Sounding like a conservative from the days before the Moral Majority, et al, began what would become a devastating theocratic infiltration of the GOP, top conservative attorney Ted Olson makes the case for gay marriage in the latest Newsweek.
At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that “no State É shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person É the equal protection of the laws.”
Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.
Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.
I truly believe that one day, in the not too distant future, we as a country will look back with disgust on this fight against marriage equality. It will be seen, as are other bizarre lapses in our humanity, as heinous and indefensible. But mostly I believe it will be seen as a period of shame for the Church. A time when massive amounts of money and emotional energy were spent to foster hatred and stigmatization toward innocent men and women, wrenching many from their faith and preventing others from such discoveries — the antithesis of Her mission.
The full article is a great read.
And, there are precedents in a few states here, but whole countries that share similar cultural values to ours like Canada.
This precedent has been in place for YEARS now, and the defense the opposition has put before the courts has been at best, theoretical and non existent in reality.
Rational basis, on which to deny productive, responsible and committed gay citizens equal rights and standing doesn’t exist.
However, animus, religious based prejudice and lack of accountability for it does.
We are not a country that ENFORCES religious belief for any reason. And allowing such enforcement EXCLUSIVELY against gay people is anathema to the Founder’s intentions of separation of church and state.
Marriage is a CIVIL liberty, and CIVIL right, requiring no religious test to accessibility. Nor religious inclusion to be valid to the state’s interests.
If the state’s interest is channeling sexuality into monogamy, security and custody, as the laws apply to hetero couples, then the basic laws do not change drastically or at all.
They remain equal and the couples have the same requirements.
The state does not gauge the individual’s moral, procreative or even feelings for each other to qualify to marry.
The state’s restrictions are a requirement that heteros AND gay citizens should and CAN adhere to.
There is no redefinition of ANYTHING to the laws of marriage as we know.
The only change is the inclusion of gay people. Which obviously has no significant or negative affect whatsoever in or out of proportion to what the opposition has dreamed up or what heteros already do.
What the opposition expects the courts to support and uphold is a status that redefines the tenets of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There are several that are broken with regard to gay people ONLY and no way to defend such discrimination enshrined into them, except to reveal that animus fueled the entire law.
The courts and justices MUST enforce and uphold the intents and purposes of said documents, NOT the Bible.
Just as they couldn’t uphold support of slavery, even if the Bible does.
It’s that simple.
Animus based law IS bad law, and the precedent of eliminating inferior and unequal status has good consequence in the law and for society, history is on the side of that too.
I hope that SCOTUS follows the example of the panel of justices in Iowa. It is there that many questions of law, and consequence to minorities like gay people are in evidence, where the opposition’s claims are not.
The consequences of marriage bans have been brutal, debilitating and unnecessary to what would otherwise be a MORE self reliant, secure and productive population.
And self reliance and productivity and committed contribution IS supposed to be at the heart of conservatism.
Any questions the justices might have for our side, have been rendered academic long ago. Hope they have paid attention to that fact.
When I was living out in California, and Prop 8 passed, we kept hearing “the people have spoken” meaning that by voting “the people” had decided that my relationship, and those of thousands of others, was invalid. But they also said it in such a way as to mean the LGBT community does not consists of people. Or at the very least that we didn’t speak and therefore have no voice.
The mere fact that someone could vote on decisions that should be mine is obsured, especially in a country that taunts about being the freest nation on the planet. As one domesticated dog said to the other, “You’re only as free as the length of the leash.”
But I think Prop 8 brought out some interesting facts. One of them is how deep some Christian religious leaders have their paws in politics. Another is how several Christian religious leaders have used their institutions to pander to their hate.
As a Christian, it was a wake up call for me to see how hate can take over a religious organization to the point that it secretly promotes lies, deception, fraud, and flat out hatred all in the name of the Divine One. The millions of dollars spent to deny the LGBT community of equality under the law was shocking, especially since that money could have gone to the works of Christ (feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc); instead, it went to defend an institution that needs no defending: marriage.
If marriage is so sacred, why aren’t the ones who bought Prop 8 out in Vegas shutting down drive thru wedding chapels? Why aren’t they outside courthouses protesting divorce? Why aren’t adulterers locked up in jail at least (since the Biblical stoning thing is so blase)? Why aren’t they organizing shotgun weddings for unwed mothers?
What it all boils down to, in my eyes, is that the anti-gays are afraid that they will have to love us, their “enemy,” just as Jesus taught them. They will have to treat us with dignity and respect, and that’s about as low, in their eyes, as taking their maid out to a nice restaurant for lunch or tolerating another person’s religious beliefs.
The Mormon Church calls the Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon.” The Catholic Church declared the Mormon Church is not even a Christian Church, and will not even accept their baptisms if a Mormon converts to Catholicism. Evangelicals hate Catholics and Mormons all together. But during Prop 8, their leaders joined forces as if they were the best of friends. I guess the saying “Politics makes strange bedfellows” held true for Prop 8.
Here’s hoping that the light will shine this week in the courts, and that freedom prevails … for ALL Americans gay or straight.
Yeah, that oft repeat line “the people have spoken”, or “it’s not a democracy unless the majority can rule.”
The problem with that is, the people are not always going to be right with regard to human and civil rights, as history has shown.
And the other problem for the anti gay making such a statement, is the Constitutional clause that protects the minority from a tyranny of a majority.
And I can think of nothing more tyrannical in this day and age, than the Jim Crow like discrimination against gay people.
Such discrimination has direct and damaging effects on gay lives, and the arguments offered by the opposition in courts has no proof, or evidence that marriage equality effects THEM.
The claims are made, but there is nothing substantive to back it up. EVER.
I’m already upset that this isn’t televised and that claims made that the opposition ‘will be’ threatened by being exposed is donkey poop.
Trying to run from the consequences of doing what they did shows considerable cowardice and I hope that the true animus behind this law is exposed and the courts rule in our favor.
If Prop. 187 (which addressed people who weren’t even loyal citizens of this country) can be defeated.
I don’t see how Prop. 8 which is against some very specific Constitution protections that damage productive and committed citizens, can’t be as well.
Alan– I think it’s the baptists that refer to the catholic church as the whore of babylon. If I remeber proeprly, Tim Lahaye was using that kind of language in the late ’70’s.
Besides, Mormons wouldn’t say whore if they had a mouthful of them.
Ben:I have a Mormon book called the Articles of Faith which was published in the late 1970s that calls the “Roman Church” the Whore of Babylon as stated in the Book of the Revelation (the Apocalypse of St. John). They will use that term if it is Biblical and in that context they are using it to refer to the RCC.
Regan:
Good points.
Keep in mind that for many anti-gay activists, we don’t even exist. In their mind, we are heterosexuals with a defect or a disease or a mental problem. In their minds we are criminals and sinners. We are just lustful creatures trying to get at their children according to their way of thinking. They think that if we are allowed to marry the whole world will turn gay overnight. They see images of the end of the world. Overnight humanity will become an endangered species according to their mentality. They image schools being taught the new three “R’s” – Readin’ ‘Ritin’ and Rimming. They think Kindergarden students will have to learn about gay sex as if they are going to take a field trip to a bath house.
They think that once we are allowed to marry that someone is going to show up to a church wanting to marry their pet goat. They think we are going to bust down church doors and demand that the priest or minister marry us.
These people are afraid and they live off of the fear generated by their religious institutions. That fear is being preached to them from the pulpit, and they believe they are instruments of God, his soldiers, fighting against the forces of Satan.
If only they used their energies and resources and money to fight the real demons of poverty, injustice, hatred, and bigotry, then maybe they could hold the title of “Christian” (because the majority of them cling to that title) in its truest sense. But instead, they are defending an institution that their founder, Jesus Christ, never subscribed to, stated that it is better not to enter into such a union, and said that in heaven marriages don’t exist. As I have used this quote before from AbFab when Patsy was talking to Saphy, “They may dress like a Christian but the similarities end there.”
Alan– my error. I assumed anti-catholic hatred was reserved for the elect, though anti-mormon hatred ias for eveyrone. An episcopalian friend of mine, commenting on the mormon temple overlooking my backyard, curled his lips and said: “They’re not REALLY Christians, you know.”
What do i know from whores from anywhere? I’m a married guy. But gay married, not Ted Haggard or Mark Sanford or elliott spitzer married.
I consider this trial having aspects of both Loving v. VA and Brown vs. Brd of Ed.
Which is why it’s television access was needed and should be a requirement for a trial as important as this.
It has no LESS importance than the aforementioned.
I think if people knew what the impetus behind BOTH of those precedents, they’d see that the issue of gay equality is a proper analogy.
The reason why is the fear of black sexuality back in the day, was why restriction was felt to be necessary.
Black men, like gay men were considered just as threatening, predatory and immature.
There were calls for home schooling and dropping white children from public schools altogether.
In the case of miscegenation, the fear was ‘mongrel children’ who they thought would be emotionally, societally and physically retarded by having mixed parents.
Just as the anti gay think children with gay parents will be stunted by them, and children in schools will be taught to accept gay parents and their gay peers.
Segregationists were just as adamant about children being affected, just as the anti gay are.
And both have used children as justification to deny equal status.
I want the anti gay to be exposed as EXACTLY who they are and on what side of history they fall.
With the segregationists, anti miscegenationists.
The symptoms of this intractable bigotry has been called by other names, been couched in civilized language and shielded behind the ‘protection of children’.
The echoes of the previous major court decisions should be revealed and those justices, should they consider this issue as carefully as possible, should also know how previous justices are now vindicated for choosing equality.
I think the most important aspect that I’m not hearing at the moment is that gay people are required to adhere to the SAME standards of marriage. THEY can’t have multiple partners, nor marry anyone underage either.
The laws, standards and responsibilities remain the same. Everyone will understand what married is, what the status means and how to work with it.
It’s the convoluted, complicated and ultimately UNWORKABLE alternatives that must be thrown out and marriage stand.
Even though the opponents haven’t really articulated well at ALL, what marriage is really for.
And especially WHO it’s for.
But at least the state would save itself a lot of headaches if marriage was equal to and for all.
If the states had done the right thing in the first place, they would have saved themselves a lot of money and effort better put to other things that effect everyone too.
It’s the protracted legal situation that’s exhausted everyone.
It’s almost comical how the opposition brings the war, and complains about how much they have to do to ‘fight’ people who aren’t their enemy.
And have ultimately shown, they aren’t down for making ANY sacrifices, but wouldn’t have had to make ANY, if they weren’t literally hellbent on undue control and spite at gay lives.
Ben – if a Mormon does what Christ demands of all Christians, who is to say that he or she is not a true Christian? I think we dwell so much on doctrine that we forget as Christians that doctrine is dodo compared to doing what those doctrines are intended for us to do, at least the doctrines set down by Christ: Love your neighbor, love your enemies, etc. When the LGBT community began protesting against the Mormon Church after Prop 8, we forgot that the Catholic Church initiated it all, and Evangelical Churches were just as much a part of the anti-gay movement.
For me, if someone says they are a “Christian” I respond by saying “Prove it.” If they shoot out a bunch of doctrine and Bible quotes till my ears bleed, in my eyes, they are not. If they demonstrate their faith with love, compasion, and “walk the walk” then I know there is something there.
There were many Mormons and many Catholics and many others of various Christian denominations who disapproved of their church leaders hatred toward us.It is they who showed me what a true Christian is, at least when dealing with the LGBT community.
Alan– you’re quite right, and i didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Though I am not a Christian, I appreciate those who are in the best sense.
Likewise, i quite the opposite of appreciate those who are Christian in the worst sense.
Ben, I’m on the same wavelength. I think the issue of LGBT rights is a test for Christians to see if we truly are living up to what our founder requested of us. The Christian Church is always being put to the test, and history shows we have failed so many times. Instead of loving our neighbor, we amend it by saying, “OK God, I’ll love my neighbor as long as he is dead or exiled or tortured or converts to my way of thinking or to my standards.” It’s as if we Christians are saying, “God loves you the way you are but I’m going to change that.”
The ones defending Prop 8 are trying to make a case that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but if we were just to take it on a U.S. level, it’s really been between:
a man and a woman and something on the side.
a man and a woman and then divorce, then another spouse,
a man and a woman and then another woman from another state
and the list goes on.
And there have been gay couples who have enjoyed marriage without having it labeled as such. But just because it was not given the name “marriage” does not mean that their unions were not marriages.