A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Theodore Olson has entered the fray over Virginia’s ban on gay marriage. Olson, a powerhouse Republican lawyer who helped keep Al Gore out of the White House, is joining forces with the ACLU (which is challenging the ban in a separate suit) and what those on the right like to call the “homosexual lobby.” This adds a big wrinkle to the standard left/right narrative, and raises a question: Is there a conservative case for gay marriage?

There certainly is a liberal one: Diversity is great, which means gay people are great – so if they want to marry, that’s great too! Besides, you’re not supposed to discriminate against anybody. (Except conservative Christians, because they’re so judgmental and icky.)

There is also a libertarian argument for gay marriage, which is equally straightforward: Short of actually shooting somebody in the face, individuals should be able to do pretty much whatever they want (except criticize the novels of Ayn Rand, no matter how hilariously bad her prose). If that means two burly lumberjacks get to pick out china patterns together – hey, go for it.

Most everyone also knows the conservative argument against gay marriage: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Plus, look at these pictures from the San Francisco gay-pride parade we found on the Internet. Dude, are you seriously gonna stand up for those freaks?

Olson has. With Democratic lawyer David Boies, he successfully challenged California’s ban on gay marriage. In 2010, Olson penned a piece for Newsweek explaining his version of “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.” He pointed out that “same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize” – such as commitment, stable families, and “thinking beyond one’s own needs.” Moreover, gay marriage follows from the “bedrock American principle of equality.” If you believe in the values of the Declaration and the Constitution, then you believe in equal rights, and “marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans.”

Those are good reasons. But they are not the only reasons conservatives might accept gay marriage. Here are five more.

(1) Gay marriage is good for “the institution of marriage.”

(2) Gay marriage fosters virtue.

(3) Gay marriage benefits children.

(5) Banning gay marriage encourages big-government thinking.

First question: Show me where the Constitution says that is any part of government’s job. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Can’t find it, can you? Even if someone could, the means chosen – banning gay marriage – is connected to those goals only by logic so thin and weak it cannot stand up. Letting gay people marry does not discourage straight people from getting married, and it certainly does not discourage them from procreating. (What spouse has ever said, “Gee, honey, I’d love too, but not tonight – seeing Kevin and Don’s engagement announcement kind of spoiled the mood”?) Gay marriage simply has nothing to do with either of those issues.

By pretending it does, conservatives adopt precisely the sort of big-government thinking they otherwise abhor. If government is supposed to encourage procreation, then the law should be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. (For instance, straight couples seeking to marry should have to take fertility tests.) By suggesting government can exclude gays from marriage in order to encourage procreation, even though the two issues have no relation to each other, conservatives encourage government to claim it can do anything at all so long as it has what James Madison called a “colorable pretext” for its actions. That’s exactly the kind of thinking that led to Kelo, the Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to confiscate private property if they think they might one day find a better use for it.

Finally, conservative say the traditional straight family is – well, traditional. But as another court has noted, this does not explain the reason for discriminating against gays, it merely repeats it.

Repeating a conclusion doesn’t prove it. And besides: “Upholding tradition” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution, either.

A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - Reason.com
 

bcp

In My Opinion
at this point, I fail to see how arguing over gays playing house is going to do any good.
leave that until after obamacare is defunded
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
My "conservative" case has always been simple - banning gay marriage doesn't stop two gay men from living together for twenty years, but it does keep them from having rights and privileges that we even give to *unmarried* heterosexual couples.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
The use of the word 'conservative' in this context could use a little clarity.

In terms of gay marriage, we're talking about religious conservatives, not small government conservatives.

Properly understood, the generic reference to 'conservative' means one who is not in favor of more government being the answer to every ill on the grounds that this tends to distort the outcome of addressing a given 'problem' as well as making things worse. Conserving the rights and role of the people in governing and running their day to day affairs. Supports the idea that the Constitution is for limiting government, not the people and, thus, leaves an AWFUL lot to the people.

Religious conservatives are in favor of using as much government as it takes to protect their primary interest, there faith, which takes precedence, in their view, over the Constitution. Using the Constitution to ban gay marriage is as bad an idea as any progressive could ever dream up and is just a poor understanding as to what its purpose is.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Religious conservatives are in favor of using as much government as it takes to protect their primary interest, there faith, which takes precedence, in their view, over the Constitution. Using the Constitution to ban gay marriage is as bad an idea as any progressive could ever dream up and is just a poor understanding as to what its purpose is.

And I have a hell of a time explaining this especially to religious conservatives, because the ones I know can't make the distinction. The day of the shutdown, I had a good conversation with a woman I work with while waiting for the bus, and she emphasized that she is first a Christian, and can't support a law that recognizes a lifestyle that in her religion is a sin against God.

I marginally made the case that like it or not, we cannot enshrine Christian beliefs in the law of the land, because for one thing, that is NOT freedom of religion. And for another, as much as people would like to believe this is a "Christian" nation, it is not and if they think so, it is just a happenstance of demographics - if for instance, it one day becomes a nation largely populated by Hindus or Muslims, we ABSOLUTELY want laws written in such a way as to *GUARANTEE* that we will still have freedom of religion, and not permit people to write into law what the most of them espouse as regarding religion.
 

mamatutu

mama to two
Why do things always have to be so complicated? The term conservative doesn't even have to relate to politics. I am so sick of the gay thing, the entitled thing, the women's right thing, the civil rights thing, etc. We are all humans, and live on this planet together. It is a human thing; plain and simple. People need to get over the crap, already, and just live.
 
Last edited:

Larry Gude

Strung Out
And I have a hell of a time explaining this especially to religious conservatives, because the ones I know can't make the distinction. The day of the shutdown, I had a good conversation with a woman I work with while waiting for the bus, and she emphasized that she is first a Christian, and can't support a law that recognizes a lifestyle that in her religion is a sin against God.

I marginally made the case that like it or not, we cannot enshrine Christian beliefs in the law of the land, because for one thing, that is NOT freedom of religion. And for another, as much as people would like to believe this is a "Christian" nation, it is not and if they think so, it is just a happenstance of demographics - if for instance, it one day becomes a nation largely populated by Hindus or Muslims, we ABSOLUTELY want laws written in such a way as to *GUARANTEE* that we will still have freedom of religion, and not permit people to write into law what the most of them espouse as regarding religion.

Is it possible to explain it any better than that?

No one is so blind as he who would not see.

It's tougher and tougher to see any sort of renaissance of Constitutional restraint on our government given that so many blocks of folks necessary to make that happen, aren't for it.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Why do things always have to be so complicated? The term conservative doesn't even have to relate to politics. I am so sick of the gay thing, the entitled thing, the women's right thing, the civil rights thing, etc. We are all humans, and live on this planet together. It is a human thing; plain and simple. People need to get over the crap, already, and just live.

Are you suggesting that 300 million souls with backgrounds from every nation on the planet should just get along smoothly and effortlessly?

Do tell how that can be done because I've never got it.

One of my friends was at Woodstock, total hippy to this day, and he, and those like him, speak so highly of just what you say; how everyone got along, peaceful, harmoniously for three days.

And, me being me, I piss all over that gorgeous mosaic by pointing out that 3 days was just about how long it took to exhaust all the local resources necessary for human existence never mind ongoing life. As it is, a dump, a wasteland was left behind and day 4 would very likely have been day 1 of the basic problems of large masses of humans living in close proximity.

We can all 'just get along' but it requires basic agreement on basic things. Not much, mind you but, some.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Conserving the rights and role of the people in governing and running their day to day affairs. Supports the idea that the Constitution is for limiting government, not the people and, thus, leaves an AWFUL lot to the people.

Great Point ..... :buddies:

Don't give a crap about gay marriage. I'm sick of the gay agenda being shoved at me.

:yeahthat:
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Don't give a crap about gay marriage. I'm sick of the gay agenda being shoved at me.

I'll agree that the gays have an agenda, as do most special interest groups.

The article makes a case outside of that, based on the fact that wanting the govt. to ban gay marriage is akin to liking big government that most social/fiscal conservatives don't like.

It makes pretty good points if you read it.
 

bcp

In My Opinion
I'll agree that the gays have an agenda, as do most special interest groups.

The article makes a case outside of that, based on the fact that wanting the govt. to ban gay marriage is akin to liking big government that most social/fiscal conservatives don't like.

It makes pretty good points if you read it.
actually to ban gay marriage is basically a one word issue. NO

to allow it creates the need to track it, license it etc.. so, allowing it would in reality be a greater reason for bigger or expanded government.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
actually to ban gay marriage is basically a one word issue. NO

to allow it creates the need to track it, license it etc.. so, allowing it would in reality be a greater reason for bigger or expanded government.

What kinds of backwards ass world do you live in?

Allowing the government to dictate who does and doesn't get married isn't allowing for bigger, expanded government?

But letting them continue doing what they do now, somehow is? (For the sake of argument, I won't talk about how I feel about what the govt. does for marriage now)
 

bcp

In My Opinion
What kinds of backwards ass world do you live in?

Allowing the government to dictate who does and doesn't get married isn't allowing for bigger, expanded government?

But letting them continue doing what they do now, somehow is? (For the sake of argument, I won't talk about how I feel about what the govt. does for marriage now)

if the government does things for marriage now, does it not sound reasonable that they would have to do more if they had to do those things for yet another group that would have to be treated differently?
It would grow government, and it would also lead to the next fight, forcing people to actually pretend that two guys or two females were married and not just playing house with government benefits.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
if the government does things for marriage now, does it not sound reasonable that they would have to do more if they had to do those things for yet another group that would have to be treated differently?
It would grow government, and it would also lead to the next fight, forcing people to actually pretend that two guys or two females were married and not just playing house with government benefits.

So, lets get govt. out of the marriage "business", and let it be about love, and not govt. benefits.
 

bcp

In My Opinion
So, lets get govt. out of the marriage "business", and let it be about love, and not govt. benefits.

Fine with me.
married people usually pay more tax anyway.

but, at the same time, it cant be illegal for business owners to restrict various things to what they think is acceptable or not.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Fine with me.
married people usually pay more tax anyway.

but, at the same time, it cant be illegal for business owners to restrict various things to what they think is acceptable or not.

We agree then. It's a business, and if the usiness owner thinks he'll make his bottom line by restricting it to certain people....be my guest.

Free markets are the best, aren't they?
 

bcp

In My Opinion
We agree then. It's a business, and if the usiness owner thinks he'll make his bottom line by restricting it to certain people....be my guest.

Free markets are the best, aren't they?

yep, but the homosexuals tend not to act that way.
someone does not want to business with them, they get all butt hurt and try to shut that person down.
what they should do is start a like business that caters to their kind.
 
Top