I’d like to start what may very well become a frequent series with some choice excerpts from Olson’s opening statement.
This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law.
As the witnesses in this case will elaborate, marriage is central to life in America. It promotes mental, physical and emotional health and the economic strength and stability of those who enter into a marital union. It is the building block of family, neighborhood and community. The California Supreme Court has declared that the right to marry is of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.”
While marriage has been a revered and important institution throughout the history of this country and this State, it has also evolved to shed irrational, unwarranted, and discriminatory restrictions and limitations that reflected the biases, prejudices or stereotypes of the past. Marriage laws that disadvantaged women or people of disfavored race or ethnicity have been eliminated. These changes have come from legislatures and the courts. Far from harming the institution of marriage, the elimination of discriminatory restrictions on marriage has strengthened the institution, its vitality, and its importance in American society today.
“Procreation” cannot be a justification inasmuch as Proposition 8 permits marriage by persons who are unable or have no intention of producing children. Indeed, the institution of civil marriage in this country has never been tied to the procreative capacity of those seeking to marry.
Proposition 8 has no rational relation to the parenting of children because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally permitted to have and raise children in California. The evidence in this case will demonstrate that gay and lesbian individuals are every bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as heterosexuals. The quality of a parent is not measured by gender but the content of the heart.
And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination. In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.
Read the whole thing here.
My more conservative brethren will disagree with me, but Ted Olson has a point. Don’t conservatives want to keep government out of peoples’ lives? Have life be about free will? Make personal responsibility, not regulation and restriction, the hallmark of our country?
Then why insist on outlawing marriage. I have the same problem with outlawing abortion and trying to dictate end-of-life scenarios, a la Terri Schaivo.
To me, the only question is if this should be done at the state level or the federal level. To make anti-gay-marriage a platform plank makes conservatives look hypocritical, and shows how obvious it is that Republicans rely on the christian conservatives as their party base.
I agree DtM. It’s a bit frustrating to me as well but thankfully guys like Olson and Cheney are speaking up for the more commonsense approach of live and let live.
Of course the conservatives here, “standing up” for gay marriage, have vaseline where the rubber meets the road.
Yep. My thoughts went to Strom Thurmund’s comments after civil rights were passed: “I’ve always been in favor of equal rights for blacks.”
Clarification: Not directed at DtM.
I don’t see it that way, I think they’re being consistent with the conservative ethos. That conservatives have become known by and large as intolerant is more due to pandering to certain voter blocks than to any inherent bigotry in conservative ideology. I think you can ding conservatives for making deals with the devil for electoral success and compromising their own values in the process, but I disagree that conservative values (at least, that branch of conservatism that is libertarian rather than theocratic) are necessarily anti-gay.
If you want to play that game, show me where the traction is on gay rights issues with a Democrat House a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President?
Democrat is a noun, not an adjective Lloyd. Quit trashing the English language. That being said, if the Republican congress were represented by 100 Americans, 5 would be non-white, 10 would be female, and 85 would be white male. Zero would identify as homosexual, but probably 10 or so would be. You can’t win in an argument on who represents minority interests. good luck staying relevant with that make-up.
To answer your qustion about Democratic traction on gay rights. How about the Matthew Shepherd hate crime legislation. How about federal recognition for same sex partner benefits. How about the first trans-gender presidential appointment? It is pathetic that DADT and DOMA still exist, but we have already moved equality light years ahead of the last administration. There’s your traction.
Folks, this seems to be one of the (very) few topics that we can find some consensus on. I think we are all of the mind that the government shouldn’t be discriminating or denying essential rights to people just because of their sexual orientation.
And as for all of the gay rights comments, I strongly believe that minority rights (in the civilian world, at least) should NEVER be up for popular vote. Such matters invite demagoguery.