions from those stories. What's more, you must be, and are, free to argue in the marketplace of ideas that others should perform the same rituals, believe the same stories and draw the same conclusions. I would go to some lengths to oppose people who wanted to strip you of those rights.
But I would also go to some lengths to oppose people like you and your crusade to deny equal rights to others out of a mixture of aesthetic revulsion and iron-age superstition. (Yes, you proffer other arguments against marriage equality. They are specious. Before reading this thread, I had never encountered a cogent argument against equality, nor even an honest one other than "my god forbids it" and "icky!" I still have not done so.) While it is entirely, and regrettably, possible that you have indeed faced real bigotry for your beliefs, it is likely that at least some measure of people's negative response to you is anger at your desire to deny fundmental rights to them or their loved ones, as well as contempt for the bigotry and foolishness that motivates your crusade. I expect that you would be angered -- and rightly so -- if a large, fanatical, highly-organised and well-financed minority were mounting a nationwide campaign to deny Christians the right to marry, or to deprive them of privileges other people enjoy in matters such as taxation or inheritance (and I expect your anger would be joined by contempt -- again, rightly so -- if that activist minority took their anti-Christian stance because they believed that, say, the gods of Olympus demanded it). Well, guess what? People aren't all that different to each other. Other than the intolerant authoritarian political religion part, gay people and other supporters of marriage equality are very much like you. Given your offensive views, it would be astonishing if you did not face hostility from decent people. And you can't simply dismiss all of that hostility as "bigotry"; you don't earn a martyr's crown that easily.
As an aside, I should note that I am neither gay nor Christian. I do not understand why either group is the way it is. But my incomprehension is, of course, irrelevant. In a liberal*, secular, pluralist society, every person -- even an illiberal sectarian bigot -- must be free to live his life as he sees fit. But he must not be permitted to force other people to live their lives as he sees fit.
All the above applies equally to gays and Christians alike (and to every other group you can think of). But I must admit that, at a personal level, I do not view gays and Christians equally; certainly not from the moral perspective. All reliable evidence suggests that gays do not choose to be gay. Even if there were something wrong with it (which I do not believe), it's not as though they asked for it. By contrast, nobody is a Christian who does not want to be a Christian. Yes, I know, I know: most Christians (like most other religious people) identify as such because they were, as children, indoctrinated in their beliefs by their parents (and sometimes, in more primitive societies, by the structures of society itself). But I'm not talking about purely nominal Christians, even though those seem, at least in developed western nations, to be the large majority of Christians. I am talking about committed, activist Christians, whether they are adult converts or have simply fully internalised the childhood indoctrination that, in most, remains superficial. At least in societies where the church has been stripped of its power to kill dissenters, those people choose their lifestyle. And they could leave that lifestyle if they chose.
* To be clear: I am using "liberal" here in the technical, political-philosophical sense, not in the American partisan-political sense.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 14, 2010 5:29 AM
But enough about mroberts and his sort. What are the odds, do you think, that Olson, far from being a "RINO" and traitor to the conservative cause, is in fact playing a deep and viciously brilliant conservative game?
What if he is trying to ensure that the cause of marriage equality is set back a generation by getting the question before the US Supreme Court in its current composition? (It will surely end up before them.) Do any of you doubt for one second that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas will not hold that state action against gay marriage is subject merely to rational-basis review? And do you doubt for one second that they will not find the actions' basis to be rational?
Four of the five votes that the forces of darkness need for victory are aleady a lock. Kennedy is a toss-up, it's true. But is it really prudent to bet on that coin toss that the result will be another Lawrence v. Texas rather than another Bowers v. Hardwick?
The hypothesis above is far-fetched, I concede. Olson is certainly saying all the right things, and saying them eloquently. I hope he is on the level; probably he is on the level. But if I were a cunning rightwinger trying to engineer a strategic defeat for marriage equality, I could not imagine a better way to go about it.
Olson has a co-counsel, of course. I really cannot see Boies playing this sort of game. But Boies is not known for lack of ego. I do not believe he'd try deliberately to drive the ship onto the shoal. I just hope that his judgement has not been clouded by dreams that some future Anthony Hopkins might portray him in some future equivalent of Amistad.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 14, 2010 5:57 AM
Re Mroberts
I'm an equal opportunity bigot. I don't like born agains of any stripe. I don't like born again Christians, born again Jews, born again Muslims, born again Hindus, born again Shintos, born again Buddists, born again Wiccans, or born again Taoists. I'm with Richard Dawkins, Mr. Mroberts is a textbook case as to why religion is the root of all evil.
Posted by: SLC | January 14, 2010 7:15 AM
Diane G. - Just how old do you think I am*? You don't write a day over 35 (☺).
Didn't that Boomer Roger Daltrey once muse: "Hope I die before I get old"? :)
I'm not saying that Gen X/Y aren't interested (and grateful) for the Civil Rights Movement (see the footnote in my above comment), I'm just saying there's other wrongs to right and that they are fighting (as youth always does) to correct that. Perhaps it's just youthful optimism winning out over the experience of age**, but that is, I think, the way of the world, always has been, always will be. - Dingo
-------
* lying here is not optional. :)
** Guess I must be ageing backwards. I started out a teen-aged cynic and ended up a middle-age optimist. Go figure!
Posted by: DingoJack | January 14, 2010 7:45 AM
How clever of Olsen to take the romanticized and idealized conception of traditional marriage and turn it against its conservative creators for the cause of legalizing romanticized and idealized homosexual marriage.
Of course, advocating yet another expansion of the scope of the 14th amendment in order to project federal power into the states does not sound conservative to me.
As to the fundamental question of equality, it I cannot see exactly how homosexual couples are equal to heterosexual couples. Two million years of human evolution has selected two genders for the reproduction and rearing of viable offspring. The two genders respond to assorted visual, auditory, and olfactory cues in their pairing. They possess complementary sexual organs. They reproduce. They form extended kinship networks through consanguinity. Homosexuality seems something of a biological anomaly. They appear to be oriented to the wrong biological cues. They cannot engage in sexual intercourse properly speaking. They cannot reproduce. They cannot form extended kinship networks based upon blood ties. In short, they are not equal. It is difficult to see why marriage and family law should be applied to them.
lee
Posted by: secularsquare | January 14, 2010 8:00 AM
secularsquare, #77:
Well, producing children is not the primary purpose of marriage in contemporary America (even among conservative Christians except when they are railing against gay marriage); in fact, it's not even a part of many hetereosexual marriages -- some by choice, others because of their own biological reasons. So your post is pretty much irrelevant to the whole issue of gay marriage.
Posted by: Chiroptera | January 14, 2010 8:16 AM
secularsquare -
Quite right. Two million years of evolution has done this very well without any need for government enforcement. It never seems to get through to anti-SSM types that they're the ones demanding government interference in people's lives, so they're the ones who need to justify it. I've still never heard even one decent argument against same sex marriage.Posted by: Taz | January 14, 2010 8:49 AM
James Sweet, et al:
Crudely, libertarianism can be divided into two broad ideological tendencies. Firstly, there are "deontological" or "natural-rights" libertarians. These people believe that the initiation of coercive force is, in principle, morally wrong. Since all government activity rests on coercive force, they therefore either believe that government should not exist at all (in the case of anarcho-capitalists), or that its role should be linmited to protecting individuals from coercion by others (in the case of minarchists). Rather, in their view, goods and services should be provided entirely by voluntary exchange between individuals. In both cases, this is a moral argument from first principles, not a pragmatic argument.
There are also, however, "consequentialist" or "pragmatic" libertarians. Pragmatic libertarians argue that, in general, the evidence suggests that small government, individual freedom and a market economy are the best arrangement for maximising human prosperity and happiness. However, since this is a position based on empirical evidence, they are happy to make exceptions where the evidence suggests that government intervention is necessary. For many pragmatic libertarians, environmental protection is a paradigmatic example of this; it's an objective which is necessary, but which can't be achieved by private and voluntary arrangements alone. Similarly, many pragmatic libertarians are willing to support some government welfare provision to stop the poor from starving, and some public aid for education and healthcare.
Of course, what I have set out above is to some extent a false dichotomy; most people who call themselves "libertarian" mix-and-match these two sets of principles, and the two types of "libertarians" aren't discrete groups in opposition to one antoher. But the principles are nevertheless separate, and they lead to different outcomes; hence why "libertarian" is such a broad political heading.
Posted by: Walton | January 14, 2010 9:26 AM
secularsquare seems to have been force-fed the things he says. He doesn't appear to argue with any sort of nuance.
Posted by: Katharine | January 14, 2010 9:30 AM
@chiroptera
I do not mean to posit a reductive case for marriage in which childbearing is its primary or exclusive purpose. I presented the brute biological facts and consequent universal scope of heterosexual pairing upon which diverse cultural, religious, and legal conventions about marriage and family rest. The fact that some couples elect to have ten children or none seems, as you say, irrelevant. For advocates of homosexual marriage to dismiss the biological foundations and universal scope of heterosexual pairing reveals their own reductive concept of marriage.
lee
Posted by: secularsquare | January 14, 2010 9:53 AM
mroberts' objection to same-sex marriage, in ten words: "Some of its supporters advocate for things I don't like."
Posted by: Gretchen | January 14, 2010 10:27 AM
secular, #82: I presented the brute biological facts and consequent universal scope of heterosexual pairing upon which diverse cultural, religious, and legal conventions about marriage and family rest.
The only "brute fact" that you presented is that offspring does not result from sex between individuals of the same sex. It is an entirely irrelevant point to the issue of gay marriage in the U.S.
Posted by: Chiroptera | January 14, 2010 10:47 AM