“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” – Chief Justice Earl Warren
As chronicled by a recent New York Times article, many conservatives are shocked that Ted Olson is leading the federal challenge to Proposition 8, California’s prohibition of gay marriage. Olson is a powerhouse Republican. He served in the Reagan administration; he represented President Bush in Gore v. Bush, and after winning that case, he became solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. As if further evidence of Olson’s conservative credentials were needed, the second line of his Wikipedia entry (the resolving force of all disputes) reads, “[Olson] is a major figure in the conservative legal movement.”
Clearly, then, something went wrong. After all, Republicans don’t support gay marriage, right? Heck, not even our current President—a true blue Democrat—supports gay marriage. Maybe Olson was standing on his toilet seat, hanging a clock, then slipped and hit his head on his sink and discovered not the flux capacitor (which makes time travel possible), but that gays should be allowed to marry.
That is, of course, one possibility, but it’s also possible that Olson has reconciled gay marriage with Republican principles. A rough Republican break-down of gay marriage would look something like this:
Pro Republican Principles:
Equality under the law. So long as you are citizen of the United States, you should have equal standing before public institutions and public law. Just as Olson argued against affirmative action based on its disparate treatment of different racial groups, he now argues against the distinct treatment of people of different sexual orientations.
Free to Choose. The Republican Party has long stood for individual autonomy. The individual should be free to act so long as he does not violate the rights to non-interference of fellow citizens. Gay marriage is pretty harmless on this account.
Pro marriage. This is one of the best stances of the Republican Party. The effects of marriage are overwhelmingly positive. It seems natural that a Republican would want to share the benefits of marriage with as many as possible.
Pro family. Republicans are similarly quick to recognize the benefits of family. Currently 200,000 children are raised in gay households. This number would go up if gay relationships were solidified through marriage. More children in the country would grow up with two loving parents linked by an “indissoluble” bond. Perhaps, or even probably, heterosexual parents do a better job raising kids. But homosexuals won’t be stealing children from heterosexual parents—most of the kids belonging to today’s homosexual couples are adopted from broken families or from families that can’t support the child.
Anti Republican Principles:
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We Republicans don’t usually like tinkering with what works, and the institution of marriage as one man and one woman has been fundamentally successful for… quite a bit of time. There are always unintended consequences that accompany change. And in this case, if you give the marriage mouse a cookie… then he might ask you to sanction polygamy as well.
Religion. We also have a profound respect for the wisdom of our Western religions. According to most interpretations of these religions, homosexuality is none-too-kosher, and marriage is supposed to be a heterosexual affair.
These lists are by no means exhaustive, and they’re not meant to be. But they do prove that gay marriage is not as clear cut for Republicans as the reaction to Olson would suggest.
All in all, as Olson begins his crusade on behalf of the roughly 12 million homosexuals in this country, we can presume that he is still in his right mind and that he is still a solid Republican.
Stephen Richer is a regular contributor to The D.C. Writeup.
Loading ...
August 30th, 2009 at 11:43 am
“And in this case, if you give the marriage mouse a cookie… then he might ask you to sanction polygamy as well.” Do opponents of marriage equality genuinely believe this? If this were true, and I wouldn’t be against it, it would be an entirely different legal challenge, and the only group talking about polygamy are the anti-gay republicans.
“We also have a profound respect for the wisdom of our Western religions. According to most interpretations of these religions, homosexuality is none-too-kosher, and marriage is supposed to be a heterosexual affair.” That is nice, but I’m not religious, and your marriage bans have imposed a real barrier into our private lives. We will not tolerate it. We intend to vilify the religious institutions that participated in the purely hateful campaigns such as proposition 8. We will do this in our Perry vs. Schwarzenegger challenge.
“All in all, as Olson begins his crusade on behalf of the roughly 12 million homosexuals in this country, we can presume that he is still in his right mind and that he is still a solid Republican.” I wish it were for that many gay people in the country. He is only arguing for us California fags. Perry vs. Schwarzenegger will not have national ramifications. I wish that it would. Most legal scholars will agree that the Massachusetts federal DOMA challenge will have the largest national impact.
I understand that many gay people in California are interested in voting to repeal proposition 8. They want to do this because they genuinely want to believe that everyone in California is genuinely enlightened, and that we are light years ahead of everyone in the world. Unfortunately, we are not, and I’m not interested in asking permission to get married from absolute strangers via their votes.
I’m expecting to resume our practice of marriage equality the moment Judge Walker writes his opinion for his trial that he has scheduled for January 11, 2010. It will not have any impact on any anti-gay religion other than the fact that it will confirm what everyone already knows.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 1st, 2009 at 9:50 am
Good comment. Regarding my count of gays affects–12 million–I think you have to recognize that what happens in California will definitely indirectly affect future rulings in other states.
[Reply to this Comment]
August 30th, 2009 at 11:58 am
It is worth noting that, party affiliation aside, those who oppose equal recognition under the law of gay marriage are violating the very principles of limited government. Government exists to protect the rights of the people to life, liberty, and property. Not to choose which contracts it will enforce.
Any religious or other private institution that chooses not to recognize or perform gay marriages is able to do so thanks to our freedom of association, but gay or straight consenting adults can and should be equally bound and recognized by their contractual commitment to each other under the law. Fears of forced “diversity” are understandable, but being afraid of the government does not excuse Americans from their duty to protect each other’s freedom to engage in any behavior that does not violate the freedom of someone else. Gay marriage clearly qualifies as such.
Much opposition to gay marriage also stems from the preferential tax treatment currently given to traditional marriage. But tax breaks according to sexual orientation fly in the face of equality under the law and the basic premise that ALL men (and women) are created equal. If one believes in the principles spelled out by the Constitution, then using the tax code as a political weapon or as a back door to social engineering of ANY sort would be inconsistent with the values of a free society.
Just one more reason to support a flat tax.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 1st, 2009 at 9:54 am
@Josh,
Completely agree. Equality under the law is the equality we believe in. Furthermore, as you said, it is Constitutionally dictated that Congress should not impinge upon the right to freedom of contract. How limited is our government if two consenting individuals can’t freely contract?
[Reply to this Comment]
August 31st, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Exactly how can you say its wrong to prohibit men from marrying men and women from marrying women and yet still say its perfectly fine to ban polygamy? Is it because this quandary is pointed out by “anti-gay” bad people? That’s a logical fallacy, not a counter argument.
Fifty years ago nobody was talking about changing the definition of marriage to appease a political faction. My, how times change.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 1st, 2009 at 9:54 am
@hurf durf,
I don’t think I condoned gay marriage… I simply pointed out that there are two sides to the subject…
But..
Polygamy is often with minors and non-consenting adults… that’s what usually makes it wrong in my mind.
And fifty years ago we were trying to change the definition of who could vote. Although I dare say you could just dismiss that as trying to appease the black political faction…
[Reply to this Comment]
August 31st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
It’s amazing that you all have so completely ignored what is “un Republican”, and utterly vile, about Ted Olsen’s lawsuit, and about the vast majority of the SSM crowd:
The attempt to use the courts to force a fundamental change on our society.
You want Gay marriage? Grewat. Go out in public, and make the case. Try to get people to vote for candidates who favor it, and try to get legislators to vote to change the laws to make it so.
But get out of the courts. Because people who use the Court system to advance a political agenda are always evil, and always wrong.
If you want to get the a Constituional Amendment passed favoring your views, and then go to the Courts to have that Amendment enforced, that’s fine.
But until your program has been voted for, attempts to get around the legislative process are ALWAYS wrong.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 1st, 2009 at 9:58 am
@Greg Q,
Disagree strongly. Fundamental rights shouldn’t be put to a vote. We didn’t vote whether we wanted to treat blacks as equals. If, heaven forbid, redheads weren’t allowed to sing and dance in front of their computers, we shouldn’t have to win a vote to gain this right. The Constitution upholds that all men are equal under the law–redheads should be able to sing and dance just like anyone else.
[Reply to this Comment]