This is the best article I’ve read on legalized same-sex marriage, and I seek out and read everything I can on the issue. If I could have said it any better, I would have tried (see my sidebar). Ted Olson, my hat goes off to you.

Here is the link:

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: Why same-sex marriage is an American value

As long as some of us are denied marriage equality, none of us have it.

What do you think?

24 comments on “Marriage on Trial”

  1. Thank you for this. Can I admit something here? I have struggled with this issue. On one hand, I have lots of gay friends who have very loving, committed relationships and I say, “Yeah they deserve these protections.” and on the other hand I have my guilty catholic (and other religious) upbringings that say, “but won’t kids of gay marriages be confused and what are we doing?!” I want everyone to be right. What’s right is fostering commitment and honesty and darnit love. And that’s why this whole heterosexual-marriage-only thing is wrong. Finally. It’s taken me years. And the Wisdom of Cheri. I heart you.

  2. it is very sad when you can’t marry the person you love. it’s inconcievable to me that this would even be an issue.
    thankfully, newer generations are a lot more accepting than older generations. change is coming.

  3. This is more a matter of semantics than anything else, in my view. The problem is the word “marriage.” To people of certain religions, “marriage” is a sacrament. Our gov’t should not be in the business of marriage at all. Any conjugal ties that are gov’t-issued should be called “civil unions” (my own – hetero – one included); “marriages” should be left to the churches. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

    Many religious people who object to gay marriage are not objecting to “gay” – they are fine with gay people in civil unions being granted the same rights as hetero spouses. They are objecting to civil gov’t defining “marriage.” The gov’t shouldn’t be marrying anyone. Civil unions for everyone are the way to go. Everyone has equal rights under the law that way; and the government isn’t offending people whose definition of marriage includes sacramental meaning (whether you agree with them or not).

  4. I don’t know why anyone would want to be married anyway. Um…unless babies or insurance, oh sorry, my bitterness has reared its ugly head. Gah. 3rd time’s the chahm, right?

  5. Very interesting. We’ve had same sex marriage now for 5 years in Canada. It really has settled into a cultural norm (for all but the zealots). It’s civilized.

    Of course, it’s been in place long enough that there are same-sex divorces too, but that’s also civlized, don’t you think?

  6. I am hoping to see some of the video footage of the hearing where Olson is defending same sex marriage. I heard it was going to be posted on youtube but that prop (h)8ers were protesting the filming. Haven’t heard an update. Do you know?

  7. Blognut: Yes, we’re all friends, but some of us were getting too friendly and wanted to share naked photos with the rest of us. I had to do the word verification to protect the innocent. 🙂

    Spambots were taking over the joint. And these spambots were leaving daily links to porn. I clicked on one and eeeeeeewwww. At first, I was deleting the spam comments every day lest some other dork like me clicked one and was lead to porn by way of my blog, but then I realized that it could happen before I had a chance to delete. And I was tired of the daily deleting. Hence, word verification. 🙁

  8. Found the Newsweek issue in the airport in Huston on my way home from vacation, last week. Fabulously intelligent article! Coming from a conservative, it has got to open some eyes. There is some comment in the magazine in a prequel article from some conservatives, however, who are disgusted by Mr. Olson’s support. Too bad, so sad! They think he will win this case, by the way.
    Still waiting for the repeal of DOMA, too though!!

    ily142 heh! <3 XOXO,<3

Lurkers are welcome. Commenters are welcomer.