The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

[PLFXpert 0]

A gay marriage civil rights trial will begin Monday in California challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Many of my friends and family--largely conservative--consider gay marriage a non-issue and wonder why I care so much with so many other "more important" things going on in our nation right now.

I think Theodore Olson--one of the two attorneys in the case hoping to overturn the Prop 8 amendment--represents my sentiments perfectly in the January 18th issue of Newsweek: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Southern_Man 0]

I have no idea why gays shouldn't be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of the married people.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

A gay marriage civil rights trial will begin Monday in California challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Many of my friends and family--largely conservative--consider gay marriage a non-issue and wonder why I care so much with so many other "more important" things going on in our nation right now.

I think Theodore Olson--one of the two attorneys in the case hoping to overturn the Prop 8 amendment--represents my sentiments perfectly in the January 18th issue of Newsweek: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.

The lawyer (cant remember his name) that argued in front of the SC for Bush against Gore, and against the DC gun laws is for gay marriage. I listened to an interview he did a couple of weeks back. Makes a very good argument FOR gay marriage. While I did not agree with all of his points, his compelling arguments do make one think about their (my) position against it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ferdberfel 0]

I can't see how any of the right wingnuts could read Olsen's article, in full, and not start to see the light.

It is as simple as right and wrong. Denying the same rights and responsibilities to one section of society, based on ancient superstions, is wrong. A book full of ancient superstions is not a rational basis for a modern society.

Screw the Christian Taliban. Freedom OF religion is mandated in the Constitution. The corollary to that is freedom FROM religion. Keep your beliefs in ancient superstion out of my life, thank you very much. I don't give a crap what you do on your own time, as long as it doesn't afffect my life in any way. If you start stirring up a load of shit based on ancient superstitions, in a way that affects my life, you are in for one hell of a fight.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I can't see how any of the right wingnuts could read Olsen's article, in full, and not start to see the light.

Quote

And I cant believe how left wing zelots start a post as you did and expect any respect or reply.

Go look in the mirror pal and lighten up

I did not read past your first line because of the stupid comments.

Now, go fill out your profile so you somebody, anybody, might pay any attention to you in the future....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ferdberfel 0]

Quote

Quote

I can't see how any of the right wingnuts could read Olsen's article, in full, and not start to see the light.

Quote

And I cant believe how left wing zelots start a post as you did and expect any respect or reply.

Go look in the mirror pal and lighten up

I did not read past your first line because of the stupid comments.

Now, go fill out your profile so you somebody, anybody, might pay any attention to you in the future....

Just a bit sensetive there, aren't you, partner. Did you see something of yourself in the first sentence of my post somehow? I am sorry for you, if that is the case.

I have the stength of character to read through the right wingnut posts here and try to glean some iota of sense out of them. It might happen someday. You should try to expose yourself to ideas that might challenge your beliefs, insead of jumping to the "I'm offended, so you have no value" conclusion. I find most of the conservative crap offensive to practical common sense. I read it anyway to try to understand how people can be so easily led against their own self interests.

If I happen to feel like filling out my profile, I will. In reading the rules here, there isn't any requirement to do so. Feel free to completely and totally ignore what I write, if a blank profile is so important to you. I don't expect you to reply to any of my posts, in that case.

[rushmc 18]

Not sensitive at all.

But there is no point dealing with such extreme views as yours as well has how you treat those with whom you disagree.



And there is no charater involved in trying to insult groups with whom you disagree. None what so ever

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ferdberfel 0]

Quote

And there is no charater involved in trying to insult groups with whom you disagree. None what so ever

That is an VERY HILARIOUS statement. The right wingnuts always demonize the liberals and progressives by insulting us. Turnabout is fair play. It is to be expected that you would be offended when the same techniques are used against you. It is the same right wing techniques in action. If you do it to others, it is fine. If it is done to you, it is not fine, and must be stopped ASAP.

In any case, Olsen and Boies have quite a compelling argument that is easily understood by anyone with a small amout of common sense.

You have written that you are starting to realize that freedom and equality applies to everyone, not just people like you.

I hope that, if you have children, that at least one of them turns out to be gay. That would put the issue to you in a way that would make clear what exactly is at stake for the "others". When it is your own blood that is beaten, insulted, denied basic rights, etc, the injustice and WRONGNESS of that would become crystal clear. I would hope that you would have the strength of character to fight for equal rights for your child.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

And there is no charater involved in trying to insult groups with whom you disagree. None what so ever

That is an VERY HILARIOUS statement. The right wingnuts always demonize the liberals and progressives by insulting us. Turnabout is fair play. It is to be expected that you would be offended when the same techniques are used against you. It is the same right wing techniques in action. If you do it to others, it is fine. If it is done to you, it is not fine, and must be stopped ASAP.

In any case, Olsen and Boies have quite a compelling argument that is easily understood by anyone with a small amout of common sense.

You have written that you are starting to realize that freedom and equality applies to everyone, not just people like you.

I hope that, if you have children, that at least one of them turns out to be gay. That would put the issue to you in a way that would make clear what exactly is at stake for the "others". When it is your own blood that is beaten, insulted, denied basic rights, etc, the injustice and WRONGNESS of that would become crystal clear. I would hope that you would have the strength of character to fight for equal rights for your child.

So much charater.

How does it feel assigning so much to yourself?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BikerBabe 0]

you know, I don't agree with marc about 99% of the time on here, but there's really no need to post stuff like this when he freely admitted that some of these arguments have actually helped him see the case for the other side.

It's more than most of the "right wingnuts" on here would do, yes, but I have to give marc props for his courage in admitting that there might be more to the story than his previously-held beliefs might have allowed.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

but there's really no need to post stuff like this when he freely admitted that some of these arguments have actually helped him see the case for the other side.

I agree, and thank you for the thread bump.
I would be interested in hearing more thoughts.
Rushmc--specifically--what about Olson's interview stood out to you?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[skyrider 0]

If this was "Any Other" subject, most would be screaming, "The Voters Spoke" (twice) it is the law, get over it...

BUT, just because a LOT of noises gays want EVERYONE to think they are OK, we are back in court with it again!

Funny thing is, I know 3 gay couples, and one gay man, NONE of them give a shit about this law, they still get tax breaks and family rights... Even they say it is a bunch of loud mouthed trouble makers!

[billvon 2,421]

>BUT, just because a LOT of noises gays want EVERYONE to think they
>are OK, we are back in court with it again!

I don't think they want everyone to think they are "OK." I think they just want the same rights everyone else has. You would, too, if you were in a small group of people not allowed by the state to marry because of your (say) skin color.

>they say it is a bunch of loud mouthed trouble makers!

Perhaps. If so, I am glad those "loud mouthed trouble makers" also ended school segregation and the anti-miscegenation laws.

[PLFXpert 0]

What are your thoughts on The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

>BUT, just because a LOT of noises gays want EVERYONE to think they
>are OK, we are back in court with it again!

I don't think they want everyone to think they are "OK." I think they just want the same rights everyone else has. You would, too, if you were in a small group of people not allowed by the state to marry because of your (say) skin color.

>they say it is a bunch of loud mouthed trouble makers!

Perhaps. If so, I am glad those "loud mouthed trouble makers" also ended school segregation and the anti-miscegenation laws.

Ditto on everything Bill said. And sure, it was voted on and some feel that should be the end of it, but there is a reason we have the federal process here where things like this can be appealed. The courts will have a final say in this matter because the law defends the minority in a vote where the majority can vote against something like human rights being extended to the minority. Like Bill said, if we let the vote speak then blacks would still be sitting in segregated school and not able to marry whites. I am also glad those "loud mouthed trouble makers" spoke up back then and fought for equal rights.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[kallend 1,640]

What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple?

I think that depends on which state the civil union is in, which is why this needs to be taken to a federal level and make it one way or another across the board. I like what was referenced in the article that these are basic rights given to everybody through the constitution as U.S citizens, not people who reside in one state or another.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple?

What were the differences between the right to go to a coloured school and a white one? Did that case rest upon the ameliorable difference in the quality of the respective school systems or did the court rule on a more fundamental issue?

[wolfriverjoe 1,350]

Quote

What are the differences between the legal rights granted in a "civil union" of a gay couple and the "marriage" of a hetero couple?

IIRC there are 1100+ rights/privileges granted to married couples at the federal level. The words marriage, husband and wife are in the statutes.

These range from Social Security spousal survivor benefits to family discounts at the National Parks.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Southern_Man 0]

I personally wish the government would get out of the business of recognizing marriages altogether. Let people make whatever contractual arrangements they want between themselves.

I'm a realist so I know it won't happen but it is my libertarian dream.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wolfriverjoe 1,350]

Quote

I personally wish the government would get out of the business of recognizing marriages altogether. Let people make whatever contractual arrangements they want between themselves.

I'm a realist so I know it won't happen but it is my libertarian dream.

Agreed. Someone (Billvon IIRC) said in one of the previous gay marriage threads that it would be a whole lot simpler in the long run to have government only recognize "civil unions" between 2 consenting adults, and leave the "marriage" part to the churches. That would take care of survivor benefits, property rights, health care decisions, all that stuff.

But that isn't going to happen.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I personally wish the government would get out of the business of recognizing marriages altogether. Let people make whatever contractual arrangements they want between themselves.

I'm a realist so I know it won't happen but it is my libertarian dream.

Agree - but I don't know why people give up on the concept before it's even put forth. That's not a "realist", it's just defeatist.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Agreed. Someone (Billvon IIRC) said in one of the previous gay marriage threads that it would be a whole lot simpler in the long run to have government only recognize "civil unions" between 2 consenting adults, and leave the "marriage" part to the churches. That would take care of survivor benefits, property rights, health care decisions, all that stuff.

All that stuff can be taken care of with private contracts. No need for the state to impose those things at all.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[labrys 0]

Quote

All that stuff can be taken care of with private contracts.

That's complete nonsense.

Owned by Remi #?

[wmw999 2,141]

The state (and the feds) have already gotten in the middle of all of those things. The biggest problem with calling what the gummint does a civil union is that they already use the term "married" or "marriage" for so many things. It'd take a massive re-write, or some sort of BS blanket clause, to overcome that.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)