Ted Olson is an example of what the Republican Party used to be. Not for decades – not since Richard Nixon led the move to deliberately exploit racism with his Southern Strategy.
This conservative lawyer who loves his country for what has been and should be – is a reminder of traditional American conservatism. A lonely figure in today’s Republican Party.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5803 access attempts in the last 7 days.
I really can’t understand why there is any debate about the matter… I would think that any logical, thinking human being would see the obvious.
“Marriage” is a religious institution. When governments first got involved by issuing marriage licenses, they created something new, which is a civil contract that grants the partners certain legal rights and obligations in financial and decision making matters.
These two sides should be completely separate. Any two adults should be able to enter into the a civil contract granting them these rights, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age (as long as both are adults), relationship, race or any other consideration beyond the ability to legally enter into a binding agreement.
“Marriage” is nothing more than a simple way for two individuals to “incorporate”. A married couple becomes a single legal entity. Either partner can make medical decisions if the other is incapacitated.
If the government wants to oversee execution of these civil contracts, then they should not be permitted to discriminate in any way regarding who can enter into them.
“Marriage” is a religious issue and the mere fact that the State gives it any special consideration is a violation of the first amendment to our Constitution.
Nice to see a conservative Republican, Ted Olson, explaining his views.
Turns out, real conservative politics used to believe that American citizens rights were 1st priority, and you should have to explain and have VERY GOOD SOLID reasons for the government EVER enacting laws that limit your freedom. Reasons such as “I don’t like it” aren’t good enough. You have to have actual facts.
You shouldn’t let a minority group EVER have their rights (marriage, voting, military service) be put up to a “popular vote”. More often than not that minority group will lose. Majority rules on voting for representatives, not picking freedoms that apply to citizens. Otherwise blacks would STILL be property in Mississippi and Jews would still be banned from most communities in Alabama.
Reminder of how the GOP has indeed been allowed to be infiltrated by the Christain Taliban.
Like when a parasite attaches itself to a host organism, you need to bring the host near death to kill off the parasite – as is happening now.
#24
“Marriage” is just a word. A word used to describe the union. From a logistics standpoint “marriage” means the same thing as “civil union.” Therefore why not let same sex couples use the same descriptive word?
Saying “Marriage” is a religious institution is missing the fact that the term comes from a time when all laws were created by religious leaders and institutions. During “biblical times” the religious leaders were often one in the same with the tribal and city leaders. There was no real difference.
Now there is. “Marriage” is a term that has clearly transcended it’s religious roots. To say otherwise is ignoring history.
I really fucking hate this issue.
Government has no business approving ones marriage in the first place. But heaven forbid government doesn’t have the authority to put a camera in your bedroom and make sure your not breaking the fucking law.
FUCK ALL OF YOU FASCIST MOTHER FUCKERS ON BOTH SIDES!
#9
The problem here is that homosexuality is a behavior problem. Thus, allowing two individuals that choose to be homosexual, is not grounds for them to marry. Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.
Heterosexuality is also a behavior. Both are behavior problems only in how they are manifested not in the root cause of the preference. Second, there are three very different aspects to marriage:
1. Two people committing to themselves
2. Two people committing to themselves in a legal manner
3. The state conferring benefits upon that legal contract.
The first one is a right. It can never be stopped nor granted by the State. The second is currently possible, but outside of heterosexual marriage it is a legal nightmare. The third is discrimination plain and simple. The State cannot discriminate in whom they confer benefits without legitimate reason. They have none. There is no public safety concern. There is no national security concern. All reasons given by the people opposing gay marriage are rooted in their religion. That isn’t sufficient justification to allow the State to give benefits to one group of people and not another.
#10
The State of CA does not have the right to discriminate against its own people. The State is obligated to treat its citizenry equitably.
#14
If I can marry anyone I want, can I marry my dog?
A sophomoric hyperbole. In short, the difference is that in marriage, all parties are able to and do consent to the contract. If you can prove your dog understands the concept of marriage, agrees to it and can sign a contract, then knock yourself out.
#17
if a government is not allowed to dictate who can marry, then why should government even be in the business of granting marriages at all
An excellent question. I’m not sure they should. The only argument in favor of the legal concept is that it makes it easier in scenarios where one person needs to act on behalf of the other such as in medical situations.
…make sure your not breaking the fucking law.
There is a law about fucking? 🙂
#27 Here’s an idea.. Take marriage out of government, out of taxation out of individual rights.
I couldn’t care less how marriage is defined by XYZ private organization or fanatical group. Once you have government out of peoples private lives things get well in a hurry. The Taliban can continue with their profitable business and the other 5,000 religions can perform whatever ceremony that like.
It’s been said before but bears repeating:
Gays should be allowed to marry.
Why should heteros be the only ones to suffer?
[Har! (Keep your day job.) – ed.]
The crux of this argument lies with one not wanting to obey the law of God. Whether you like it or not, YOU ARE under the law of God, and will be judged one day. God instituted marriage and therefore HIS law still stands.
#34
And what about all the people that do not believe in your deity or does your deity give the green light to trampling on the rights of those that disagree with him/her/it?
#18
“So, if we (Californians) pass a proposition that limits marriage between people of the same race, that is our business?”
You can if you constitution allows the government to make such laws. That is the only issue – whether your constitution allows it or not. That is the beautiful thing about limited enumerated powers of government. If the law doesn’t specifically give you power to make such a law you can’t do it. After reading this judges opinion, I do not see much real evidence that the California constitution does not allow such a law – it is mostly just her biases. But you are right, if the government has the authority to make any laws about marriage, then it could theoretically make a law like you mention.
This whole issue is kind of absurd and irrelevent. Most gay couples could care less if the state acknowledges their union, but a few in this fringe are fighting this fight for some kind of political victory. It is almost like a UN resolution condemning something. There are big debates about it, but in the end it is just a political posture – both sides want the government to approve of their view of marriage. The government should have no opinion about such things unless a very specific issue absolutely requires it. And those things would be tax issues and hospital visitation rights. Those can easily be solved outside of defining marriage. Have a website where people can elect who they want to be able to visit them in the hospital, and let any two people with the same address file taxes jointly – done.
To me, the real issues relating to how the government approves of gays are 1) Are public schools to teach kids homosexuality is morally right (or wrong if this were 50 years ago) in schools like some schools are doing and 2) Should gay couples be allowed to adopt kids?
I think the first one should be ‘no’ just from a separation of church and state issue. The second one is really where the state has to take sides on the religious/moral issue. Do we say that despite the number families waiting to adopt a child and despite studies that have shown children do much better with both a male and female figures in their house, we recognize gay couples as legitimate parents. Or do we say despite the fact we let single people adopt and that government should not take moral sides on this issue, we prohibit gay couples from adopting.
Take the WORD GAY/homosexual/lesbian out of this, and what do you have?
WHO has the RIGHT to rule/control/DEEM what another can do?
THIS WHOLE thing, tends from the idea that 2 people WISH to share their LIVES with each other.
That they wish to SHARE, the ability of THEIR EARNINGS and benefits..that only MARRIED persons can have.
THIS SAYS NOTHING about 2 gays. Just 2 PEOPLE wanting to SHARE. and IF’ they need to MARRY, to share benefits and money…THIS IS THE ONLY WAY.
IS there a FRIEND you would like to SHARE a few benefits with? IF’ for nothing else, then to HELP them get off the street.
I know TONS of people who suffer from LACK of Benefits and medical. THIS alone would solve PART of the problem.
#34 Highhawker…you don’t want to live where religion=law. Think Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
Can you feel it? It’s the rumble of thousands of Mormons stomping the ground in anger when they realized that the millions they poured in hopes of forcing another state to do what they want has gone up in smoke.
#38 Olo,
Don’t forget the FLDS compunds too.
#27: I realize that “Marriage” is just a word, but words have power. I suppose my idea of a solution is to get government out of it altogether. Clearly define what is now legal ‘marriage’ as a civil contract. If you still want to call it marriage, fine, but there can be no discrimination. Strip the clergy of their ability to validate these contracts by executing their signatures on the documents that get filed after the ceremony takes place. The churches and temples and synagogs and mosques can perform all the weddings they want, but they won’t carry any legal weight. The only thing legally binding should be the civil contract.
Granting the clergy the right to validate these contracts was a violation of the Constitution from the very beginning.
Of course, my views on separation of church and state are perhaps a little more extreme than either side of the argument would like. I also believe that the U.S. government should not recognize any religious governments. This includes the Vatican, Israel and any number of so-called Islamic Republics.
#34: You can believe whatever you want. As for me, I’ll put my faith in rational thought, thanks very much.
#37: Thank you. Think about the elderly. Just the ability to choose who you actually want to make end of life decisions for you and who you want to inherit your property without things getting bogged down in court because some long lost estranged relative wants to contest your will (living or otherwise) lends a lot of weight to the argument.
HUZZAH! Now Dallas is free to marry Bobbo!
Okay, here goes:
#5 I challenge anyone in support of banning same-sex marriage to give me one logical reason why the ban should be upheld that is not based on a religious belief. I have not heard any.
Well, others have stated it but I will add mine. Government has no business granting licenses for marriage in the first place. Okay, a confession, I’m actually not in support of banning same-sex marriage. As long as government sanctioned marriage exists, it should not discriminate on basis of gender.
Oh, and don’t harp on about it being “about the children”. These days half of all children are born out of wedlock anyway. And for that matter, they already allow 90 year olds to get married. Not to mention Elizabeth Taylor.
#9 The problem here is that homosexuality is a behavior problem.
Not nearly as big a problem as heterosexuality! Look where that got us…what 8 billion people on a planet capable of supporting maybe 3 billion? It’s the straight people who need to cool it before they blow it for everyone!
#13
At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, there were laws about what railroad car you were allowed to ride in. There were laws in California that pretty much allowed Chinese people to be treated as cattle. Women could not vote. All that has been overturned.
Nowthen, Olson, though a boring monotone, was refreshing to hear.
#43
“Government has no business granting licenses for marriage in the first place.”
Huh? Then who does, if not the Government? I’m confused of who you expect to handle this if not the Government.
You can’t leave it up to religious institutions, because they have no legal right to grant any form of license, nor should they. Never mind the fact that there are many, many different religions out there and they won’t all agree on a standard.
Remember, these licenses have to be able to cross state lines and be recognized across the country, so simply saying “States” as the answer is not sufficient.
Of course this is Government’s business.
Silly Libertarian ideals.
>an example of what the Republican Party used to be.
Love how liberals trot this out, like they were in love with those Republicans then that they are now praising.
Forget about the dead Republicans, how many Democratic Senators voted against Ted Olson?
If it isn’t for care of children and the social benefit of having them in two parent families, then why does government need to be involved in marriage in the first place?
There is a side issue of care of women as well, as men are likely to drop an old woman for a younger one.
Higghawker said,
The crux of this argument lies with one not wanting to obey the law of God. Whether you like it or not, YOU ARE under the law of God, and will be judged one day. God instituted marriage and therefore HIS law still stands.
Whose God?
Okay, here goes:
1====#5 I challenge anyone in support of banning same-sex marriage to give me one logical reason why the ban should be upheld that is not based on a religious belief. I have not heard any. /// Long time atheist here, anti-theist only for a decade or two. There is HISTORY and BIOLOGY that both speak VERY LOUDLY AND LOGICALLY against same sex marriage.
2====Well, others have stated it but I will add mine. Government has no business granting licenses for marriage in the first place. //// BS–you license and have to pass a test to drive a car. “Baby you can drive my car” was not about “cars.” Marriages, common law or otherwise should be documented in order to track the kiddies as failure to support becomes a societal obligation.
3=====Okay, a confession, I’m actually not in support of banning same-sex marriage. As long as government sanctioned marriage exists, it should not discriminate on basis of gender. /// We live in a meaningless universe. In a democracy, we make whatever rules we want to by majority will. Marriage and the concept of marriage has been well settled for 1000’s of years. Activist courts now trying to make where you park your car a constitutional right. I’d think Fred Olsen as a good conservative would be against that?
4==Oh, and don’t harp on about it being “about the children”. These days half of all children are born out of wedlock anyway. /// Yes, and on balance to ill effect and a cost to the taxpaers.
5=== And for that matter, they already allow 90 year olds to get married. Not to mention Elizabeth Taylor. /// Yep, as done down thru History and social approval, by and large.
6====#9 The problem here is that homosexuality is a behavior problem. //// Not at all. Completely natural and to be expected. Just a small percentage of the population is all.
7====Not nearly as big a problem as heterosexuality! Look where that got us…what 8 billion people on a planet capable of supporting maybe 3 billion? It’s the straight people who need to cool it before they blow it for everyone! //// Well, that changes the context entirely. Problem or Challenge?
8====#13 At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, there were laws about what railroad car you were allowed to ride in. There were laws in California that pretty much allowed Chinese people to be treated as cattle. Women could not vote. All that has been overturned. //// Yep, all based on the common sense realization, begrudging at times, that all people are the same, or close enough to be treated as the same as to human rights and dignity. The recognition of two sexes being different yet having the same rights is still not universal but a fait accompli in the Western world. All humans have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex and many homo’s have done so.
9====Nowthen, Olson, though a boring monotone, was refreshing to hear. //// No–he advocates for an activist court overturning 1000’s of years of common practice all biologically based in reality. Society requires the next generation to come along. Rules to encourage same that are rationally related to that goal should meet constitutional requirements.
To be Clear: I do think all people are “the same.” I do think all people should have their individual rights and dignities honored and respected. Civil Partnerships may be allowed with all the same meanings/rights as being married but the two are not “the same” adoption notwithstanding. What if these train of thought gets supported now or later by the court or legislative system? I don’t care, what other people do is of little concern to me as long as I am left alone. Having all the rights of man and being excluded from having a piece of paper is not the most horrible of horribles that I can imagine.
Reading Backwards===#42–Angry. I wouldn’t want to break up Pedro’s dance with his Donkey, I and doubt Dallas would either. We must respect the right of any illegal alien to marry his household pet. Its constitutional!!!!
We Republicans in NC had several good “old time” conservatives like this. We also had Jesse Helms and his Congressional Club. In the end Jesse and the vast money the CC could raise and spend beat out better people and was able to elect the likes of John East and Lauch Faircloth to the Senate. Heros to the neo-cons but unable to wipe their own ass without first getting Jesse’s approval.
#44: “You can’t leave it up to religious institutions, because they have no legal right to grant any form of license, nor should they. Never mind the fact that there are many, many different religions out there and they won’t all agree on a standard.”
I believe that’s the point! What we commonly call “Marriage” is nothing more than a civil contract in the eyes of the law. Call it whatever you want, that’s what it is. It doesn’t matter if you stand in front of a priest or a rabbi or an imam or a judge when you get married, there is only one act that counts. That’s signing the bottom of the document by the parties involved and the officiant. Remove religion from the picture altogether. If you want to ‘marry in the church’ or ‘in the eyes of God’, then by all means, do so. The two acts should be completely separate, however.
=============================
As someone once said, let’s make a deal… don’t pray in my schools and I won’t think in your church.
@ #44 JMRouse
“Huh? Then who does, if not the Government? I’m confused of who you expect to handle this if not the Government. ”
The two people entering the contract decide who can handle it. Is that so hard to understand?
It’s not up to the Church as to weather or not the two can get married and enter a *legal contract* the only deciding factor where the church should be concerned is weather or not that church performs the ceremony. The institution must be free to say no we’re not going to do that then we can call them douche bags and start opening churches in San Francisco that will perform the ceremonies.
As for the Tax Breaks just attach those to the kids and not the parents and problem is solved all around.
Not that hard to figure out with an open mind or aren’t a complete fascist fucking idiot.
Marriage is just a contrivance by society to promote monogamy in a species that apparently isn’t very monogamous. Do away with the whole damn thing.