Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

This whole argument is bittersweet on my end. I don't think any government should have domain over sanctified marriage, however if they want to offer a secular version that is perfectly fine. This being said if a religion wants to perform a gay marriage or exclude it then that should be their perogative and theirs alone, if the state offers a secular union then it obviously must be available to any consenting adults regardless of their orientation in keeping with the equal protections clause of the constitution. With the argumentation involving government interference as a core issue on both idealogical ends though you have government expansion of power outside of it's proper perameters either way......so how about just get the government out of the issue and be done with it?

LaMidRighter said:

This whole argument is bittersweet on my end. I don't think any government should have domain over sanctified marriage, however if they want to offer a secular version that is perfectly fine. This being said if a religion wants to perform a gay marriage or exclude it then that should be their perogative and theirs alone, if the state offers a secular union then it obviously must be available to any consenting adults regardless of their orientation in keeping with the equal protections clause of the constitution. With the argumentation involving government interference as a core issue on both idealogical ends though you have government expansion of power outside of it's proper perameters either way......so how about just get the government out of the issue and be done with it?

Click to expand...

All government marriage is secular. It's just that they allow churches to administer them. Many churches already sanction gay unions, so it would have little to do with churches.

Keep in mind, any church can deny any couple the right to marry in their church. This would not change a thing.

FilmFestGuy said:

It's big government. That's it. You believe that government can tell people who they can and cannot marry. We believe that people should have the freedom to marry the individual they choose to as long as both are consenting adults.

You believe that government should get in between a woman and her doctor and should dictate whom people should marry.

It's big government. You've just been convinced that it isn't by the partisans.

Barry Goldwater - the founder of the modern Conservative movement - was for keeping government out of people's relationships.

Read up on him. He's someone to be proud of.

Washingtonpost.com: Goldwater Speech

And he would heap scorn on what the conservative movement has become (in fact, he did before he died).

Click to expand...

See you have a failure to understand the difference between "big Government" and people having Social and Moral Values they seek to maintain.

This is a false choice presented by Progressives to try and get Conservatives to be ashamed of their stances and to stop supporting those values publicly.

Sorry buddy, I'm not so easily cowed by weak arguments from those whose only GOAL is to push THEIR moral values on me unimpeded.

FilmFestGuy said:

All government marriage is secular. It's just that they allow churches to administer them. Many churches already sanction gay unions, so it would have little to do with churches.

Click to expand...

Actually no. While government has hijacked dominion over marriage over the years(I will concede currently you are correct) marriage has historically been a religious matter. Where government decided to intervene was about money, pure and simple. They can make money on the license and dictate the tax rules so therefore granted themselves authority. I have a problem with that and would prefer that if our government wants to get in the union business that they leave all church affairs alone.

Keep in mind, any church can deny any couple the right to marry in their church. This would not change a thing.

Click to expand...

And that is how it should be. Then again there are extremist groups that would harrass churches for not getting on board but I can't blame moderates for that.

MrVicchio said:

There is more to being a Conservative then just backing Gov't laying off people Dan.

Click to expand...

Hey for once your right there is more to Conservativism than supposedly backing the Government thugs off people which in reality you dont do at all like the left you talk big but lie more than a used carsales man.

There's Military Socialism, the US taxpayer for some reason has to protect that scum that litter Europe, Latin America, Africia and the Middle East when in fact these people can pay for their own defense

Police Jackbootism, the excellent mentality that the ******s in blue are always right and when a tragety happens the simple answer to give the same scumbags even more power. Granted you share this with the left, but the blue colored punks generally hate the left. If you dont believe me just look at that wonderful cadre of thugs that is the TSA. I found a nice Lew Rockwell article on this group of morons

Our Stupid State Transportation Security by Drew Hjelm

chevydriver1123 said:

Hey for once your right there is more to Conservativism than supposedly backing the Government thugs off people which in reality you dont do at all like the left you talk big but lie more than a used carsales man.

There's Military Socialism, the US taxpayer for some reason has to protect that scum that litter Europe, Latin America, Africia and the Middle East when in fact these people can pay for their own defense

Police Jackbootism, the excellent mentality that the ******s in blue are always right and when a tragety happens the simple answer to give the same scumbags even more power. Granted you share this with the left, but the blue colored punks generally hate the left. If you dont believe me just look at that wonderful cadre of thugs that is the TSA. I found a nice Lew Rockwell article on this group of morons

Our Stupid State Transportation Security by Drew Hjelm

Click to expand...

It'd be easier to take you seriously, if you didn't post like a 13 year old child trying to sound tough with big words he learned in English class last week.

"Thugs, Punks, ******s, Jackbootism"

You have this UNHOLY hate towards police, and I'm sorry Chevy, but a country with no police would be far worse then the simply IMAGINARY police-state Gov't Thug ruled world you seem think exists today.

The average Police officer, TSA worker, FBI agent are just good honest people that want to protect society and the people they love. You cast them as Nazi SS Goons, mindless thugs out to destroy all that oppose them. It's... comical reading your hate. Hell you sound like a KKK'r from the 30's only about Police instead of blacks!

YES, there are stupid laws, is that the fault of those entrusted with enforcing them?

YES, there are BAD COPS that screw up, make mistakes or are corrupt. Guess what, that's a side effect of this thing called "Life".

You waste so much energy, so much emotion, so much misguided hate... that one wonders if it's just an act or do you really think this way?

I AGREE with 90% of the things you post, but on this... you are no better then the people that call members of the Armed Forces "Baby Killers". And I cannot respect someone like that, and I bet'cha I ain't the only that holds you in such... a manner. The difference between me and some others is, I'll tell you straight up, and believe you can step away from this destructive behavior, cause you are RIGHT more often then not on a lot of things.

danarhea said:

And you know what? Olsen is 100% correct. Conservatism argues for limited government, and greater individual freedom.

Click to expand...

To the posters attacking your viewpoint: being a conservative looked up to by liberal posters is not a bad thing. Real liberals don't just respect conservatives who agree with us, we respect conservatives who make sense and are consistent. Paul Wellstone was enormously respected by conservatives for being passionate and sensible, and he reciprocated that respect for Republicans who showed the same sensibility and passion, regardless of how much their ideologies clashed. I can't imagine being a person who thinks that it's a bad thing for your opponents to respect you. America was founded on people who disagreed working together. We were split in the 18th century when we decided to fight for our independence, we were split between Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans, we were split between the gold standard and free silver.

Now the Republicans refuse to work with Democrats, and that's just plain wrong... even though Reid and Pelosi's Democrats are annoying as hell. They don't fight for what they believe in. But classic liberalism will, hopefully, be restored, and real conservatives who want to conserve the constitution rather than their seat in Washington will follow suit -- or lead the charge even. It will probably get worse before it gets better. For now, you might be a real conservative but your viewpoint isn't in line with "real" Republicans.

I haven't been a member here long, but MrVicchio's posts always strike me as a perfect representation of the mainstream Republican party: hypocritical, ignorant, vicious, and divisive. I suppose he'll take that as a compliment. He'd rather be wrong than respected by a liberal.

Hmmm... on the one side, I see a lot of consistency in what dan posted. However, I was always under the impression that conservatism represented traditional values... which would mean being against gay marriage. Also, I would think in todays world, Barry Goldwater would be considered a libertarian. Now, I am not a conservative, but cons some conservative explain to me the conflict between traditional social values and keeping government out of the individual's life? As far as I know, both seem to be conservative ideology.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Hmmm... on the one side, I see a lot of consistency in what dan posted. However, I was always under the impression that conservatism represented traditional values... which would mean being against gay marriage. Also, I would think in todays world, Barry Goldwater would be considered a libertarian. Now, I am not a conservative, but cons some conservative explain to me the conflict between traditional social values and keeping government out of the individual's life? As far as I know, both seem to be conservative ideology.

Click to expand...

It's really not that hard CC.

Traditional Social Values like opposing "Gay Marriage" isn't using Big Government to push a moral value. That's a fallacious logical argument started by Progressive to undermine Conservatives in the political arena.

Look at it like this, Conservatives believe in say, traditional marriage. A group, Lib/Prog comes along and wants to CHANGE that to encompass homosexuals. This can ONLY be done by having the Gov't issue "Marriage Licences". What are Conservatives to do? NOT push to keep Gov't, the entity that issues and thus ultimately legal acknowledges the legitimacy of such unions, from doing so?

What recourse have they? The bumper sticker logic of "You're not a real conservative cause you want Gov't in people's lives" is patently dishonest, intellectually dishonest.

My personal view on the matter is slightly more liberal on the matter, but I both UNDERSTAND why Conservatives feel the way they do, and support their methods. I fight Gay Marriage on principles. Get the people to accept it, not the courts, not force it through that way, in the mean time many on the right would support Civil Unions. I know it's stupid, same thing, different names, but to the right, the NAME DOES MATTER. SO why can't we as a society compromise here?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Hmmm... on the one side, I see a lot of consistency in what dan posted. However, I was always under the impression that conservatism represented traditional values... which would mean being against gay marriage. Also, I would think in todays world, Barry Goldwater would be considered a libertarian. Now, I am not a conservative, but cons some conservative explain to me the conflict between traditional social values and keeping government out of the individual's life? As far as I know, both seem to be conservative ideology.

Click to expand...

Actually, I DO have social values. However, I recognize that it is not my place to force those values on others, nor is it the duty of the government to do the same. It is something that is in God's hands alone. What we have here is a group of people that wants to legislate morality. They are the ones pointing out the motes in other people's eyes, while ignoring the beam in their own eye. They are also the ones Christ was referring to when he said that there was a special place in hell, reserved just for the hypocrites.

Captain America said:

IMO, Ted Olsen looks at conservatism much the same way Barry Goldwater, The Godfather of Conservatism, sees it.

I long for the day when conservatism is no longer bastardized and splintered by the disgruntled and angry "social conservatives" that are constantly whining and the good name of real conservative's has been restored. But with today's divisive media telling all the dittoheads how to think, I don't see it happening anytime too soon.

Just an opinion.

Click to expand...

I long for the day when displayed political leanings are accurate.

danarhea said:

Actually, I DO have social values. However, I recognize that it is not my place to force those values on others, nor is it the duty of the government to do the same. It is something that is in God's hands alone. What we have here is a group of people that wants to legislate morality. They are the ones pointing out the motes in other people's eyes, while ignoring the beam in their own eye. They are also the ones Christ was referring to when he said that there was a special place in hell, reserved just for the hypocrites.

Click to expand...

There isn't a soul on Earth that isn't hypocritical at one time or another.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Now, I am not a conservative, but cons some conservative explain to me the conflict between traditional social values and keeping government out of the individual's life?

Click to expand...

I don't think there is a conflict, cap.

Personally, I feel that believing in traditional social values does not mean the same thing as campaigning for traditional social values to be enforced throughout society.

For me, the first rule of conservative ideology is that when one seeks to promote a certain type of belief system, they do so through personal action and strict adherence to their own value system.

I have no doubt that many people here would say I'm a "social liberal", but I feel that I embody traditional social values in my everyday life. I just don't believe it is the government's job to enforce these values, nor is it my job to demonize those who do not live by these values.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Hmmm... on the one side, I see a lot of consistency in what dan posted. However, I was always under the impression that conservatism represented traditional values... which would mean being against gay marriage. Also, I would think in todays world, Barry Goldwater would be considered a libertarian. Now, I am not a conservative, but cons some conservative explain to me the conflict between traditional social values and keeping government out of the individual's life? As far as I know, both seem to be conservative ideology.

Click to expand...

Dan put it nicely below Cap, but I'll try to explain things as I see them. I'm a conservative who has a specific moral code that I follow, but I am a true conservative or rather classic liberal. No matter what I personally feel I follow the constitution first and foremost and that trumps any other agendas(well, it should anyway). That being said I don't see any compelling interest in government regulation of marriage on the religious level since that is a recognized right within our founding document, if we're being honest any civil unions including secular marriage would have to fall under equal protections so government technically still wouldn't have the right to discriminate. All of that trumps any religious views I may have as I believe that standing up for something I don't believe in protects my own rights(I'm neutral on gay marriage).

I think that a lot of people including some conservatives have a narrow view of conservatism and much of that has to do with the religious right taking over the movement and the RINOs as well. Conservatism is relatively flexible and has a very broad spectrum of views with one being more predominantly presented and unfortunately the most rigid one is the one most see.

danarhea said:

Actually, I DO have social values. However, I recognize that it is not my place to force those values on others, nor is it the duty of the government to do the same. It is something that is in God's hands alone. What we have here is a group of people that wants to legislate morality. They are the ones pointing out the motes in other people's eyes, while ignoring the beam in their own eye. They are also the ones Christ was referring to when he said that there was a special place in hell, reserved just for the hypocrites.

Click to expand...

Nailed it!

danarhea said:

Actually, I DO have social values. However, I recognize that it is not my place to force those values on others, nor is it the duty of the government to do the same. It is something that is in God's hands alone. What we have here is a group of people that wants to legislate morality. They are the ones pointing out the motes in other people's eyes, while ignoring the beam in their own eye. They are also the ones Christ was referring to when he said that there was a special place in hell, reserved just for the hypocrites.

Click to expand...

WTF EVER.

You're the type of "Conservative" that doesn't stand up for what you believe in, because "oh if I do that, why they won't LIKE me for "Forcing my VIEWS" on them"

Such poppycock.

What the hell are they doing pushing Gay Marriage? They are FORCING a morality, so it's... okay for them too cause they are liberals, but Conservatives cannot fight for what they believe in because it's "forcing"? Might as well not VOTE dan, ever. Cause by VOTING you are using political power, to influence society through choosing Politicians whom will make laws and regulations. In effect, by voting, YOU are forcing your views on others.

I don't have much respect for people that think standing up for what they believe is good and right is somehow wrong. Our FOUNDERS forced their view of Morality on the Colonies by FORCING the issue of Independence. Were they hypocrites? Were they somehow wrong?

Cowardice is no Virtue.

MrVicchio said:

What the hell are they doing pushing Gay Marriage? They are FORCING a morality

Click to expand...

This is what I'm not understanding about your position, Vic. How is pushing for the ability to do something like getting married "forcing" a morality upon others?

(and plese don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it isn't forcing a morality. I'm simply asking if you could explain what you are saying so that I may understand)

Tucker Case said:

This is what I'm not understanding about your position, Vic. How is pushing for the ability to do something like getting married "forcing" a morality upon others?

(and plese don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it isn't forcing a morality. I'm simply asking if you could explain what you are saying so that I may understand)

Click to expand...

A very good point. If gay marriage is allowed, then those who hate it have a very simple option. Don't marry a gay (In fact, more than a few who hate gay marriage will stay in the closet - LOL). That is not about forcing a viewpoint at all, but giving people freedom to choose, and freedom to be responsible for their own actions. Damn, who was it that talked about freedom of choice and responsibility? Oh, yes, it was Ronald Reagan.

Tucker Case said:

This is what I'm not understanding about your position, Vic. How is pushing for the ability to do something like getting married "forcing" a morality upon others?

(and plese don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it isn't forcing a morality. I'm simply asking if you could explain what you are saying so that I may understand)

Click to expand...

Tucker tucker tucker.

Marriage, an institution that codifies a male and a female joining in Holy Matrimony. Yes, over time the State took over the issue, and codified a man and a woman joining together for legal and personal reasons and given a break in hopes they would have children.

Now, you don't see where changing that to be a male and a male, or a female and a female as forcing everyone to accept that Marriage, no longer means or stands for what it did for literally thousands of years of human history? YES I know Polygamy is in the past, and Marriage hasn't ALWAYS been as we consider it, but it has been for the life of the USA. That's pretty serious stuff to go changing don't you think?

I find this opinion that "well how is it forcing anything on anyone to change marriage" to be such a dishonest position. And I think it's intentionally dishonest, a naive question that seems to honest, and innocent, gee how does it hurt your marriage if two guys marry eh?? Completely ignores the purpose, tradition and reason for Marriage in favor of a political agenda. It IS forcing the country to CHANGE what it means to be married. Period. That's forcing all of us to accept something we may not agree with.

MrVicchio said:

Tucker tucker tucker.

Marriage, an institution that codifies a male and a female joining in Holy Matrimony. Yes, over time the State took over the issue, and codified a man and a woman joining together for legal and personal reasons and given a break in hopes they would have children.

Now, you don't see where changing that to be a male and a male, or a female and a female as forcing everyone to accept that Marriage, no longer means or stands for what it did for literally thousands of years of human history? YES I know Polygamy is in the past, and Marriage hasn't ALWAYS been as we consider it, but it has been for the life of the USA. That's pretty serious stuff to go changing don't you think?

I find this opinion that "well how is it forcing anything on anyone to change marriage" to be such a dishonest position. And I think it's intentionally dishonest, a naive question that seems to honest, and innocent, gee how does it hurt your marriage if two guys marry eh?? Completely ignores the purpose, tradition and reason for Marriage in favor of a political agenda. It IS forcing the country to CHANGE what it means to be married. Period. That's forcing all of us to accept something we may not agree with.

Click to expand...

Very simple answer to that. It's none of your damn business.

MrVicchio said:

Now, you don't see where changing that to be a male and a male, or a female and a female as forcing everyone to accept that Marriage, no longer means or stands for what it did for literally thousands of years of human history?

Click to expand...

I don't see anyone changing it to be a male and a male or a female and a female. I see people trying to get the definition to include those unions, but I've yet to hear anyone trying to get it to be defined as those types of unions.

I also see no way to force people to accept these marriages. I see an effort to get the government to recognize them, but people would still be free to accept them as they please.

Perhaps that is where the disconnect is. I do not understand your position because I don't see how the government recognizing something impacts the indivdual as being "forced to accept" something.

For example, the government recognizes second marriages that occur after the first marriage ends in divorce as "legitimate" marriages. I personally do not recognize these marriages as legitimate because the oath made at marriage is for life. If my wife were to divorce me for some reason, I would still consider my oath of marriage as binding for me. I would not get re-married as I would find this type of relationship to be illegitimate. Call it a throwback to my Irish upbringing (Divorce was illegal in Ireland until the mid 90's).

But that's my own personal ethos. I do not expect anyone else to adhere to these rules I have contrived. Nor am I forced to accept other people's choices as legitimate.

YES I know Polygamy is in the past, and Marriage hasn't ALWAYS been as we consider it, but it has been for the life of the USA. That's pretty serious stuff to go changing don't you think?

Click to expand...

Why is it serious stuff? If Ireland, which actually had to amend it's constitution to allow for legalized divorce can make that major change, why can't we make a similar change here in the US?

Regardless of what a persons views are regarding same-sex marriages, it's pretty obvious that divorce is a far greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than SSM is.

I find this opinion that "well how is it forcing anything on anyone to change marriage" to be such a dishonest position.

Click to expand...

That's a question, not an opinion. The opinion that was rendered was yours, and that opinion was that it is forcing something upon you. I was asking for an explanation of that opinion so that I could understand why you think that it forces something upon you.

I ask because I am a prime example of someone who holds very strong opinions on what marriage is and what it should not be. Even though the government is currently recognizing marriages that are not in adherence to my own personal philosophy and morality, it clearly does not force me to accept these marriages in any way.

And I think it's intentionally dishonest, a naive question that seems to honest, and innocent, gee how does it hurt your marriage if two guys marry eh?? Completely ignores the purpose, tradition and reason for Marriage in favor of a political agenda. It IS forcing the country to CHANGE what it means to be married. Period. That's forcing all of us to accept something we may not agree with.

Click to expand...

This doesn't answer my question though. It merely restates the same thing that spurred the question. How are you being forced to accept these marriages?

danarhea said:

Very simple answer to that. It's none of your damn business.

Click to expand...

It is when society that I'm a part of CHANGES.

Tucker, Dan...

If someone believes something is Right, in this case Traditional Marriage being between a man and a woman; What sort of person are they if they don't stand up against those trying to CHANGE what a marriage is?

I have a word for those people, craven. Or unprincipled, either works to be honest. "I believe in this... but I won't stand up for it cause well... it's really none of my business..."

Oh and Dan, so do you support Polygamous marriages too? .

MrVicchio said:

That's forcing all of us to accept something we may not agree with.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with a definition of marriage that doesn't include same sex unions. How come you guys are justified in forcing me to accept a definition of marriage without same sex unions?

CriticalThought said:

I don't agree with a definition of marriage that doesn't include same sex unions. How come you guys are justified in forcing me to accept a definition without same sex unions?

Click to expand...

Oh, the old turn around trick! I'm SOO left without ammo here.

"Tradition". It's been this way for over 200 years, it's hard to force something that existed as reality prior to your birth on you. Your argument would only have merit IF, IF there was no such thing, and we were discussing how to implement it.

Nice try, thanks for playing.

MrVicchio said:

Oh, the old turn around trick! I'm SOO left without ammo here.

"Tradition". It's been this way for over 200 years, it's hard to force something that existed as reality prior to your birth on you. Your argument would only have merit IF, IF there was no such thing, and we were discussing how to implement it.

Nice try, thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

Tradition? Roman emperors have married men. Same sex marriage has occurred in the past.

And for the record, it was your side that was forcing a definition of marriage on everyone. You used the law to force your perceived traditionalist perspective of marriage on us. Prop 8 was designed to define marriage under law to exclude same sex couples from marrying and to imbue gender discrimination into the law. We didn't pass any laws in California saying people had to accept same sex marriage, you guys passed laws saying same sex couples couldn't be allowed to marry. You were the ones who forced a definition of marriage on us that we did not agree with.