I received a couple of emails from liberal friends of mine complaining that my blog had gotten more radically conservative lately. I reminded them that Einstein taught us that motion was relative and that it was the Obama administration that had moved hard left. I have remained still in more or less the same spot I have always been. Although the State of the Union Address gave me plenty of ammunition, I will refrain from commenting on it with two exceptions. First, Obama’s public scolding of the Supreme Court was completely out of line and unpresidential. Second, I almost coughed up my wine when he mentioned transparency and eschewed lobbyists. I can only assume by that comment that he was completely disconnected from the health care bill’s progress over the past 90 days. Last week, Obama merely reaffirmed and activist big spending federal government, with only a token bone or two for the private sector. With liberals carping about my conservative radicalism, that’s all I will say on the State of the Union.
While all eyes were focused this week on Massachusetts and the State of the Union, however, another battle is being waged in California with some unlikely allies. David Boies and Ted Olson, who eight years ago argued on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore, an important case that changed history have today joined forces and are at the front lines of arguing against Proposition 8, which disallows gay marriage in California. Olson has solid Republican credentials, a Federalist Society member and, in addition to arguing for George W. Bush in 2000, was selected by Bush to succeed Alberto Gonzales as attorney general until fierce Democratic opposition force him to withdraw. Olson, I believe is on the side of liberty, and in this case, I am on Olson’s side. While I believe that the family is the fundamental unit of American society, I believe that families are more flexible than just the nuclear family. Individuals marry for a variety of reasons: love, companionship, procreation, and child rearing. As a practical matter, there are economic aspects to it as well. And yes, people still get married in America to preserve there immigration status. I see no reason that long term unions shouldn’t be formally recognized by our society. More and more, we are learning that homosexuality isn’t a “choice” or a “lifestyle”—people are what they are. Moreover, gays are better educated and earn more, on average, than heterosexuals. Our republic cannot be harmed by people that freely enter into long term stable relationships, and I see no real reason why children can’t be successfully reared in that environment. I see no harm in permitting gays to have their long term relationships recognized. There are also some practical reasons in taking a position advocating for gay marriage. First, through the “marriage penalty” the tax code currently favors gays and they should be subject to the same effective tax rates as heterosexuals. Second, my wife is a divorce attorney and it would open up a whole new market for her services. Finally, when I raised this issue with a friend of mine (and Obama supporter), he said, “Why shouldn’t they be free to be as miserable as the rest of us heteros?”
Tongue-in-cheek comments aside, I applaud Ted Olson’s moral courage on this issue. My father was a Chicago police officer who got on the force in the early 1960’s when African Americans were also first coming on to the force in large numbers. He often recounted his revulsion at the way in which black patrolmen were sometimes treated by some of their white colleagues. I do not see sexual orientation in a much different light. I believe it is entirely consistent with the tenets of liberty to permit gays to have their relationships recognized by our society and that it does no harm to fundamental family values. True lovers of liberty live and let live. The military currently is also undergoing its review of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Just as it is hard to believe that within my lifetime, there were separate drinking fountains for whites and “coloreds,” twenty five years from now, we will likewise be embarrassed that we did not accord gays full recognition of their relationships under the law and full opportunity to serve our country openly.
While all eyes were focused this week on Massachusetts and the State of the Union, however, another battle is being waged in California with some unlikely allies. David Boies and Ted Olson, who eight years ago argued on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore, an important case that changed history have today joined forces and are at the front lines of arguing against Proposition 8, which disallows gay marriage in California. Olson has solid Republican credentials, a Federalist Society member and, in addition to arguing for George W. Bush in 2000, was selected by Bush to succeed Alberto Gonzales as attorney general until fierce Democratic opposition force him to withdraw. Olson, I believe is on the side of liberty, and in this case, I am on Olson’s side. While I believe that the family is the fundamental unit of American society, I believe that families are more flexible than just the nuclear family. Individuals marry for a variety of reasons: love, companionship, procreation, and child rearing. As a practical matter, there are economic aspects to it as well. And yes, people still get married in America to preserve there immigration status. I see no reason that long term unions shouldn’t be formally recognized by our society. More and more, we are learning that homosexuality isn’t a “choice” or a “lifestyle”—people are what they are. Moreover, gays are better educated and earn more, on average, than heterosexuals. Our republic cannot be harmed by people that freely enter into long term stable relationships, and I see no real reason why children can’t be successfully reared in that environment. I see no harm in permitting gays to have their long term relationships recognized. There are also some practical reasons in taking a position advocating for gay marriage. First, through the “marriage penalty” the tax code currently favors gays and they should be subject to the same effective tax rates as heterosexuals. Second, my wife is a divorce attorney and it would open up a whole new market for her services. Finally, when I raised this issue with a friend of mine (and Obama supporter), he said, “Why shouldn’t they be free to be as miserable as the rest of us heteros?”
Tongue-in-cheek comments aside, I applaud Ted Olson’s moral courage on this issue. My father was a Chicago police officer who got on the force in the early 1960’s when African Americans were also first coming on to the force in large numbers. He often recounted his revulsion at the way in which black patrolmen were sometimes treated by some of their white colleagues. I do not see sexual orientation in a much different light. I believe it is entirely consistent with the tenets of liberty to permit gays to have their relationships recognized by our society and that it does no harm to fundamental family values. True lovers of liberty live and let live. The military currently is also undergoing its review of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Just as it is hard to believe that within my lifetime, there were separate drinking fountains for whites and “coloreds,” twenty five years from now, we will likewise be embarrassed that we did not accord gays full recognition of their relationships under the law and full opportunity to serve our country openly.
No comments:
Post a Comment