The conservative case for gay marriage is really a universal one

As you will likely be aware if you follow the news, particularly pertaining to civil rights, there is currently a landmark trial (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) taking place in California aiming to invalidate that horrible Proposition 8 that effectively bans all gay marriage in the state. Whether the notion of using a federal trial to try and overturn a voter-enacted law is a good or a bad thing is subjective and debatable^[1]; at any rate, you can follow the trial’s progress with (close-to) real-time updates at Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

One of the leaders in the lawsuit against Prop 8 is (which should come as a bit of a surprise to anyone who knows him) none other than Ted Olson, one of the leading conservatives in the U.S., particularly in the legal realm. I may not know much about the man, but reading this op-ed of his in Newsweek wherein he presents “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage”, it immediately becomes clear how he’s both a stellar writer, and a staunch defender of gay rights. This is truly a great piece of writing, and one that everyone should read, regardless of your stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. Everything from explaining how and why gay marriage is a fundamental civil right, to tearing apart all those pathetic anti-gay marriage arguments, and even presenting it as something that conservatives should praise rather than fight against – it’s all there, and it’s all presented beautifully. Some notable excerpts below.

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.

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.

[…]

What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.

The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.

The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?

This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.

Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.

The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.

[…]

I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Be sure to read the whole thing. It’s really quite poetic, and is a true must-read for anyone on either side of the debate.

(via Dispatches From the Culture Wars [Prop 8 Trial Tracker] / Dispatches From the Culture Wars [Conservative Case for Gay Marriage])

^[1] Personally, I’m all for it. I do believe in people’s right to vote on topics that are relevant to their common interests and governing; however, I do not believe in people’s right to impose their own beliefs and mindsets upon others and, in doing so, restrict or violate their own rights and freedoms. Gay marriage (along with any sort of minority rights) fall plainly into this latter category. As they say: if you don’t want a same-sex marriage, don’t have one.