• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Conservative attorney, Ted Olson, makes the conservative case for gay marriage.

The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage - Newsweek.com

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage said:
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.

My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?

My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would a persons personal sexual preferences, be any of my business? And why should anyone be treated like anything other than just a average person, because of their personal preference??---I find many Homosexuals feel compelled to tell me their preference, like I should care.---I don't:mrgreen:
 
Why would a persons personal sexual preferences, be any of my business? And why should anyone be treated like anything other than just a average person, because of their personal preference??---I find many Homosexuals feel compelled to tell me their preference, like I should care.---I don't:mrgreen:

I'm not sure what that has to do with the Conservative argument for same sex marriage, but I will say I am highly impressed with Ted Olson's argument. I can see now that many genuine conservative principles have been hidden behind the religious right's agenda.
 
I'm not sure what that has to do with the Conservative argument for same sex marriage, but I will say I am highly impressed with Ted Olson's argument. I can see now that many genuine conservative principles have been hidden behind the religious right's agenda.
OK, so would you support Straight guys getting Married, so they could also enjoy the tax breaks, and all the other perks that Married People get??
 
OK, so would you support Straight guys getting Married, so they could also enjoy the tax breaks, and all the other perks that Married People get??

If we don't think that those benefits should be given to two straight guys who choose to marry, then maybe they shouldn't be tied to marriage at all.
 
OK, so would you support Straight guys getting Married, so they could also enjoy the tax breaks, and all the other perks that Married People get??

What does that have to do with the argument that Ted Olson made?

You do realize there are people who get married in this country just so one partner can obtain citizenship? And there are celebrities who get married for a publicity stunt and get their marriage annulled the next day? Should we do away with heterosexual marriage because there are people who abuse it?

Somehow, I don't think it is very likely that you are going to see many straight guys getting married just for tax breaks, but even if some did, its not a basis by which to deny gays and lesbians that right.
 
Ted Olson makes a good argument, I think.
 
If we don't think that those benefits should be given to two straight guys who choose to marry, then maybe they shouldn't be tied to marriage at all.
Marriage is just a piece of paper. I been there twice. --but it does have certain perks that single people don't get.---So anybody that wants to get married for those perks should be allowed to do so. their sexual preference should have no weight on the matter.
 
What does that have to do with the argument that Ted Olson made?

You do realize there are people who get married in this country just so one partner can obtain citizenship? And there are celebrities who get married for a publicity stunt and get their marriage annulled the next day? Should we do away with heterosexual marriage because there are people who abuse it?

Somehow, I don't think it is very likely that you are going to see many straight guys getting married just for tax breaks, but even if some did, its not a basis by which to deny gays and lesbians that right.
I agree, that all Adults should be able to Marry. ---a truly sex free America. where sexual orientation is not relevant at all. Everybody equal under the law. sounds fair to me.
 
Canada has had legalized gay marriage for a while now, and aside from gays & lesbians, it rarely affects anyone else. Society has not crumbled, in fact, most people seemed not to notice. Lots of gay and lesbian couples live together anyways, why not let them get the piece of paper?
 
I agree, that all Adults should be able to Marry. ---a truly sex free America. where sexual orientation is not relevant at all. Everybody equal under the law. sounds fair to me.

Yay, a 14th amendment supporter!
 
Marriage is just a piece of paper. I been there twice. --but it does have certain perks that single people don't get.---So anybody that wants to get married for those perks should be allowed to do so. their sexual preference should have no weight on the matter.

My point is that if people are so concerned that straight men will game the system by getting a sham marriage to take advantage of those perks, then rather than seeing that as an argument against gay marriage, maybe we should just stop tying those perks to the institution of marriage.
 
My point is that if people are so concerned that straight men will game the system by getting a sham marriage to take advantage of those perks, then rather than seeing that as an argument against gay marriage, maybe we should just stop tying those perks to the institution of marriage.

The thing I don't understand is the whole, "straight guys will get married together to get perks" really hasn't come to fruition in any of the other countries that have legalized same sex marriage. Why is America so different?

Of course, your argument is clearly that there should be no civil marriage, so I might be barking up the wrong tree by asking you.
 
The thing I don't understand is the whole, "straight guys will get married together to get perks" really hasn't come to fruition in any of the other countries that have legalized same sex marriage. Why is America so different?

I'm sure there will be one or two couples. The media will love it and the next thing you know, it will be an Issue of National Importance™

Of course, your argument is clearly that there should be no civil marriage, so I might be barking up the wrong tree by asking you.

I just think there are much more efficient ways to meet all these goals than tying them to marriage. If we want to incentivize family ties, give those privileges based on household. If we want to ensure medical visitation and rights, increase the use of health care proxies. If we want to ensure that kids will be shared, make adoption simpler.

If people want to get married in a church that doesn't allow gay marriage, that's fine. But that marriage should not carry civil privileges beyond those that are available elsewhere.
 
I believe Gay Marriage should be decided state by state, if California wants gay marriage it doesn't mean Texas does too.

No national decision, just state by state.
 
I just think there are much more efficient ways to meet all these goals than tying them to marriage. If we want to incentivize family ties, give those privileges based on household. If we want to ensure medical visitation and rights, increase the use of health care proxies. If we want to ensure that kids will be shared, make adoption simpler.

If people want to get married in a church that doesn't allow gay marriage, that's fine. But that marriage should not carry civil privileges beyond those that are available elsewhere.

The question of whether or not civil marriage should exist is a completely separate issue from whether or not gay marriage should be legal.

Case in point. As long as civil marriage exists for heterosexual couples, do you support extending it to homosexual couples? It's fine to argue that there should be no civil marriage, but as long as it exists, should it be equal for everyone?

If you are arguing that civil marriage should not exist, but as long as it does, it should only exist for heterosexual couples, then you really aren't any different than anti gay marriage proponents. You are simply using the unlikely possibility that civil marriage will be done away with as an excuse to oppose same sex marriage.
 
If Man wants to marry another Man, then fine by me. but there should be no requirement that the persons be Homosexual, to enter into that contract. I know Hetero couples, that don't have sex together at all, if that is your argument, and yet they get married. Should be the same for Men. Straight Men, may soon be the only Minority, with no rights at all. So---"I demand equal rights, for straight Guys"
 
I believe Gay Marriage should be decided state by state, if California wants gay marriage it doesn't mean Texas does too.

No national decision, just state by state.

That is fine until the Defense of Marriage Act is struck down or repealed. At that point, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution states very clearly than any contract recognized in one state must be recognized in other states. Marriage constitutes as a contract, and therefore, any same sex marriage recognized in California would have to be recognized in Texas.

Furthermore, the argument does not address what Ted Olson had to say on the manner. How is it anymore fair for each state to determine whether it will recognize interracial marriage than it is for each state to recognize same sex marriage?
 
If Man wants to marry another Man, then fine by me. but there should be no requirement that the persons be Homosexual, to enter into that contract. I know Hetero couples, that don't have sex together at all, if that is your argument, and yet they get married. Should be the same for Men. Straight Men, may soon be the only Minority, with no rights at all. So---"I demand equal rights, for straight Guys"

I think the "straight men will get married together if we pass gay marriage" argument is a bit weak since it hasn't really transpired in any of the other countries that have legalized same sex marriage. These kind of slippery slope arguments fall apart once you remember that other countries have had same sex marriage for years without such issues emerging.

Not to mention, the cost of divorce that they would face when they finally decided they wanted to marry someone else would probably be far greater than any tax benefits that they had received while married.
 
Last edited:
I think the "straight men will get married together if we pass gay marriage" argument is a bit weak since it hasn't really transpired in any of the other countries that have legalized same sex marriage. These kind of slippery slope arguments fall apart once you remember that other countries have had same sex marriage for years without such issues emerging.

Not to mention, the cost of divorce that they would face when they finally decided they wanted to marry someone else would probably be far greater than any tax benefits that they had received while married.
So you are making an argument against gay marriage I take it.
 
So you are making an argument against gay marriage I take it.

:roll:

Did you even read what I wrote?

It doesn't usually happen. Name some incidents of this occurring in any of the countries which have legalized same sex marriage.
 
Furthermore, the argument does not address what Ted Olson had to say on the manner. How is it anymore fair for each state to determine whether it will recognize interracial marriage than it is for each state to recognize same sex marriage?

Or look at it this way... How fair is it for one state to determine that a man is actually property (e.g. Dredd Scott) for another state? In simpler terms, how fair is it for one state to determine anything for another?

Pulling the race card works both ways. :2wave:
 
Or look at it this way... How fair is it for one state to determine that a man is actually property (e.g. Dredd Scott) for another state?

Pulling the race card works both ways. :2wave:

Dred Scott wasn't a case of property, but of citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that since he wasn't a citizen he could not legally sue.

If you are going to play the "race card" then you should probably play it correctly.
 
Dred Scott wasn't a case of property, but of citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that since he wasn't a citizen he could not legally sue.

If you are going to play the "race card" then you should probably play it correctly.

Question: Why wasn't he a citizen?

Answer: He was the property of his master.

Result: You're wrong.

The United States Supreme Court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property.

One second of Wikipedia research.

But nice try.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom