The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
From Ted Olson:
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.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Religious beliefs and respect for them are also part of many conservatives’ core principles. When conflicts in practice exist between two equally valid principles, there is often a difficulty in deciding which gets priority.
Here, the prospect of legally enforced, government mandated prioritization of beliefs trumps the actual issue for many conservatives, in a way not seen since government mandated desegregation more than a generation ago. Then, the government mandate was resented more than the desegregation, also.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:01 am
(1) Any way you slice it Same Sex Marriage is a huge alteration to the fundamental nature of the marital institution. The marital institution is part of society’s social bedrock. It’s pretty hard to cast alteration of foundational social principles as being fundamentally conservative in nature. It may flow from some principles conservative hold, but that isn’t the same thing.
(2) Many religious and social conservatives would not point to this as flowing from conservative principles at all. They would point to it flowing from the long arm of moral decay and weakening of the marital institution that really picked up steam with the sexual revolution. Considering a lot of critics predicted this would happen in the 60s, it’s hard to say that they’re wrong.
(3) Mikee is right. There is a good chance that government is going to be used as a bludgeon on this issue. People that oppose gay marriage on moral grounds may be to be forced by law or the courts to act against their consciences. Even worse, it is largely being pushed through using the courts and judicial fiat not through more representative forms of democracy like the legislatures.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:40 am
“This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.”
So I guess this really is not the conservative case for gay marriage, since Olsen pretty much admits it in the end.
For laughs, how about the conservative case for abortion, submission to Islam, and Obamacare?
January 14th, 2010 at 11:54 am
His isn’t a conservative argument but rather a communitarian one. In any case, the danger Olson courts is that, as the court must reach the issue of what marriage is, it may decide that marriage is only a man and a woman; I would think that this would stop Full Faith & Credit in its tracks.
In any case, I doubt that it will get to that. SCOTUS will probably either deny cert or will decide on some lesser issue (my guess is the Political Question Doctrine).
January 14th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
But it’s icky. Why is this so hard to understand?
January 14th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
As a libertarian, I do not think that the government, on any level, should have any say at all in who can and cannot be married. In short, it’s not the business of the government. Further, as it stands, there is no law or regulation that would restrict any two (or even more) people from having a ceremony and calling themselves a married couple. Then there are ways, using contract law, for a couple – gay or straight – to set themselves up with many of the same legal, economic and financial advantages of being married under law.
So why, one has to wonder, are gays so hell bent on having their marriage “legalized”? What is it that they really want?
They want not just tolerance, but a societal endorsement of their relationships as being valid, that their chosen lifestyle is OK. (Note: the preference may or may not be inborn, but the lifestyle IS a choice) They want us to accept and condone the homosexual culture.
As a Christian, I refuse to do that. The Bible very plainly says that sexual immorality is a sin, and further, that condoning sinful behavior is in itself a sin. (I wrote a piece on my blog exploring this issue, if anyone is interested – http://bit.ly/8OG35H )
Since many conservatives – whether authoritarian or libertarian – are also devout Christian, that is likely where much of the conservative objection to gay marriage comes from.
So, is the agenda really to force Christians into sin by mandating acceptance of a sinful lifestyle?
January 14th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Marriage is a religous institution, civil unions are not. Why can’t civil unions have EVERY SINGLE protection that marriage has as far as the state is concerned and then it will be a matter of semantics, and hopefully everyone can leave that one alone. I have no problem with gays having legal contracts with each other, it’s not my job to judge them. God will judge us all in the end, and that’s when they will have to answer for their choices. I don’t care what two dudes/gals put where on who, as long as it’s not thrown in my face, it’s none of my business. Our country is about FREEDOM FOR ALL, even those with gay cooties. Don’t force your beliefs on me and mine and I won’t force mine on you, hell I have a hard enough time running my own life, why do I want to run anyone elses?
January 14th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Agreed.
True, but they don’t get the same benefits from the government that a married heterosexual couple does. They can call it marriage all they want, their church, friends, and family can all recognize it as marriage, but the government doesn’t treat it the same. It is not equal, no matter what they call it if the government doesn’t treat it equally.
But those legal, economic, and financial advantages of legal marriage are not automatic for gay couples, like they are for straight couples. They have to make separate arrangements for each benefit, and often some of those arrangements don’t carry from one state to another. With straight couples, it’s all a one package deal that automatically is recognized in all 50 states. It’s also, as you say, many of the same advantages, not all of the same advantages.
Equal treatment under the law.
January 14th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I call shenanigans on the “all we want is equality” argument. At least in my experience, civil unions are treated as second-class citizenship by “gay marriage” advocates. Why? So much of the opposition is based on the word “marriage” and how this is perceived to water down the proper meaning of marriage.
It looks like it’s just a self-esteem issue: “Let’s say we’re all the same no matter what!” We’re not, and committed homosexual partnerships are not, and are incapable of ever being, marriage. Quit screwing around with the dictionary and with common discourse. I’d be okay with (wouldn’t support, but would be okay with) civil unions. I’d rather die in prison than call homosexual unions marriage.
January 14th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
separate but equal!
January 14th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Marriage certificate: $60.00
cost in lawyers fees for a gay couple to set up as many of the same rights granted to the same married couple: upwards of 3-5 thousand.
It isn’t just a couple of forms that a lawyer has sitting on his desk. these are fairly intricate documents that need to cover hundreds of settings. some of which, are still not recognized in times of need like DNR settings.
Not to mention any tax brakes they may be missing out on.
I’m not sure how that is the same?
January 14th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Since the state has co-opted the word marriage, it is no longer a religious institution in a lot of people’s eyes. I don’t believe in God, I still got married. I paid my sixty dollars to the state and I was married. Gay marriage doesn’t effect your religious ceremonies. The gays (I checked, it’s ok to call them that) just want the rights and privileges that come with being married. seriously, I also asked them about it when I checked on calling them “the gays”.
January 14th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Judging by the amount of people that believe semi-auto rifles like ARs are machine assualt guns, maybe they are right. After all, things are defined not by what they are in reality, but what a small minority of people want to think.
Then again, I guess if a person does not accept all perversions of marriage, then they can get in line with us bigots who understand the truth of marriage. Why stop at love, after all? If I wanted pure benefits and rights, can I have one marriage for lust, then three more to take advantage of tax law?
January 14th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Nate, I’m pretty sure that when I went to get my marriage license the church wasn’t involved at all.
Marriage licenses are issued by the state. So issue them to homosexuals as well, and let the churches decide whether or not they want to perform the ceremony in the sight of God. And if they don’t, that’s perfectly fine, there’s a JOP around the corner.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Dan, you’re so retarded. I’m pretty sure no one cares about the difference between guns. and what you’re talking about is polygamy, and that is completely wrong. That kind of thinking is another reason why people won’t legalize same-sex marriage. Thank you for being a pathetic example of small mindedness.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Colleen, you are a small minded, pathetic bigot. Why are you denying a group of people’s love for each other?
You just have to open your mind to possibilities beyond your obviously limited education. Then maybe you can truly understand what love is!
January 14th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
you don’t support polygamy? how small minded!
January 15th, 2010 at 1:24 am
I have never harbored any animosity toward gays. Until lately. Equality is not what they are after. Special treatment is what they are after.
January 15th, 2010 at 3:15 am
Why shouldn’t gays pay the Marriage Tax/Penalty–Coming Soon to a Government Health Deform Near You!–too?
January 15th, 2010 at 11:19 am
No government marriage at all. Civil unions for everybody.
From a socially conservative point of view, the divorce rate makes it clear that letting the government get their filthy adulterous corrupt hands on marriage was a disaster; it’s already been much worse for marriage than government-mandated gay marriage would be. This is an opportunity to take our marriages back.
From a constitutionalist point of view, government marriage violates the First Amendment. Muslim views, biblical Christian views, Episcopalian or UCC views all differ. The government can’t legally pick one any more than it can define prayer.
And of course it’s civil unions for everyone is equal and not separate.
January 15th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
That would be an ideal solution, but doesn’t seem likely. Until then, well Heather has it right:
Demanding equal treatment by the government is not asking for “special” treatment. As long as marriage is regulated by the government, as it is now, it’s a question of equality. Heterosexuals get the privilege of bundled benefits awarded by the government for getting married based on the gender of their partner, gays are legally barred from it based on the gender of their partner.
It’s discrimination based on religious beliefs (just like the ban on polygamy, actually), and has no place in the law.
January 15th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
What is wrong with multiple marriages? beyond that it would wreak havoc on the tax codes. I couldn’t care less if 5 people all wanted to get married. As long as they are all adults and consenting.
what consenting adults do shouldn’t be any of our business. It shouldn’t be the government’s business. Since the government made it their business, they should treat all groups of people equally.
Out of curiosity, has any set of rights been granted to a minority group through popular vote?
January 16th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Except that those contracts rarely end up being enforced when challenged in course. For example, try writing a will that leaves the majority of your estate to someone not legally recognized as a member of your family and see what happens when your relatives all challenge the will in court.