Monday, January 11, 2010

The conservative case for gay marriage

Ted Olson, who is co-counsel for the plaintiffs trying to oveturn California's proposition 8, eloquently and convincingly makes the conservative case for gay marriage in the latest Newsweek. And he explains why prop. 8 is especially ripe for challenge:
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.
More from the San Francisco Chronicle and the New York Times.

Labels: , ,

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the case to watch in 2010. Indeed, I am very interested in the result once it progresses to the federal Supreme Court.

One issue that is hardly ever brought up in the discussion though, as far as I can tell, is same-sex immigration rights--a federally administered right, not a state administered one.

Best,

+Ryan M. (YZF>SFO>YVR>YTO)

8:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home