Newsweek cover story: "Conservative Case for Gay Marriage"

[_Rollo Tomasi]

A great article by Ted Olson, a well-known conservative attorney who is lead counsel in the federal case filed in CA challenging the federal constitutionality of Prop. H8. Here's a link to the online article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957

.

.

.

.

[_The Dude]

Hot damn, this man is a conservative?! This paragraph is beautiful. I couldn't agree more.

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.

(There is, in fact, a smaller movement of gays who believe marriage is an aberration and a crutch, and believe that human societies would be freer and better off without it. Those are the homosexuals they (conservatives) should be afraid of, not the gays who value long-lasting bonds and want to have part in the institution of marriage.

[_EAllusion]

On the far left in academia there is a view that marriage by its very nature has built into it an anti-LBGT, anti-woman dynamic such that it would be better to just ditch the whole thing. In short, it's an institution of hetero, patriarchal oppression. This idea derives from radical feminist thought, but enjoys some popularity in womens' studies/queer studies circles.

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, there's an old thread on ZLMB where I think it's fair to say I trounced Pent (Confidential Informant) to an embarrassing degree.

Here it is:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/7241?page=3

Anyway, I make the same argument as quoted above:

Pent wrote,

"in a same-sex relationship, the state receives no such benefit [children]. Therefore, if the state were to sanction such relationships what, pray tell, are they sanctioning if not the preferred method of sexual pleasure?"

The recognition of contractual agreement between couples for certain legal rights has nothing to do with the authoritarian utopia you envision. The state exists to best secure the well being of the people. People do not exist to benefit the state. The state, in recognizing a civil marriage agreement, is sanctioning a mutual commitment between couples to hold certain responsibilities to one another. Sex has nothing to do with it.

That said, domestic partnerships provide the social benefit to you can expect from stable relationships. Married people, on average, are healthier, happier, more financially stable, more secure, less likely to commit crime, better able to create homes for others, etc.

I go on to say,

Further, it's not even clear why you are picking producing children as the criteria for the benefit of marriage to the state, since there appears to be no implicit need to have marriage to produce the replacement rate of children. Even if we decided the state should engage in massive social engineering of decisions to have children, then the state should be encouraging reproductive sex. There's no hard rule that states one must be impregnated by or impregnate one's spouse. Men can have surrogates and women can have donors. If the issue is raising children, then it is a whole 'nother ballgame. Then you are proposing the state get involved in who may or may not be parents, and therefore married, on the basis of statistically determining which types of households provide the most success along some predefined desirable outcomes determined by the state. As abhorrent and dangerous as that is, any demographic that produces lower-end outcomes then becomes susceptible to banning, such as low-income blacks.

But really those are single points in a much longer argument that needs to be taken as a whole. I think Pent's replies there are what you can expect (and have seen) in response to Olson here.

These aren't new arguments, and I think it is clear which side has the stronger case as far as whether we ought to allow gay marriage or not.

[_MsJack]

Incidentally, there's an old thread on ZLMB where I think it's fair to say I trounced Pent (Confidential Informant) to an embarrassing degree.

Here it is:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/7241?page=3

Do you scrapbook these things?

[_Brackite]

This TV Show from the 1980's was ahead of its time:


My Two Dads TV Theme Song:

[_EAllusion]

I have a freakish memory. It really pulls through for me in these moments.

[_MsJack]

I have a freakish memory. It really pulls through for me in these moments.

I figured as much, but I am consistently impressed with your ability to recall these years-old ZLMB threads. Good on you, EA.

[_harmony]

Does Pent/CI post anymore? Even on MAD, I haven't heard or seen much from him in quite some time.

[_MsJack]

I have him as a friend on Facebook, but it's been a while since we chatted.