Can Gays Be Conservative?

[scandal 951]

Can gays be conservative? Of course they can. Looking at it the other way around, Theodore Olson made a pretty good conservative argument in favor of gay marriage noting at the beginning of his case that the desire within the gay community to be able to marry shows that many conservative values are shared by the gay community. But read for yourself.

What an excellent article! Thank you for posting it Big Dog!

Ted Olson was of course GWB's attorney in the infamous 2000 Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case. He also tragically lost his wife on Sept 11 2001 - she was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon. But he knows his constitutional law, and he's 100% right on this issue. I'm amazed that more conservatives don't see it this way. Conservatives are all about small government, and not interfering in the private matters of citizens. Why then this insistence of interfering with the rights of gays to marry? I don't get it. Neither does Olson.

Some highlights from the article that I particularly liked:

...

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently reminded the nation of its found-ing principle: "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

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."

...

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.

...

I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.

...

the California attorney general has conceded the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8, and the city of San Francisco has joined our case to defend the rights of gays and lesbians to be married.

...

California's Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of "domestic partnerships" with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court's ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California's citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.

So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.

Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.

[Danno 1,228]

Conservatives are all about small government, and not interfering in the private matters of citizens. Why then this insistence of interfering with the rights of gays to marry? I don't get it.

But you do get the part about government deciding the age and the number of parties in a marriage?

Or the part where Gov't decides if family members can tie the old not?

[scandal 951]

But you do get the part about government deciding the age and the number of parties in a marriage?

Or the part where Gov't decides if family members can tie the old not?

Personally, I would have no problem with the former. If the FLDS were to want to file a constitutional challenge to state laws that ban polygamy, on the basis of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection clause, I would support that fully.

Don't get me wrong - I think the FLDS are dangerous wackos who endanger children by forcing underage girls to "marry" depraved old men. I'm glad Warren Jeffs went to prison.

However -- I think that if a group of consenting adults - any number, any gender -- decided that they wanted to marry and have the legal benefits of marriage, a reasonable case could be made under the 14th Amendment. What these people do in the privacy of their bedroom(s) is up to them, as long as nothing forcible is done and no minor children are involved. This does get complicated because many of the legal benefits of marriage involve things like rights of succession, particularly when there is no will, and rights to give medical consent. When the married partner is not one individual but a group (say, the 3 wives of a man, or the 2 husbands of a woman), that all gets more complicated. But I don't see a fundamental constitutional reason, or moral reason, to preclude that.

As to your latter point regarding an incestuous relationship (I assume that's what you meant by "family members"). Well, clearly here the social taboos are even stronger than for polygamy. There are obvious negative medical considerations, in particular if the incestuous couple (mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister) intends to conceive children. As a society we would not want to encourage that. However, as is the case for gay marriage, it's important to separate the concerns about procreation from marriage itself. An incestuous couple could conceive a child with or without recognized marriage. And a married incestuous couple need not conceive children. We should do everything possible to prevent children from ever being born to close family relatives, married or not. But (my personal view here), what business does the state or society have to tell two consenting adults what they should do with their lives?

In short, I'm a liberal, yes. On social policy issues - I believe that active government has a role to play in shaping social policy. Classic activist liberalism.

I'm also a strong libertarian in the small "l" sense of the word. There's no contradiction between those two things (hell, they even sound the same!) Individual liberty means just that to me - let people do whatever they want. Whatever. As long as no one is being harmed, coerced, or involving minor children. Ask me about my attitude on drugs some time .... yeah, I favor decriminalization of all drugs, including heroin.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Of course there are conservative gays, and there are gays who oppose gay marriage, too.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Of course you know more than the gay voters who voted for the GOP. They don't have to vote in lock-step to please you.

Dude, it was you who pointed out that the gay community votes overwhelmingly for the Democrats. I just tried to give you rationale for that phenomenon.

Voting patterns are pretty consistent.

"In 2000, gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters who responded to exit polls gave 70 percent of their vote to Democrat Al Gore, 25 percent to Republican George Bush, and five percent to other candidates. Four years later, GLB voters who responded to exit polls gave 77 percent of their vote to Democrat John Kerry and 23 percent to Republican George Bush."

Edited February 19, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ah yes, the gay marriage cannot be discussed without first legalising polygamy, invest, bestiality and pedophilia.

That sh!t never ceases to stink

[Danno 1,228]

Personally, I would have no problem with the former. If the FLDS were to want to file a constitutional challenge to state laws that ban polygamy, on the basis of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection clause, I would support that fully.

Don't get me wrong - I think the FLDS are dangerous wackos who endanger children by forcing underage girls to "marry" depraved old men. I'm glad Warren Jeffs went to prison.

However -- I think that if a group of consenting adults - any number, any gender -- decided that they wanted to marry and have the legal benefits of marriage, a reasonable case could be made under the 14th Amendment. What these people do in the privacy of their bedroom(s) is up to them, as long as nothing forcible is done and no minor children are involved. This does get complicated because many of the legal benefits of marriage involve things like rights of succession, particularly when there is no will, and rights to give medical consent. When the married partner is not one individual but a group (say, the 3 wives of a man, or the 2 husbands of a woman), that all gets more complicated. But I don't see a fundamental constitutional reason, or moral reason, to preclude that.

As to your latter point regarding an incestuous relationship (I assume that's what you meant by "family members"). Well, clearly here the social taboos are even stronger than for polygamy. There are obvious negative medical considerations, in particular if the incestuous couple (mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister) intends to conceive children. As a society we would not want to encourage that. However, as is the case for gay marriage, it's important to separate the concerns about procreation from marriage itself. An incestuous couple could conceive a child with or without recognized marriage. And a married incestuous couple need not conceive children. We should do everything possible to prevent children from ever being born to close family relatives, married or not. But (my personal view here), what business does the state or society have to tell two consenting adults what they should do with their lives?

In short, I'm a liberal, yes. On social policy issues - I believe that active government has a role to play in shaping social policy. Classic activist liberalism.

I'm also a strong libertarian in the small "l" sense of the word. There's no contradiction between those two things (hell, they even sound the same!) Individual liberty means just that to me - let people do whatever they want. Whatever. As long as no one is being harmed, coerced, or involving minor children. Ask me about my attitude on drugs some time .... yeah, I favor decriminalization of all drugs, including heroin.

For me it would be interesting to see, a society where your views are in action, clearly that have NEVER been the USA

Can you name one thats been around for a few generations?

Countries where Multiples of people can marry?

Where people are free to marry their sister or mother or even a father can marry a few of his daughters (if underage, with parental permission of course).

Countries where the Government makes no moral judgements in such matters as public sex (it's natural after all) or even sex with consenting animals (they can ya know)

It seems to me most real Liberals believe we are each our own island, what we do with ourselves, has no bearing on society as a whole...... unless we are talking about recycling, global warming, mass transit, Green zoning or social programs.

Scandal if we were on the other side of the pendulums swing, believe it or not, I would be pushing the other way.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Danno

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Ah yes, the gay marriage cannot be discussed without first legalising polygamy, invest, bestiality and pedophilia.

That sh!t never ceases to stink

someone better tell wall street.

However -- I think that if a group of consenting adults - any number, any gender -- decided that they wanted to marry and have the legal benefits of marriage, a reasonable case could be made under the 14th Amendment. What these people do in the privacy of their bedroom(s) is up to them, as long as nothing forcible is done and no minor children are involved. This does get complicated because many of the legal benefits of marriage involve things like rights of succession, particularly when there is no will, and rights to give medical consent. When the married partner is not one individual but a group (say, the 3 wives of a man, or the 2 husbands of a woman), that all gets more complicated. But I don't see a fundamental constitutional reason, or moral reason, to preclude that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Where people are free to marry their sister or mother or even a father can marry a few of his daughters (if underage, with parental permission of course).

Sounds like Alabama.

[Danno 1,228]

Ah yes, the gay marriage cannot be discussed without first legalising polygamy, invest, bestiality and pedophilia.

That sh!t never ceases to stink

Sometimes one has to look at the road map to know where they are headed, if your point is valid you would have no fear.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sometimes one has to look at the road map to know where they are headed.

And sometimes, one just has to look at the road already taken by other countries to realize that it is not leading where you'd have others believe it leads.

[scandal 951]

For me it would be interesting to see, a society where your views are in action, clearly that have NEVER been the USA

Can you name one thats been around for a few generations?

Countries where Multiples of people can marry?

Where people are free to marry their sister or mother or even a father can marry a few of his daughters (if underage, with parental permission of course).

Countries where the Government makes no moral judgements in such matters as public sex (it's natural after all) or even sex with consenting animals (they can ya know)

It seems to me most real Liberals believe we are each our own island, what we do with ourselves, has no bearing on society as a whole...... unless we are talking about recycling, global warming, mass transit, Green zoning or social programs.

Scandal if we were on the other side of the pendulums swing, believe it or not, I would be pushing the other way.

First off - the part I highlighted in bold - "(if underage, with parental permission of course)". ABSOLUTELY NOT. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would my views apply to underage children. What I am saying holds for consenting ADULTS only. Read my earlier post more carefully. There is no "parental permission" to allow such a thing.

Also, I said nothing at all about animals, or about public sex. Animals are not people, they are not protected under the 14th Amendment, and have no right of Equal Protection under the law. There would be no constitutional basis for a human-animal marriage. Besides, animals are not able to give consent, so that is simply preposterous. As to public sex -- we are talking about marriage, not sex. Local ordinances regardless public nudity or sex are perfectly reasonable, and they apply equally to all people regardless of their married or unmarried status. Totally irrelevant to the discussion.

As to societies where polygamy or incest are legal. You'd be surprised. Polygamy is technically legal in much of the world. Countries such as the US that prohibit it are the exception, not the rule. Incidentally, to be clear, I'm not in favor of polygamy - the concept as typically practiced by misogynists repels me. I'm talking about a constitutional principle of equality. And that principle should apply to polyandry as well (a woman with multiple husbands).

Here's a map of the world. Dark blue countries have legal polygamy. In red/orange countries or states it is illegal (this includes the US).

As to incest, as I said, there are incredibly strong social taboos against it. Nonetheless it is legal in Belgium (age of consent 16) and Brazil (age of consent 14). I doubt it happens often if at all, it's repulsive to think about it. But it is legal in those countries, and their societies have not disintegrated as a result.

Edited February 19, 2010 by scandal

[Danno 1,228]

First off - the part I highlighted in bold - "(if underage, with parental permission of course)". ABSOLUTELY NOT. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would my views apply to underage children. What I am saying holds for consenting ADULTS only. Read my earlier post more carefully. There is no "parental permission" to allow such a thing.

Also, I said nothing at all about animals, or about public sex. Animals are not people, they are not protected under the 14th Amendment, and have no right of Equal Protection under the law. There would be no constitutional basis for a human-animal marriage. Besides, animals are not able to give consent, so that is simply preposterous. As to public sex -- we are talking about marriage, not sex. Local ordinances regardless public nudity or sex are perfectly reasonable, and they apply equally to all people regardless of their married or unmarried status. Totally irrelevant to the discussion.

As to societies where polygamy or incest are legal. You'd be surprised. Polygamy is technically legal in much of the world. Countries such as the US that prohibit it are the exception, not the rule. Incidentally, to be clear, I'm not in favor of polygamy - the concept as typically practiced by misogynists repels me. I'm talking about a constitutional principle of equality. And that principle should apply to polyandry as well (a woman with multiple husbands).

As to incest, as I said, there are incredibly strong social taboos against it. Nonetheless it is legal in Belgium (age of consent 16) and Brazil (age of consent 14). I doubt it happens often if at all, it's repulsive to think about it. But it is legal in those countries, and their societies have not disintegrated as a result.

Scandal,

I asked you to tell me some countries which embrace your concepts and you respond back with a map about Polygamy, my friend, you embrace much more than just Polygamy.

Where are the wonderful societies which embrace The things you do?

I suspect there are not many... and for a good reason.

Even of the ones who accept Gays in marriage, those are relatively new changes, most not even more than a generation or two at the most.

Forgive me for not being clear when I brought up -people having the freedom to have relations with animals. I did not mean "in marriage" as they clearly have no ability to make commitments, legal or otherwise.

I was addressing the idea that, we are all free to do as we want as long as we don't hurt others.

You say bestiality is wrong because animals cannot give consent.

I'm not sure what type of consent you are looking for in an animal, do dogs or cats consent to be confined in cages or lashed to dog sleds. Do they consent to being being fixed or neutered or having their claws removed to protect or furniture?... Do they give consent to have their young sold off?

Considering written consent is not required in those instances.... why would a women and her Husky be considered "outlaws" for doing what she enjoys and he clearly is game for?

I'm still a little unsure how this incest marriage act would work.

Minors can and do mary all the time but if you are going to wed an older brother, uncle or father, you must be 18?

That hardly seems fair to me.

THe problem is, when we go down this path... if it doesn't work how do we get back?

It's not's not the same as back tracking on a stupid tax increase or poorly thought out EPA ruling.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Where are the wonderful societies which embrace The things you do?

So, Danno, since you want to be all so specific, why don't you step up to the plate and point to all the countries that are, as a result of legalizing same sex marriage, also embracing and legalizing bestiality, under-age marriage, incest and all the other ills you'd like us to believe are the natural result of legalizing same sex marriage. Show me the list, man. Come on!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He's just doing the usual bait and switch that he always does. He thinks it's clever, it ain't.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Gene Hunt