Monday, January 11, 2010

Olson on Same Sex Marriage

Conservative lawyer Theodore Olson, who was Bush's lead attorney in Bush v. Gore, is now leading a legal attempt to overturn California's constitutional ban on gay marriage. In this Newsweek piece he lays out his reasons for believing that recognizing gay marriage is both just and conservative. I found this argument interesting:
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
Within my lifetime, back in the pre-AIDS 1970s, many gay Americans showed their agreement with this argument by being against marriage and in favor of liberation from such bourgeois constraints on our sexuality. The embrace of gay marriage among homosexuals is as important a social change as the acceptance of homosexuality by the heterosexual community.

Here Olson really warms to the topic:

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation. 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 founding 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 shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws."

Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.

1 comment:

  1. I'm firmly in the camp that "gay marriage" is upsetting to people for mostly patriarchal reasons. When they say that "gay marriage" threatens marriage, what they really mean is that gay marriage threatens patriarchal marriage.

    In the past 200 years, marriage has changed remarkably, almost entirely in the direction of reducing the customary and legal power of the man in the marriage.

    The last vestige of the asymmetry in marriage is the fact that the sex of the two people are different. You still have "husband and wife," and these two *roles* still have strong customary meanings.

    Gay marriage threatens that by suggesting that marriage is a thing where the roles can be negotiated, where nobody has any "obvious" authority over the other. It prompts all sorts of questions in their children, who want to know who is the "mommy" and the "daddy" in the relationship, and calls into question the very roles.

    And yes, this is a threat to the patriarchal marriage. It terrifies some minds to consider marriage as a relationship between equals.

    ReplyDelete