Ok…I have decided that I completely agree with US Republican, conservative views on gay marriage.
A post by Neil Hart or homosexuality, LGBT, lesbian and gay stuff and the Lutheran Church of Australian. Ive been giving the conservative, US Republican Party some stick in this blog. But thats coz Ive been judging them on these clowns.
Wait on! Whose the guy on the top left?? Cant accuse him of being a clown when I don’t even know him. And….I think the guy next to him was kinda OK….and that Ron Paul guy is kinda interesting…cant put him in the clown box… ANYWAY! MOST of them are clowns. But, maybe, just maybe, Ive been unfairly judging all conservatives on the wrong role models. Maybe I should have been looking at people like Ted Olson.
The left/ right, liberal/ consevative, Republican/ Democrat thing is interesting but its good to remember that the world isn’t always divided along those lines I heard a GREAT interview on Radio National today. it was all about transcending labels like left and right. Ted Olson and David Boles are two high powered and very public lawyers from the two sides of politics in the US. They famously opposed each other in the supreme court challenge over the 2000 presidential election result ( i think that was the one that came down to the questionable Florida decision that put George W into the Whitehouse.) Anyway…entrenched Republican, Ted Olson who was personal counsel for Ronald Regan and served as Bush’s Solicitor General recently went to court in support of gay marriage. (YES! in SUPPORT!) He deliberately asked the opposing solicitor in the 2000 presidential case, entrenched Democrat, David Boles to work with him on the case so that, in working together, they could show that gay and marriage rights are fundamental human rights that transcend political labels like left and right, republican and democrat, conservative and liberal. Here is some of what he had to say…. (I think i want to marry him and have a million of his babies. Damn! He’s not gay. Wait! Neither am I. Anyway…he’s cool)
I think people misunderstand the expression, ‘Conservative’ and I hate these pigeon holes anyway. I’m strongly in favour of individual liberties, and decency and fairness and equality. Our… the founder the Republican Party Abraham Lincoln was a strong force for the emancipation of slaves in this country and equal dignity for all of our citizens. The current Prime Minister of Great Britain has said that he is in favour of gay marriage, not despite the fact that he is a Conservative, but because he is a Conservative – that conservative values would support marriage between loving individuals, individuals that cared about one another, who wanted to come together and form a family and be part of a neighbourhood and be part of a community and be part of the building blocks of our society and live together and raise children and be a family. What could be more conservative than that? And I think that’s part of the message that I’ve attempted to send to people: Don’t misunderstand where people are on the political spectrum. It shouldn’t be considered a liberal issue or a conservative issue. It should be considered a matter of equal rights and equal dignity to individuals. People are not, do not choose to be gay. They are born with characteristics that case their sexual orientation to be what it is. They deserve happiness and equality and dignity and respect and absence of discrimination in their lives the same as the rest of us do, and we are fighting very hard for that unifying principle. We are not talking just about equal rights but the equal right to the right to marry. One of our early Supreme Court cases says that the right to marry is older than our Bill of Rights, it’s older than our political parties, it is older than the United States and so when we were denying that right to individuals because of their sexual orientation, we are taking away what we call in the United States in our constitutional law, a fundamental right , and we are doing it on the basis of their intrinsic characteristics and that is a violation of our equal protection clause in our 14th amendment to our constitution. We had expert witnesses who testified that individuals who are denied the right to marry are marked by society as being unequal, different and disrespected. Experts testified that it is very harmful to children, and there’s thirty thousand some children in California being raised by same sex couples – perfectly legally – yet they are all branded as coming from a relationship between two people which is not quite acceptable. It’s very destructive to individuals. We had our plantiffs in this case testified that they felt they had to ‘come out’ every day to explain who they were.
it was interesting because our opponents kept changing their position. They started off by saying that the relationship of marriage must be preserved between a man and woman because we must preserve the right to procreation. When we answered by saying that marriage has never been limited in the United States or anywhere else really to people who can procreate, who wish to procreate, who will promise to procreate. People who are 80 or 90 years old get married. They’re not going to be having children. People who are gay are allowed to live in partnership relationships and there is no damage to the right to procreation. We are not going to discourage men and women from procreating by allowing gay marriage. And the more we talked about that and the more the judge asked questions about how you are going to further procreation by precluding gay people from getting married, the more our opponents backed away from that argument. And then they started talking about preserving the institution of marriage from being diluted, or deinstitutionalised as they put it. We kept pressing, and the judge kept pressing: tell us what harm it will do to heterosexual marriage if persons of the same sex are allowed to get married? What is the answer to that? The judge kept asking that question and our opponent finally looked straight in the judge’s eyes and said, ‘I don’t know”, “I don’t know”.
Olson was asked by the interviewer if his involvement in the case had touched him personally, his response…
In the strongest possible way, because I have now had an opportunity to speak to and look into the hearts of people whose sexual orientation is different than mine. People who have been together for ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years. These are our brothers and our sisters and our doctors and our lawyers and our law partners and the people, and our neighbours who live down the street. We have to be able to treat them equally and it’s affected me a great deal that we are fighting a cause that might achieve that equality for them.”
The last 90 minutes of the case, leading up to the judge’s decision has been turned into a stage play simply called “8” (How American Is THAT!! ). The solcitors, Ted and David are being played by Martin Sheen and George Clooney.
Begs the question….who gets Martin and who gets George?? Which one would you want to play YOU? Oh. BTW. They WON! :) But appeals will probably take them to the supreme court. Anyway…”Dear God. Forgive me for judging people just coz they are Republicans”