A Fundmental Right

Olson’s come a way since his Vast Right Wing Conspiracy days.

Thanks, Gordon, I was thinking of posting that myself. Or this smackdown of Tony Perkins by David Boies, Olson’s partner in the case, when Perkins tried to trot out so-called study evidence in a TV appearance:

“Well, it’s easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions that appeals to people’s fear and prejudice,” said Boies. “Site studies that either don’t exist or don’t say what you say they do. In a court of law you’ve got to come in and you’ve got to support those opinions. You’ve got to stand up under oath and cross-examination.”

“What we saw at trial is that it’s very easy for the people who want to deprive gays and lesbian citizens of the right to vote to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature or in debates where they can’t be cross-examined but when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away.”

“And that’s what happened here. There simply wasn’t any evidence, there weren’t any of those studies. There weren’t any empirical study. That’s just made up. That’s junk science. It’s easy to say that on television but a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. When you come into court you can’t do that. That’s what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost,” said Boies.

Rate this comment: 3  0

I have argued the same thing. You are dealing with traditions that go back millenia. The argument for “one term fits all” marriage is that separate but equal is not equal. But separate terms for woman and woman and man and man relationships would be easier to sell and probably be less threatening. Yet monogamy, polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, etc. are all forms of “marriage.” We are not eskimos. Snow is snow.

I remember the ambassador’s culture shock, however, from Ursula LeGuin’s sci-fi classic, “Left Hand of Darkness”: What is the first question you ask when someone says they had a baby? Gender identity is pretty primal, even if somewhat variable. The constitution, on the other hand, is something else. That’s what this case was about.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Tom, just an aside, but the old saw about Eskimos having 429 different words for snow is, pretty much, passe. It was uncovered as urban legend, by I think Steven Pinker, about 10 years ago in a book the title of which I cannot recall. How entertaining a myth it was, useful in freshman anthropology, but alas, not true.

Rate this comment: 0  2

I think many with the privilege of being in the group who get to be married will agree with you.

You lost me the minute you said that same-sex marriage isn’t equal to opposite-sex marriage. If your position is that same-sex couples deserve an inferior designation because their status is inferior, then I think you’re on the wrong side of science, human rights, and history.

Marriage equality is a simple idea, and the solution is to stop the prohibition against it. Separate but equal doesn’t work. I hope you watched the video above, because Mr. Olson explicates the Constitutional argument as well as the human rights argument.

Rate this comment: 3  1

Diogenes,

If African-Americans fought for separate but equal rather than Equality, that’s what would have come to pass. It would have been much easier to achieve separate but equal. It could have happened “yesterday”. Do you believe that African-Americans did themselves a disservice by “enduring deprivation” until the Civil Rights Act was passed?

I’m not convinced that a separate but equal treatment – “civil union” – would be any more achievable. Our legislators have those options now, and they’re not using them. It’s a well-understood political reality that if one wants equality, one ought to fight for equality.

Rate this comment: 2  1

To clarify. I do not oppose same sex marriage. I support equality. BUT, I fear it won’t be sanctioned at the Supreme Court–this court at least or anytime soon. I hope I’m wrong.

To Gordon: Re: the African-American analogy: Did they have a choice? If all the rights, civil, economic, human, had been available prior to 1964 then yes, I think they should have enjoyed them. They weren’t (and often are not still).

To: Chris: yours is not an argument, it’s an attempt at sarcastic ridicule. Not convincing, nor does it accurately portray my thinking.

Rate this comment: 1  2

I think Obama agrees with me on this. Marriage, as commonly understood, is a legal and sometimes religious union between a man and a woman.

He probably would. Most within the GLBT community are well aware of what they can expect from Obama. To this community, he stands for nothing other than double speak.

Rate this comment: 3  0